RCC is satanic

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I think this might be the most confounding scripture in the bible.

1 Corinthians 1:10
King James Version
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

How is it even remotely possible for us all the speak the same thing when not very long after the Apostles the church began to fracture?

The fracturing was - and is today - caused by not sticking with what the apostles said (wrote). Here's another verse that bears on the topic:

Ephesians 4:11-16 KJV
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; [12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: [13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: [14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; [15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: [16] From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

The unity requires first of all a unity in Spirit. We may not all be on the same page in regards to this or that particular doctrine, but if we have the same attitude and Spirit toward another, one where we love the brethren in the Spirit of Christ, we can work towards a more doctrinal unity. Keeping in mind this:

Ephesians 4:1-7 KJV
I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, [2] With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; [3] Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [4] There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; [5] One Lord, one faith, one baptism, [6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. [7] But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

This does not mean that everyone who claims to be a Christian will be on the same page as everyone else. But it does mean true believers can be on the same page with one another:

One body - we are one ecclesia, one group, no room for denominationalism. One Spirit - we have the same Holy Ghost (we better!). One hope - we have one hope, the hope of eternal life through Jesus Christ. One Lord - we serve the Lord Jesus Christ, as His message was communicated to us through His apostles. One faith - we have a single united faith, faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Saviour, the Atonement, our justification and sanctification and righteousness and wisdom, one faith once delivered to the saints (recorded in the Holy Bible). One baptism - clearly that same baptism recorded in the Scripture, immersion in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. One God and Father of us all - we are members of one family who serve the same One True God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Creator of the Universe. And each of us have received grace from Christ.

Thus, we have different perspectives and understandings, but within the apostolic "box" outlined above and as elsewhere taught in Scripture. We are to admonish and instruct one another and minister to one another, so we may all grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ.

Yes, we CAN know truth!

When it comes to finer details of Bible prophecy, that is another subject. It doesn't really concern DOCTRINE and FAITH and PRACTICE but application of prophetic writings to the pages of history. As long as we are on the same page as far as what is written, I believe there is room to disagree as far as how those things have (or haven't been, or will be or won't be) fulfilled, as long as our interpretation doesn't do violence to the text itself or to any doctrines clearly taught in the Word. The whole point of prophecy, though, is not to insist on who is right and who is not in their interpretation of how something is or isn't fulfilled. Rather, the point of prophecy is to provide some guidance to the church at large, to provide comfort and wisdom about things that are happening, have happened, and or will happen.

At least that's how I see it.

[Amanah]

Thank you Elder.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It is well known that Baal was associated with both the sun and apparently also Saturn. Now, baal is a generic term meaning "lord", "master", and by extension "owner" or "possessor". It was a common title, as well as an epithet or "name" of various gods. There were many baals or Baals. In fact the Bible speaks of the "Baalim" (plural, baals). Yet, it also seems that all these different Baals were in fact the same basic deity. The Baal of Ekron and the Baal of Tyre for example would be considered the same basic deity, just with peculiar rites and their own cult system based on locality.

Baal was the storm god, master of the weather and the seasons, as well master of the crops and harvests. Thus, baal was also a fertility god. Baal was styled Baal Shamash or Lord of Heaven by some. All these different Baals appear to have been local varieties of the Babylonian Bel-Merodach (Bel-Marduk), one of if not the chief god of the Babylonians.

Interestingly, Jehovah was also known as Baal. the term literally means "Lord", and just like today God was often referred to as simply "the Lord". The name Baal appears in numerous Israelite names including a son of David. So basically the conflict between Jehovah and Baal as the object of worship in Israel and Canaan wasn't as much of a conflict between two distinct deities, but between two conceptions of who and what "The Lord" was. Israelites worshipped the Lord. Canaanites also worshipped the Lord. Israelites often worshipped the Lord using the rites of Canaan, instead of the rites prescribed through Moses. As a result, back then just as today there was conflict over who the Lord really was and how He was to be worshipped. We have numerous denominations and even entire religions that all claim to worship "the Lord" but do so with various and often conflicting rites, with correspondingly different beliefs and doctrines about the Lord. Are these all the same God? Or are they different gods masquerading or competing for the position of "the Lord" (the true God)?

Most likely, it is both. Upon reflection, there really isn't much difference between the two concepts: multiple gods all claimed to be "the Lord", vs "the Lord" worshipped in a multitude of different ways. It may be argued that to worship the Lord in a different way is to in effect be worshipping a different Lord, a different god altogether.

One thing is certain, mankind originally only had one God, Jehovah, the Creator. But over time the worship of God was corrupted and paganism sprung up. Yet, paganism still claimed to be worshipping "the Lord", the Lord of Heaven, the giver of life, the judge of mankind, the King ("Melech"), etc. In fact, this corruption of the true worship of Jehovah led him to eventually declare that He would no longer be called Baal:

Hosea 2:16-17 KJV
And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. [17] For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.

Apparently, "baal worship" in ancient Israel was rather confused, just like today how "worship of the Lord" is rather confused from sect to sect.

So, with all that being said, Baal being identified with the sun seems to be a corruption of the true religion of Noah, Seth, and Adam. The Lord who created heaven and earth and made the sun to rule the day began to be replaced with worship of the sun itself as His primary manifestation or symbol. So Baal (the Lord) becomes the Sun-God.

But still we haven't figured out why the ancient near east cults also associated Baal with the planet Saturn, and why the Chaldeans apparently took this idea and associated Saturn with the sun as a "mock Sun", "star of the Sun", or "son of the Sun". Perhaps the widespread association of Baal with Saturn was the result of the Chaldean astronomical identification of Saturn with the Sun. Or perhaps vice versa. I am not sure yet which came first. And I am not sure why the identification was made to begin with.

I do however think the answer lies somewhere and somehow connected to Nimrod and his relationship with Jehovah.

This is profound. Worshipping God in a way He didn't intend to be worshipped is worshipping baal

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

This is profound. Worshipping God in a way He didn't intend to be worshipped is worshipping baal

Then we must all speak the same thing in the unity of the Spirit?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Then we must all speak the same thing in the unity of the Spirit?

See link below

https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...3&postcount=51

[Esaias]

Genesis 4:8-16 KJV
And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. [9] And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? [10] And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. [11] And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; [12] When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. [13] And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. [14] Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. [15] And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. [16] And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.


Here we see in the Pre-Flood world that Cain, even though a murderer, and all around bad guy, nevertheless knew the Lord. He had communication with Him, he was a "worshipper" of Him, etc. The text says that the Lord put a mark upon Cain so that anyone who ran into him would know to not kill him. This implies that those other people were also aware of the Lord in some sense, and would understand the Divine threat of vengeance. So in the Pre-Flood world, even the wicked were aware of the Lord, the Lord was part of whatever religious belief system(s) may have been developing at that time. We see this again several generations later:

Genesis 4:23-24 KJV
And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. [24] If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

Here, a descendant of Cain, Lamech, not only remembers the mark of Cain and the threat of the Lord's vengeance, but takes up his own version of it. Whether he was speaking under divine influence or not, the fact is he made the claim that the Lord was "looking out for him" as it were. This shows that several generations after Cain, the Lord was still known, acknowledged, and worshipped in some way. The evidence seems to indicate the worship of the Lord was in the process of being corrupted, with Lamech introducing what is certainly a "man made doctrine" concerning the Lord. But the fact that Lamech is even able to do this, and the context (the threat of Divine vengeance being applied to "whoever" would do Lamech harm), indicates the worship of the Lord was kind of widespread among the peoples of the day. Corrupted, yes. Perhaps we begin to see the origins of the split between the Lord as he actually is, and "the Lord" as he was beginning to be imagined in the minds of the wicked, that is to say, we are seeing the origins of what would eventually become Baal (the "alternative" Lord).

Genesis 4:25-26 KJV
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. [26] And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.


This is an interesting verse. Clearly, prior to the birth of Seth and Enos, there were men who worshipped the Lord. Both Cain and Abel were Lord-worshippers. Abel, in fact, was a true worshipper. Cain, while worshipping the true Lord, yet did so in an unacceptable fashion. But now, we see the idea that "men began to call upon the name of the Lord". The Hebrew text uses the Tetragrammaton, YHVH here, so it is saying men began to call upon the name of Jehovah. BUT, were they calling upon Jehovah as "Jehovah" (or however YHVH would have been pronounced)? Or by some other of His names? Or by some other name altogether?

Exodus 6:2-3 KJV
And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: [3] And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob worshipped the Lord, but they were unaware of His identity as YHVH/Jehovah. Was this also true in the pre-Flood era? Or did Enos and Seth introduce the knowledge of "YHVH is the Lord", and then that knowledge got lost after the Flood until the days of Moses?

Perhaps everyone was a member of the "Lord's religion" or some sectarian variant thereof, but at the time of Seth and Enos the faithful began to refer to "the Lord" as YHVH/Jehovah. Thus beginning an identification of the true Lord from the false conceptions of "the Lord". And thus the origins of the dichotomy and conflict between the two Lords, the two claiming to be "God" (much as Elijah demanded of the people as to whether YHVH/Adonai (the Lord) was God, or whether Baal (the Lord) was God). In other words, which "Lord" is the true God? Of course, we know the answer to that question, but apparently even in the Pre-Flood Age the question was rather muddled in the minds of the general public, much as it is now.

[Esaias]

Genesis 9:24-27 KJV
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. [25] And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. [26] And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. [27] God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.


We all know the story fo Noah and the Flood and the causes thereof, how man had corrupted himself and society was filled with evil and violence. The godly line from Seth down to Noah continued the true worship of the true Lord. We can imagine, having seen what we have seen already, that society recognised "the Lord" in some way, but that worship had been corrupted. Peter says that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness", meaning that noah held some kind of religious position in society, whether as a priest of some sort or a prophet (more likely a prophet role). In any event, he appears to have been warning society about their corruption and rebuking them for their corruptions, which would certainly have including their corruptions of the true worship of the Lord. So Noah was, in effect, a doomsday sectarian who just happened to be right.

In any event, after the Flood, Noah pronounces a prophetic blessing (and curse) upon his sons and his grandson Canaan (Ham's son). It is interesting that he says "Blessed be YHVH God of Shem". So Shem apparently was a true worshipper, who had the true religion of the true Lord. He also says that Japheth would be increased and would dwell in the tents of shem. This implies that in some way the descendants of Japheth would be mingled with or incorporated into the descendants of Shem. considering the blessing pronounced upon Shem, it seems the Japhetic tribes would adopt the worship of the Lord that Shem worshipped. It is also interesting that the name Shem means literally "Name". So when Noah said blessed be YHVH God of Shem he was basically saying blessed be YHVH God of (the) Name. Almost like Noah understood there was some kind of importance attached to the name(s) of the true Lord, and that maybe there was or would be some confusion about who exactly is the Lord...

Anyways, the descendants of Shem (the Semitic nations), and Japheth (the Japhetic or apparently Turkinc nations), and Ham (the Hamitic nations) all originated from a single biological source (Noah) who was a preacher/prophet of the true Lord. And it is no wonder that historically the religions of those various people groups were all variations on the same themes. People try to claim that the religion of the Israelites was just one variant among many ancient near east religions, with the same motifs and concepts and even the same names (Adonai, Baal, YHVH, El, elohim, etc), as if they are all equal. But the reality is all those various local religions of the Akkadians, Arameans, Babylonians, Canaanites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Hittites, Assyrians, etc etc were all just evolutions or local expressions of the one original Noahic religion. That is, they were all variations of the original faith which was preserved through a lineage of prophets extending from Noah through his descendant Shem to his great-descendant Abraham and from thence to Moses and the twelve tribes.

So what then was Baal worship? Quite simply, it is that Shemitic, Hamitic, Japhetic version of the Noahic religion that had undergone various corruptions and changes from locality to locality and from one generation to the next. No wonder Israelites were so easily slipping into Baal worship, as the local Baal worship was literally just "another denomination" of the religion they had been delivered via Moses!

And this also explains why we have Melchizedek hanging out in Canaan as the priest of the Most High God (apparently he was still faithful to the true worship of the Lord), and why Balaam seems completely aware of and familiar with YHVH (the Lord) and even seems to be somewhat confused in his religions. That is to say, the Lord (YHVH of Noah and Abraham) was well known in the land as a particular variant of "the Lord" (Baal), and the inhabitants may have not even maintained or held much if any distinction between the two.

[Esaias]

Genesis 10:6-12 KJV
And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. [7] And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. [8] And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. [9] He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD. [10] And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. [11] Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, [12] And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.


Here, we are introduced to Nimrod. Nimrod was a son of Cush who was a son of Ham. Nimrod apparently was a ruler in the land of Shinar (Mesopotamia), with the cities of Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh under his control. The fact it says "the beginning of his kingdom" seems to imply that he expanded his reign out from beyond those four cities.

Out of Shinar comes forth Asshur, who builds Ninevah (the ancient capital of the Assyrian empire), Rehoboth, Calah, and Resen (major cities of Assyria). Was Asshur an emissary of Nimrod? The text seems to imply such. Thus Nimrod ruled as a sort of over-king, with his cousin Asshur being sent forth to establish dominion in the land that would become known as Assyria. Asshur of course was a descendant of Shem (thus i say he is Nimrod's "cousin"):

Genesis 10:21-22 KJV
Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born. [22] The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.

This would explain why Assyria was called the land of Nimrod:

Micah 5:6 KJV
And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

Genesis doesn't say Nimrod founded Ninevah, or the Assyrian civilisation. That was the results of Asshur's efforts. Yet Asshur went forth out of Mesopotamia (where Nimrod ruled) to found the Assyrian kingdom, and yet again Assyria is called "the land of Nimrod". So I conclude that Asshur was a vassal king of his cousin Nimrod.

Now, of Nimrod it is said "he began to be a mighty hunter before the Lord". This implies a religious connection to nimrod's activities. He was not just a king and empire builder, but had a religious significance attached to him. Certain religious beliefs began to circulate about him, whether of his own devising or of other people ascribing these things to him. In any event, Nimrod is apparently the Mesopotamian empire builder who established Assyria as a vassal state, and who is also a larger than life religious figure in the area.

It says he began to be a "mighty one". That term was previously used in Genesis to describe certain pre-Flood men, the ancient Tyrants or conquerors. Nimrod is bringing back the good ole days, like how they used to be, when kings were CONQUERORS, eh? Kind of makes me think of how Trump is sometimes seen as "bringing back the days of real Presidency like we had with Reagan" (even though Trump is hardly a Reaganite).

[Amanah]

Where do you think the mother goddess/child, dying and reborn god mythology originated?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

This explains Semitic variants, but what about Sumerian, Egyptian, Nordic, Indus, and Greco Roman mythologies. Many of which had the mother goddess with child and annual rebirth of the god.

Sumeria is the land of Shinar, so the Sumerian religion would of course be the Shemitic/Hamitic/Japhetic religion.

The Indian/Vedic religion was largely influenced by the Semitic/Mesopotamian religion. In fact, a lot of the Indian/Vedic beliefs were brought there by the Greeks, who got them from the Persians and Mesopotamians and Egyptians.

Egypt is Mizraim, named after the son of Ham (Mizraim), so the Egyptians were Hamitic and of course would have had much the same religion as their cousins in Mesopotamia and Assyria. Plus Eqypt and Mesopotamia were all part of the "Fertile Crescent", ie that original Noahic civilisation.

(The Indus Valley civilization appears to be a different group than the Vedic/Hindustani/Hindi/Indian group(s), and very little is known about the Indus Valley people or what they believed.)

The Greeks got a lot of their beliefs from both the Egyptians and the Assyrians and Persians (Mesopotamia). The association of Kronos with Saturn, and of Saturn with Helios (the Sun), dates back to the Homeric era of the 9th-8th centuries BC, when the Greek astronomers and historiographers were getting a lot of their information from the Chaldeans.

The Nordics were generally much later. The Nordic religion was influenced in a large measure by the Roman and Greek with whom they were in near constant contact throughout the beginning of the Nordic and Germanic invasions of Europe in the 1st millennium AD. Prior to that they lived in Scythia just north of the Caucasus, which was the northern border of Assyria and the later Persian Empire. So the Scythians had much the same religious views as practically everyone else in the fertile Crescent area/Ancient Near East, being as they were in fact pretty much another branch of the same peoples.

The same can be said for the Celtic peoples both of the continent (European mainland) and the British Isles, their religious ideas were definitely "Oriental" (ie Mesopotamian). One of the chief gods of the Celts was "Bel", after all.

What is REALLY interesting is the Saturn-Sun connection is pretty much found nowhere except the Mesopotamian culture and those influenced by them... AND apparently the Mayan/Aztec cultures. Both Aztecs and Mayans were pyramid builders, and had a well developed culture very similar to the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures in many ways. And they occasionally identified Saturn with the Sun just as the Chaldeans did. Of course, the Aztecs and Mayans were much later than the Chaldeans (from the first century AD onwards). Not to mention they were all the way across the Atlantic...

So perhaps the Mayan and Aztec cultures were influenced by the Ancient Near East at some point. I think "official history" has a whole lot of missing pieces and misdirections, and that it has been intentionally subverted in certain ways to try to keep people from knowing and understanding where we all come from (and thus where we all may be going).