A few topics of discussion

John Calvin

“We will argue in Chapter 10 that some of the principle architects of the Protestant Reformation, in particular John Calvin of France and John Knox of Scotland, were descendants of Sephardic Jews... We propose that the Reformation, beyond being a movement against Catholicism, should be seen as a movement toward Judaism.” (When Scotland Was Jewish, pp. 94, 200)the law comes back in lot of reformed 

theology,  galatians does away with twisted theology  of legalism ..

 Gnosis’ means knowledge. The Gnostic religion was based on the possession of this knowledge: knowledge of God and things divine, either through direct mystical experience, or through the possession of a secret body of doctrine which had been handed down to the initiates...

“...[T]here was a form of pagan Greek Gnosticism and a pre-Christian Jewish Gnosticism... The Gnosis, the knowledge which ensures salvation, is the realization by man that he contains a spark of God, and of the necessity of awakening  from the half-life he leads on earth...to a full consciousness of his divinity and of how it has been ensnared in matter. This awakening can lead to several reactions. In any case, the Gnostic is one of the elect...

“...two heresies in particular do show evidence of contact with the sources of the Secret Tradition. These are the heresy of the Cathars and that of the Free Spirit... The word ‘Cathar’ probably comes from the Greek ‘pure,’ [cf. Puritans] and the Cathar doctrines show the sect to have been Gnostic of the ascetic type... Strictly speaking it was not a heresy, but a rival religion; and as such it was ruthlessly wiped out...

“It is interesting to note that Calvin’s theory that those destined to salvation would ‘know’ of this and thus be numbered among the elect, is a fair approximation of Gnostic doctrine and had to some extent been anticipated by the heresy of the Free Spirit.” (James Webb, The Occult Underground, pp. 199, 207, 239)

“As to the Albigenses, their name derived from Albi, a town of the Languedoc, covered not one but many sects issued from Manicheism and Arianism, and counted also many Jews or judaised Christians. Under this appellation of Albigenses, historians, whether political or religious, have almost unanimously included the Cathares.” (Edith Starr Miller, Occult Theocrasy, pp. 163-164)

“The face (of Frederick V) is not one’s idea of a Calvinist face, but Calvinism, in the Palatinate, was the carrier of mystical traditions, of the Renaissance Hermetic-Cabalist tradition which had moved over to that side.  Frederick’s spiritual advisor was an ‘orientalist’; perhaps, like Rudolph II, he sought an esoteric way through the religious situation.” (Francis Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, p. 172)

ESOTERIC CHRISTIANITY??

• Christians have been misled to believe that the “one world religion” will eradicate Christianity.

FICTION: The one world religion will exclude evangelical Christianity.

 

   “The most likely scenario in the years following this Parliament (of World Religions) will be the gradual formation of a ‘World Council of Religion’ which will function in a way similar to that of the present World Council of Churches or the United Nations.  Despite their differences, this league of religions will be most united in three particular areas:
    “1. To foster the view that all religions (in which they mistakenly include Christianity) share the same God and are one in their ultimate ambitions. 2. To create permanent world peace and justice through cooperation with a similarly-confederated form of world government (e.g., the United Nations). 3. To propagate the concept that biblical, evangelical Christianity is a hindrance to ‘evolutionary’ progress and spiritual growth on this planet.”  (Alan Morrison, The Serpent & the Cross, K. & M. Books, 1994, 1999, Chapter 12.)

• The Reformation effected a marriage of convenience between Rosicrucianism and Protestantism, which was influenced by Rosicrucian philosophy.

“...according to Schuchard, ‘current scholarship suggests composite authorship by Andrae and his colleagues at Tubingen’.  Here we have an author who is very shrewd, he presents an appeasement (wedding), ie., a Marriage of Alchemy (Intelligentsia of Europe) with the new Protestantism of Europe for political acceptance of the Religious Brotherhood...

“...THE OFFSPRING, of the Manifestos, was the Rosicrucian philosophy that influenced Protestant Europe for the next several centuries...

“Hence, may we say that ‘Rosicrucians’ were people who enjoyed the mystical and esoteric way of life which eventually led to the Church’s reform.  To overcome the Church’s label of Heresy they enveiled their thoughts within the science of Alchemy.  This concept (destruction of the total control of the Papacy) which began with Luther, included the 30-year War (1618-1648) and reached the public with the publication of the so-called ‘rosicrucian manifesto’, The FAMA.

“CRC was NEVER a person, rather it was an Intellectual Movement (of 100 years) which roughly spanned 1517 (when Luther nailed his Theses to the Church door) to 1614 (production of the Fama).” - “What is Christian Rosencreutz?“ (SRIA, Societas Rosicrucian in Anglia

 Personal effort to move from all bible translations that were subjected to the infiltration of modified terms , to support those unions coming out those  unions. 

Office
Throughout the entire New Testament, the word office is found nowhere in the Greek text in connection with the ekklesia. Yet it is so used five different times in the KJV.
One instance in which the King James translators tried to preserve their old Ecclesiastical words and imply office rather than service is Romans11:13.
"For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office (diakonia)."
Nowhere else in all of the New Testament is this word (diakonia) translated mine office.
Let us look at a few other passages in which the Greek word diakonia is used, as this will give us a greater sense of its meaning.
In Luke 10:40 diakonia is translated as "much serving."

"But Martha was cumbered about much serving (diakonia), and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me."

Again, the word office is never used in relationship to the ekklesia. Neither the Greek noun hierateia (a priest's office, Luke 1:9; Heb. 7:5), nor the Greek Verb hierateuo (to officiate as a priest, Luke 1:8) are used regarding the community of Christ in the original text. The concept of office or a special priest cast is alien to the purpose and nature of the body of Christ, where differences are defined by function, not by managerial positions. The arm has a different function than the leg but does that make one better than the other, thus ruling over the operation of the other?

According to the teachings of the New Testament, the old covenant priesthood has been discarded, and in its place is the priesthood of all believers - a priesthood that functions relationally rather than hierarchically.

W.E. Vine explains,
"…the word "office" in the phrase "the office of a Bishop," has nothing to represent it in the original."
John Bland further explains:
"The translators, under the king's injunction to keep the main terms of the Church of England's ecclesiastical form, make two main errors. The first is adding a word to the text that doesn't appear in the Greek, i.e. "office". There is neither a word in the text for office NOR the idea of office outside their own paradigm. The second is an error in translation. The word translated "Bishop" is episkopos. The word means to "oversee", to "tend". Vine defines it thus: "EPISKOPOS, lit., an overseer (epi, over, skopeo, to look or watch), whence Eng. "bishop"..." The passage in 1st Timothy actually reads, "If a man wants to oversee, he desires a good work" (John M. Bland, Men Who Would be Kings)

The expression "to oversee" does not imply office in the sense of one being superior to another. It is a job description, not an office title. It describes those who have the God-given ability to see the needs of others and to tend to those needs. They are caregivers, not overlords.


Elders
The Greek word translated elder by the KJV translators is Presbuteros. According to W.E. Vine, Presbuteros is "an adjective, the comparative degree of presbus, an old man, an elder....of age, whether of the elder of two persons...the eldest...of a person advanced in life, a senior..."
How is it that the Greek adjective presbuteros, ("older" or "elderly") mysteriously became a noun, represented in the English text by two official sounding titles, i.e., presbyter and elder? Among 54 translators in the KJV panel, at least one of them should have known the difference between an adjective and a noun.


They changed the translation of the Greek word presbuteros, which was formerly translated priest by the papacy, to elder, Tyndale's translation of the word. They did, however, do all that was within their power to give the term elder the same priestly and hierarchical connotation.


In his book entitled The Royal Priesthood, Carl Ketcherside exposes this conspiracy, revealing how the Catholic Church, through sophistry, sought to make presbuteros (elder) into a priestly office, aloof from the rest of the believers.


"The original word which is mistranslated "priests" by the Roman Catholic version is the Greek "presbuteros" which literally means "an aged person." The word for priest is "hiereus." Nothing can be more palpably misleading than the deliberate translation of a word to justify a practice; thus changing the Bible to suit a human system, rather than changing such a system to suit the Bible. To prove this grave charge I cite the very book of Acts, from which Dr. O'Brien quotes. There were both "priests" and "elders" among the Jews. 

Since Rome translates the word "presbuteros" (an aged man) by the term priests in Acts 14:22, what does she do when the words for both "priests" and "elders" occur in the same verse? Notice the Douay Version at Acts 6:23: "And being let go, they came to their own company, and related all that the chief priests (archiereis) and ancients (presbuteroi) had said to them." In Acts 23:14, the Douay Version reads: "Who came to the chief priests (archiereusin) and the ancients (presbuterois)." In Acts 25:15, "When I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests, and the ancients of the Jews, came unto me." Why did the translators from the Latin Vulgate not render the above by "chief priests and priests"?


In his commentary on 1 Peter 5:3, William Macdonald wrote:


"Elders should be examples, not dictators. They should be walking out in front of the flock, not driving them from behind. They should not treat the flock as if it belonged to them.

This strikes at the very heart of authoritarianism! Many of the abuses in Christendom would be eliminated by simply obeying the three instructions in verses 2, 3. 

The first would abolish all reluctance. The second would spell the end of commercialism. The third would be the death of officialism in the church."


The first century presbuterion were the elderly who followed in Christ's example of servanthood and were recognized (See Philippians 3:17). These men were not lords over or controllers of God’s heritage. They were, "…examples becoming (ginomai) the flock…"(Morris Literal Translation). 

Ginomai is the Greek word from which we get our English word generate. It is a primary verb, meaning to cause to be ("gen"-erate) or bring into being. Ginomai speaks of the power of example, the power to energize and inspire what they modeled. 

What we are talking about is the power of a life laid down. "Greater love has no man than this," and as sacrifice begets greater sacrifice, the body of Christ is energized toward greater and greater service. 

This is the example Jesus left us. He came to serve. Not to receive service as a king, but to give service as a slave. In this up-side-down kingdom, there is no thought of ruling over another; no thought of promotion, for if the King came as a servant, what then are we to do?

The context of this scripture is completely relational, not institutional, and makes sense only in a family context. There is the mention of father, mothers, sisters and brethren. 

This sounds like a family to us. In the Greek, presbuteros is used for both old men and old women. In an attempt to institutionalize, all of these dear family terms became offices in the papal church. 

And since they could not recognize any title without ordination, everything that was once relational and family was displaced, and all but lost in the institution. Leadership gradually became more and more hierarchical until the supreme leader of this fallen church bore both the temporal and spiritual swords, sitting on a luxurious throne in extravagant robes wielding the kingly scepter of power and rule. Such men have bequeathed to us much that is called Christian leadership today. 


House of 

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God (Oikos), which is the church (ekklesia) of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)
There is a very simple conclusion that Bishop Bancroft and King James hoped that the reader would make. House of God = the church = a temple with its priesthood and ceremonies. The use of the term house of God, which was used exclusively of the temple in the Old Testament, was very crafty on their part.

Although the Greek word oikos is often translated house or home, it most often refers to the occupants of a house, i.e., the household or family. Oikos speaks of a family, not a building, a household rather than a material house. If you look at its usage throughout the rest of the New Testament, you cannot avoid this conclusion.


The literal translation of oikos is household, family, those who live in the same house. (The Bible Library CD) There is a great difference between the houses that we live in and our households. There is an old saying, "a house does not make a home." Neither does a church building make those who enter it the ekklesia of God. Our houses are dispensable but our families are not. 

The important thing is the family. Let us advance a new equation. Oikos = Household of God = congregation of God = family of God. Oikos is always associated with family, not a material building or temple. It does not refer to the place or building where the Oikos or family meet, but of the family itself, the household.


The House of God

The people of God are the ekklesia, not a church building or a system of worship. The called out ekklesia is the household of God. This brings us to a verse that is among the most misleading passages in the entire New Testament.

The King James scholars translated key words in this passage with supposed English equivalents that bear much more autocratic overtones than did the Greek.

For instance, the Greek word Peitho that was translated obey appears only 55 times in the New Testament. It is only translated obey seven of those times. It would sound ridiculous to use the
English word obey in most of the other passages where the Greek word Peitho appears. You be the judge.

The word Obey (peitho) is in the passive voice and simply means be persuaded.
"Peitho: To persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe. To make friends of, to win one's favour, gain one's good will, or to seek to win one, strive to please one. To tranquillise. To persuade unto i.e. move or induce one to persuasion to do something. Be persuaded. To be persuaded, to suffer one's self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith: in a thing. To believe." (Thayer and Smith Greek Lexicon)
"peitho, to persuade, to win over, in the Passive and Middle voices, to be persuaded, to listen to.... (Acts 5:40, Passive Voice, "they agreed"); The obedience suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion." (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)
Consider the following verses.
Matthew:28:14: And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade (pietho) him, and secure you.
Acts13:43: Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded (pietho) them to continue in the grace of God.
Acts14:19: And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded (pietho)the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.

Acts18:4: And he (Paul) reasoned [Dialegomai…'To think different things with one's self, mingle thought with thought. To ponder, revolve in mind. To converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss'. (Thayer and Smith, Greek Lexicon] …in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded (pietho) the Jews and the Greeks." rightly divide the word , no adding or taking hmmm! thanks 


  I use the kj3,young's literal, and few others  free of  these and other  changes made,    forms that agree not in the actual  scripts or mistranslated to support political  forms we use today, came up through   we agree I think their  misrepresentations  are more political in nature than are of servanthood ...

 

FACT: The “one world religion” will be a Gnostic form of Christianity.

 

“Is Christianity to survive as the religion of the West? Is it to live through the centuries of the future, and to continue to play a part in moulding the thought of the evolving western races? If it is to live, it must regain the knowledge it has lost, and again have its mystic and its occult teachings; it must again stand forth as an authoritative teacher of spiritual verities, clothed with the only authority worth anything, the authority of knowledge.  If these teachings be regained, their influence will soon be seen in wider and deeper views of truth; dogmas, which now seem like mere shells and fetters, shall again be seen to partial presentments of fundamental realities. First, Esoteric Christianity will reappear in the ‘Holy Place’, in the Temple so that all who are capable of receiving it may follow its lines of published thought; and secondly, Occult Christianity will again descend into the adytum, dwelling behind the veil which guards the ‘Holy of Holies’, into which only the Initiate may enter…” (Annie Besant, Esoteric Christianity, pp. 26-7)

JOHN WYCLIFFE

“A word then about Wycliffe’s anti-clericalism, a factor now so much stressed as one of the causes of the sixteenth century Reformation. Anti-clericalism did not begin with Wycliffe or in England: it existed in France at the beginning of the fourteenth century. It spread from the south French university of Montpellier, a great law school, which trained most of the anti-clerical courtiers and ministers of Philip IV...

“To sum up, then: Wycliffe’s translation of the whole Bible was an undertaking with a political side: the lay party could use it against the clericals: disendowment was in the air. But the spiritual side of Wycliffe’s intention was much the stronger. He desired to put the clock back: to restore the Church to her poor and primitive state. He had no realisation that in destroying the institutions of the Church of his day he might be endangering the Christian religion itself...” (Margaret Deanesly, The Significance of the Lollard Bible)

 JAN HUS

“We often think of Martin Luther lighting the torch of the Reformation, but the Czechs have the oldest Reformation tradition in mainland Europe. Long before Luther nailed his theses to the door of Wittenberg Church in 1517, the Czechs had established their own national Protestant church with their own vernacular Bible and hymn book. In 1406 or 1407 and perhaps as early as 1385, Czech students studying at Oxford brought back to Prague the writings of John Wyclif.

“The rector of Charles University in Prague, Jan Hus (1372?-1415), a man of outstanding intellectual gifts and personal integrity, took up Wyclif’s ideas. In particular, he took up the belief that, in true remembrance of the Last Supper, the Communion, or Eucharist, should be given in both kinds—bread and wine. The chalice became the symbol of the Hussite revolution, and Hussite supporters were often referred to as ‘Utraquists,’ meaning ‘in both kinds.’  Jan Hus was a great scholar and a gifted preacher. Between 1402 and 1403 the Bethlehem Chapel in the Old Town district of Prague was regularly packed, standing room only, with people eager to hear him expound on the Bible in their own Czech tongue.

“In 1412, Antipope John XXIII declared war on Naples and, to raise money, instituted the practice of selling indulgences — official forgiveness by the Church. Hus was outraged and was promptly excommunicated for his protest. Outlawed from Prague, Hus wandered about the countryside preaching and spreading Reformation ideas throughout the country. In 1415 the Council of Constance invited him to explain his views and promised him safe conduct. It was a trap: on false charges he was condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake on July 6, 1415. It was his birthday he was just forty-three years old. Jan Hus began, and Comenius continued, even in exile, the reformed group that came to be called the Unitas Fratrum (the Unity of Brethren), also now known as the Moravian Church, which still exists with a worldwide following. Its formation was formalized in 1457, and it is the oldest of all Protestant churches, with its own hymn book (1505) and Czech-language Bible.” (The Rosicrucian Enlightenment Revisited, p. 201)

 

“Prague became a Mecca for those interested in esoteric and scientific studies from all over Europe. Hither came John Dee and Edward Kelly, Giordano Bruno and Johannes Kepler. However strange the reputation of Prague in the time of Rudolph it was yet a relatively tolerant city. Jews might pursue their cabalistic studies undisturbed (Rudolph’s favourite religious adviser was Pistorius, a Cabalist) and the native church of Bohemia was tolerated by an official ‘Letter of Majesty’. The Bohemian church, founded by John Huss, was the first of the reformed churches of Europe. Rudolph’s toleration was extended to the Bohemian church and to the Bohemian Brethren, a mystical brotherhood attached to its teachings. Prague under Rudolph was a Renaissance city, full of Renaissance influences as they had developed in Eastern Europe, a melting pot of ideas, mysteriously exciting in its potentiality for new developments.” (Francis Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (p. 26)

“Wyclif came from England, they explain, from whom Huss took his teaching, alluding to Wyclif’s influence on the Hussite reformation.” (Yates, p. 32)