THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.



Sunday, June 3, 2012

WOMANOLATRY & THE BEAST (Part 2 Of 2)

.
This is the second and final installment of this series. If you missed Part 1 and want to get up to speed before reading this, you’ll be transported to it by clicking HERE.
.
Having established my great respect for Biblical scholar E.W. Bullinger in Part 1 despite my adamant disagreement with him at times, in Part 2 we will examine Bullinger’s unique understanding of some of the End-Time events as described in The Holy Bible’s last “book”, ‘Revelation’.
.
WOMANOLATRY & THE BEAST’ is a satirical title inspired by E.W. Bullinger’s term, “Womanolatry”, and by the story ‘Beauty And The Beast’. By “Womanolatry” it seems Bullinger is referring to a kind of Feminism Xtreme. The 21st Century Feminists desire to see Man supplanted by Woman as the head of the social order. And you thought it was about “equality”? Pshaw!
.
But Bullinger’s concept regarding his term “Womanolatry” apparently pertains to a level even above and beyond superiority: Woman thought of as deity, or “goddess worship”.
.
I’ll admit that despite the many years I’ve spent reading and studying The Bible or Word Of God it had never occurred to me that any portion of Revelation might be alluding to, much less blatantly describing, a future time of worldwide goddess worship. So E.W. Bullinger’s take on it really caught me by surprise and forced me to consider it. I’m not convinced that he has correctly interpreted these Biblical passages, but as I’ll further explain afterwards, there are certainly some good reasons to bear Bullinger’s understanding of these passages in mind and not dismiss it too quickly.
.
The source of the following E.W. Bullinger quotations come from ‘COMMENTARY ON REVELATION’, the second of two books I read that were authored by this great thinker.

.
Naturally I cannot describe all of the many details E.W. Bullinger elaborates on in his 700 page book, but I want to touch on the basic idea he presents about “that great city Babylon” and how, in his mind, it relates to “Womanolatry”.

First I want to point out what Bullinger states in the footnote on page 498. He writes: 

Fornication is everywhere in the Bible the common term used for the sin of IDOLATRY, not only because it is unfaithfulness to God in forsaking Him, the true God, for the worship of false gods; but because it literally formed an essential part of all heathen idolatry.

Bear that concept about fornication in mind because we now turn to ideas about “BABYLON THE GREAT, the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth” [see Revelation 17:5]. Obviously “fornication” and “harlotry” have an organic link, and Bullinger has told us that fornication symbolizes idolatry or false worship.

Hopefully you are familiar with the book of Revelation, but regardless, I recommend you read the following blog bit with your Bible handy, so you can look up the Biblical passages referenced below and better understand the storyline.

The 18th chapter of Revelation describes “The Fall Of Babylon The Great” – Babylon being a very powerful but ungodly city which is utterly destroyed in a single hour, fire being specifically mentioned in conjunction with her demise. (Therefore I and others have suspected that nuclear weapons might play the principal part in the destruction of Babylon, although this form of mass destruction was unknown in E.W. Bullinger’s lifetime.)

Bullinger reminds us that in 18:7, Babylon “says in her heart, I sit as queen, and am no widow...”

What is represented there, according to Bullinger, is the arrogance behind the “Womanolatry” or “goddess worship” that will eventually overrun the globe. Note that in normal manner of royalty, you have a king who rules, and a queen takes over the supreme throne only after a king dies. Therefore, ordinarily, a high ruling queen is also a widow; she’s ruling solely because “the king is dead – God save the queen!” (The dog is dead – God save the cat!)

But in Revelation 18:7, “Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots” boasts that she rules but is NOT a widow; in other words, she rules by her own authority and not because a king (man) died and thereby ceded the throne to her.

I’m now going to quote E.W. Bullinger at length from pages 568 & 569 expounding on Revelation 18:9 & 10:

Whoredom points to, and means, idolatry. That is Babylon’s chief end. ... So Babylon’s cup stands for corrupt religion, which has woman for its central object. ...

We do not deny that the Church of Rome to-day is preparing for this WOMANOLATRY; and, in all Roman Catholic countries, is fostering (not intentionally, it may be) a Womanolatry of a different kind, which is leading on to that moral corruption which will end in a religious corruption of a similar kind.

At the first, Babylon had male gods. Later on, each male god was given a female partner, with the result that Ishtar became pre-eminent.

This it is that makes the sin of Babylon; and it is this religion of Womanolatry which will be perfected in Babylon. It will be received by “the kings of the earth”; and the peoples of the kings of the earth will be taught it by an order of priests, just as were the people of Ephesus. But Babylon will be the great goddess. She will have her Temples the world over: “Mother of all harlots”. And this is the religion which is being prepared for even now. ...

But Mariolatry [the worship of Saint Mary, Mother of Jesus] is increasing more and more, and is not now confined to Rome. And this is preparing the way for the revival of Ishtar. It puts woman, as woman, at the head of the universe, teaching that which is a perversion of “the mother of all living”. Is not THIS the only logical reason for the hatred of the Beast? Commerce does not furnish any adequate reason for this hatred.

The great Question will be Supremacy. Who is to be supreme, Woman or Man; Babylon or the Beast? THAT is an all-sufficient reason for their hatred; and as the supremacy involved in Babylon is contrary to God’s ordinance, He will “put it into their heart to destroy the woman”.

This view makes things much clearer than commerce can do. And if the sin of Babylon be as we have suggested, viz., a system which makes drunk with this false religious excitement the kings of the earth, the Priests and Priestesses, and Temple servers, then it is these who will be stripped of all their possessions and burnt with fire in every land where they are found. This will take place pre-eminently in Babylon. But before this takes place, the call will go forth to God’s people to come out of her, that they be not partakers in her judgments.

As this will take place in every land, the kings of the earth can stand afar off and wail; for, the superhuman Ten Kings and the Beast will dominate the world.

The final judgment of Babylon will be sudden and complete. The conflagration will be so great that, from the first, total destruction will be seen to be inevitable.

So, E.W. Bullinger believes that Babylon – the city at the heart of worldwide goddess worship – will be destroyed in a power struggle against Revelation’s “Beast” [or anti-Christ figure] and the ten supernatural, demonic kings allied with the Beast. Goddess worship loses in a battle for evil supremacy against the Beast who is related to the infamous number 666.

Bullinger further ties his concept of “Womanolatry” into the bigger story of Man’s ancient fall (and eventual redemption) on the Earth on pages 685 and 686 when he reminds his readers:

The first Paradise was in the keeping of Adam and his Bride. The man did not lose it for his race. He was “not in the transgression” (1st Timothy 2:14). It was the woman, through Satan, who lost it. ... “The woman being deceived” was the cause of the sentence to go forth...

Despite E.W. Bullinger’s powerful intellect and scholarly approach to Bible study, I find a few problems with his understanding of Babylon in Revelation.

For one thing, Bullinger was convinced that the Babylon in Revelation was the same Babylon of the Middle East, rebuilt. It is described in The Bible’s last book as being a port city accessible to ships. On page 574, Bullinger notes:
.
Rawlinson speaks of the Euphrates as being navigable for ships for some 500 miles from its mouth. And with little effort could be made available for ships of large size.

While that may be possible, I find it unlikely. And at the least, if ancient Middle Eastern Babylon is also the Babylon of Revelation, it would seem that the Biblical End-Times are yet a good distance into the future, as I’ve explained on this blog previously [see the link at the end of this post].

But my biggest problem with Bullinger’s scenario involves the power struggle. Anyone familiar with this blog knows that it goes into great detail examining the methods being employed by the Illuminati in constructing a one-world, global government, known by the phrase “New World Order”. [For some examples see: ‘Conspiracy? Nah, Coincidence.’; and 
‘X-Y-Z:The Mechanix Of Amerycan Politicz’; and 'See The New World Order In Black & White'.]

Knowing how close the Illuminati currently is in securing a stranglehold on the entire world (financially first; militarily second), and believing as I do that the Illuminati is working toward that aim on behalf of the Beast who will then step in to rule globally (as described in Revelation) when the world stage has been set for him, I find it difficult to believe that a religious system of goddess worship could be instituted worldwide without the approval and aid of the Illuminati, and by extension, of the Beast.

I can conceive of Bullinger’s scenario being accurate ONLY if we were to assume that the goddess worship centered in Babylon (wherever that “Babylon” is located) is initially approved and supported by the Beast and his Illuminati henchmen. Does the Beast later double-cross Babylon when he feels the time is right to destroy her? [Revelation 17:3-7 might seem to uphold such an interpretation.]

My suspicion has long been that after the 42-month period that the Beast has been granted authority to rule has elapsed [Revelation 13:5] and things begin to fall apart for him because he demands that the world worship him as the one true god [2nd Thessalonians 2:1-4], that’s when Babylon rebels against him and he destroys the city in one hour. Babylon is likely eradicated with nuclear arms, although let’s not forget that the “second” Beast has power to call fire down from the sky “in the sight of men” [Revelation 13:11-13], so it could instead be that Babylon’s destruction is the result of a fire of supernatural origin.  

I should also point out that the 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-4 passage might just as easily apply to Bullinger’s interpretation as to mine (i.e., when the Beast or Beelzebub [a male] “opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped”, this could be the crucial turning point when the animosity between the Beast and Babylon’s goddess worshippers results in deadly conflict).

There is one thing, however, one completely inescapable fact that is observable on a daily basis that forces me to consider Bullinger’s interpretation seriously. Unless for the last twenty years you have been living under a slug that has been living under a rock, you have noticed the drastic change that has taken place in the mentality of Women generally, and in the the way all of society relates to and regards Women in nearly every aspect of American life.

For many people, the publication of Betty Friedan’s 1963 book ‘The Feminine Mystique’ marks the beginning of the modern Feminist movement, but in fact, Lenin concurred with that type of thinking even earlier while leader of the communists in Russia, as it was in accord with the vision of Marx’s Manifesto to “support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things”.

Naturally, the Women’s Liberation movement received a lot of support from the American Civil Liberties Union, a communist front group founded in 1920. It was also pushed forward by the Rockefeller Foundation and other Illuminati foundations and organizations. According to producer/filmmaker Aaron Russo, Nick Rockefeller told him privately that it was the Rockefellers who funded and principally promoted the Women’s Lib movement in order to tax the previously unworking half of the population and to get children away from their parents at an earlier age. [You can hear those statements HERE.]

In his excellent book on Feminism, author J.P. McDermott wrote:

In essence, feminism is the belief that women’s fulfilling traditionally masculine roles is preferable to their fulfilling universal, traditionally feminine roles. A doctrinal feminist would only admit that there are differences between the sexes when the admission would serve to elevate women, denigrate men, or to somehow advance the feminist goal. … [one of ] The immediate goals of feminism [is] androgyny … the “feminist movement” (and the changes resulting from it in women, even those women who don’t claim to be feminists) can be appropriately described as the number one source of ailments facing this society and the individuals within it today.

McDermott wrote that in 1996, but things have gotten a whole lot worse since then. The psychological perversion that has taken place in Womanhood at large over the last 20 years has been primarily brought about by the Illuminati-controlled mainstream media, entertainment companies, and education institutions.  I’ll argue that if you watch so much as an hour of television 7-days a week, you have been brainwashed (or “conditioned” if you prefer that word) by the Illuminati’s social engineers.

Unfortunately for women, they are especially susceptible to mental conditioning having been naturally wired by God to be more emotional. (All those books out there about ‘How To Pick Up Women’ are teaching time-proven techniques on how to manipulate women through their natural emotional tendencies.)

From the start of the modern Feminist Movement, Women were conditioned by the social engineers to think of themselves as equal to men in every respect. But over the last 20 years, they have been further brainwashed to think of themselves as SUPERIOR to men in every respect. I have touched on the success of this Illuminati manipulation in previous posts like THIS one.

Feminism has accomplished nearly all of its goals (except female ministers and priests ordained in all religions, and female combat troops – which will surely be the next obstacle to fall away, probably in this current court challenge that's in the news these days). 

The obsession that many women now have with traditionally male-associated things like pickup trucks, tattoos, contact sports (including boxing, wrestling, and cage fighting), and using profanity like a sailor, and acting out violently in schools and in their homes is NOT natural to them but is a result of twisted conditioning by the Illuminati’s media and entertainment corporations.

Over the last decade, more and more American men have begun looking overseas to find wives because the femininity that American women once possessed and which was a normal and desired counterpart to a man’s masculine traits has disappeared, having been transformed into some kind of warped, abnormal He-Woman psychosis.

And the move recently has been toward thinking not just about equality with men but superiority over men, hence the spate of violent female action heroes in books and movies, such as V.I. Warshawski, Beatrix Kiddo, Buffy Summers, Mallory Kane, Katniss Everdeen, and so many others that a comprehensive list would be way too long. How many movies of the last 15 or 20 years can you name that didn’t include at least one scene of a woman physically (and/or intellectually) dominating a man? Now THAT would be a short list! Daily we are being brainwashed to think of women as the violent “protectors”.

And it hardly stops there. How about the increasingly popular pagan worship of “Gaia”? As THIS site explains, Gaia is “a part of one spirit goddess that sustains life on earth” and those pushing for this alternative form of religion are encouraging “Gaia worship and the uniting of all life forms around the goddess of Mother Earth”.

Think about how “in” or “cool” it has become over the last 20 years for people to refer to themselves as witches and Wiccans! In the 1970s, had a woman referred to herself as a “witch”, most people would have raised an eyebrow and steered clear of the crazy person; today, at most, they’ll merely shrug and remind themselves of those noble little words to live by: “diversity”, “tolerance”, “inclusiveness”, and maybe even “personal empowerment”.

Wikipedia’s page for Goddess Movement opens with this:

The Goddess movement is an overall trend in religious or spiritual beliefs or practices which emerged out of second-wave feminism, predominantly in North America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand in the 1970s. Spurred by centuries of male dominated organized religion (or a supreme deity referred to by masculine pronouns i.e. "he"), some women embraced the idea of a female deity that was more in keeping with feminist beliefs and the inherent value of women.

In the American political realm, women have risen to unprecedented positions of leadership and power, in the Senate, in the House Of Representatives, in presidential cabinet positions, as state governors, as city mayors, and many even as chiefs of police!

I won’t even go into detail about how much women are valued over men in America’s ‘Family Courts’, I’ll just urge you to read Stephen Baskerville’s shocking book ‘TAKEN INTO CUSTODY: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, And The Family’.

Taking all of these recent radical trends into consideration, I must admit that although it had never occurred to me on my own, E.W. Bullinger’s Biblical end-time exposition in ‘Commentary On Revelation’ and his view that the “great city Babylon” will be the center of a future worldwide goddess worship seems highly plausible.

Whether Bullinger is right or wrong, one thing is exceedingly clear. In modern America, the natural order that God established and commanded through His prophets is dead, dead, dead! Isaiah 3:12, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18, 1st Timothy 2:9-15, and 1st Peter 3:1-6, what have these got to do with the rebellious 21st Century America

~ Stephen T. McCarthy 

LINK . . .
To read my own theory why I suspect “That Great City Babylon” is actually New York City, click this link below:


YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.comso I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

16 comments:

  1. Stephen,
    Outstanding blog brother. Though I didn't completely come to Bullingers conclusion (having never read the book) I did see the feminist tone to the Beasts movement. I look at it this way, Satan has/or will ultimately deceived and murdered every follower he has ever had. I don't find it implausible that the beast would over throw a movement that Satan himself set up. After all weakening our own economy from within has already done this in part.

    If you can weaken the resolve of a nation, it's spiritual strength, exc. Think of it this way, Satan might not be able to get it to bow and worship him outright. If he can start a counter movement that weakens the physical and spiritual resolve of a nation he's won. Once he is able to make his counter movement (and more importantly it's weaknesses) the predominant culture they are sitting ducks. The counter culture has done it's job if it takes Gods protection of it's people away and leaves them vulnerable. Similar (though not exact) instances have happened all through the old testament. Satan is the originator of all the false Gods that the nation of Israel worshiped. Satan was also all too eager to use other nations to devour them once God had to allow them to receive the consequences for their own sins. Since Bullinger was a firm believer in the Hebrew Idiom of Permission (he wrote a book on figures of speech and an excellent passage on this very subject) it is easy for me to see how he made these conclusions.

    I personally think he has some really good points (especially since this book would have had to be written prior to his death in 1913). I don't think he would have all the same conclusions today if he were alive. For one we have more information, more manuscripts, more discoveries, and it's impossible to know exactly how he would have interpreted this information in light of our common world. In the end he was/is the most brilliant biblical writer I have ever encountered. Which is only to say I couldn't have done or come close to achieving the biblical accuracy he did in what was at the time a pre-televised world. I am glad you like him. This is a guy who is not liked by mainstream christianity which is just fine by me. I don't see eye to eye with him on some things (the trinity for example). But I agree with another person I read who stated, "Where I don't agree with him on all things, I also see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water." Great blog, I think Bullinger would have been proud of your analysis. After all he never wanted people to follow anything blindly.

    Br'er Marc

    ReplyDelete
  2. BR'ER MARC ~
    First, I want to thank you for such a thoughtful comment. That reaction from you is a PERFECT example of the "reward" I blog for!

    While it's true my blog has very few readers (far fewer even than the number that appears in the sidebar listed as "Followers"), I nevertheless feel that the half-handful of readers I really DO have leave some of the best comments to be found in the Blogosphere. And your comment here is an ideal example of that!

    Your comment is intelligent, informed, and... just damned GOOD!

    Regardless of whether or not a "real" Follower of my blog agrees with me, I get some really intelligent, lengthy, and profound comments, and I seriously doubt there are many blogs that can match mine in the "Comment I.Q." department. I mean that sincerely!

    >> . . . I don't find it implausible that the beast would overthrow a movement that Satan himself set up.

    Oh, Brother, that is SO on target! Anybody who doubts the wisdom you express in that remark needs to undertake a thorough study of Communist history. It is replete with example after example of Communist dictators setting up programs and individuals that they later denounced, ended and murdered!

    And seriously, is there a better example of satan's handiwork in "this world" than Marxism?!

    >> . . . This is a guy who is not liked by mainstream Christianity which is just fine by me.

    Ha!-Ha!
    Wait! I feel offended because you know how much I follow the "mainstream" view!

    In truth, I am a huge fan of Mark Twain's advice"

    "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform."

    >> . . . But I agree with another person I read who stated, "Where I don't agree with him on all things, I also see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water."

    Brother, that seemed very much like something I myself would say! In fact, it sounded so much "like me" that I skimmed over the first part of "Womanolatry & The Beast", thinking I must have said something similar there, but I didn't find anything like it.

    Were you quoting me or some other (brilliant) person?
    [;-)}

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  3. Stephen:

    Reading through this post and the previous one regarding Mr. Bullinger’s studies, I find them both to be incredibly sad. I had thought that maybe I should not be stubborn and read the first book you recommended ’How to Enjoy the Bible, but still felt some personal resistance, because I already enjoy reading the Bible. When I read the first post again, I believe you are saying that Mr. Bullinger espouses Bible study from a more academic approach than a Spiritual one, thus proving its spirituality. While an interesting hypothesis, I do believe that I would have a very difficult time enjoying and understand the Bible without the aid of the Holy Spirit.

    I do find it interesting to study the Bible with knowledge of history, linguistics and the traditional background of the times in which it was written. For me this makes it come ‘alive’. An interesting example is the ‘Parable of the Ten Virgins’ which became so much more meaningful to me after an understanding of the marriage customs of the time and the significance both temporal and spiritual, attached to be preparedness of these women. But, I digress from your topic.

    Having not read any of Mr. Bullinger’s writing and after reading the thoughtful and insightful comments by your other readers, I do feel somewhat intimidated to comment myself, but with respect to this particular post I do want to say something. I will hope that it will not appear inarticulate or inappropriate.

    First, it makes me sad to think of a world that subjects the precious daughters of our Heavenly Father to such degradation. Perhaps as a woman myself, I feel a bit offended. You state ‘unfortunately for women, they are especially susceptible to mental conditioning having been naturally wired by God to be more emotional.” On this point I could not disagree with you more. I personally feel very fortunate to have been naturally wired by God to feel things deeply. While it has caused me much heartbreak throughout my life, it has also provided greater opportunity to see, feel and fully recognize the Holy Spirit acting in my life and on my behalf. If I have been manipulated by men through my natural emotional or spiritual tendencies let the responsibility and judgment fall upon the heads of those men. I do not believe God would have ‘wired’ me this way if not to serve his purpose that I should have the privilege of creating, bearing and nurturing children, along with the ability to stand beside and support, if only at an emotional level, the men in my life.

    The important thing to remember always is that God intends this to be a partnership between men and women. I do not envy or desire the responsibilities God has placed upon men, in any way shape or form. I am grateful for the capacity to love unconditionally and absolutely nothing can describe the feeling of sharing your body with a life your have helped to create and the miracle of bringing that life into this world.

    continued...

    ReplyDelete
  4. continued...


    While the general condition of the world and particularly the way women are treated and express themselves, would indicate that many if not most women, have succumbed to the type of thinking you have explained, I simply cannot believe that I am alone in the things I feel. However, it is easy to believe and accept Mr. Bullinger’s theory that women will be elevated to a form of deity with a purpose to degrade and enslave men. What better way to thwart the purpose of our creation. That this could and would be a part of Satan’s plan is very believable. The fact that Satan lives by no rules or commandments other than the whim of his own thinking, would suggest that he can change the non-existent rules at any time he pleases. Isn’t this exactly what has happened throughout the history of the world? The constant ‘rule changing’ nature of Satan and the ‘natural man’ keeps everybody just enough off balance that they are in a state of constant confusion, running to and fro looking for the answers that God has already provided.

    An interesting and insightful post, as usual. I hope that my comments have not detracted from your theme. I don’t profess to be able to teach or even express myself adequately to convey all the feelings in my heart on this subject, but I felt a desire to express these few thoughts.

    I did look up and read all of the scriptures attached to this post and found them most helpful. I would suggest that at the very last one mentioned 1 Peter 3: 1-6 you extend it to include verse 7, as it seems to pertain to the rebellion also.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Stephen,
    I got the "throwing the baby out with the bath water" quote over two years ago from a web site I can' recall (which is probably to say it wasn't that important). All I know is that it was a biblical site who sold Bullingers books as well as others. I just remembered the comment, thought it was clever and true at the time, and thought you probably had drawn the same conclusion (as have I). In truth I don't know if Bullinger would agree with himself on all points in our modern era. If we were both born a 100 years from now we would probably both see some of what we believe now to be in error.

    I see things this way, where there are many individuals who sincerely and humbly seek only the truth, we all most likely also have some error in our belief system. This is why I am never afraid to do a check from the neck up (too many christians, atheists, and others are very arrogant and self absorbed in their own convictions. More concerned with holding onto tradition and winning debates than the truth). Believe it or not I still have to finish looking into the reincarnation piece you wrote as part of my check from the neck up. Which is not to say that I will or won't share your view (only that I will challenge my own belief system).

    Given that I don't feel the reincarnation issue is mandatory for salvation I have put it on the back burner. I have just finished researching many of the lies against The Bible and am moving on to continue my research on the trinitarian and unitarian issue. I just received both pro trinitarian and unitarian books of sold background. Where I don't feel the term trinity belongs in our biblical vocabulary (as the verse "Father, son and Holy Spirit" is in no manuscript prior to the 17th century) it doesn't by itself prove or disprove that Christ is God (but it is very suspicious).

    I do lean unitarian. For one, trinitarians believe that you have one spirit God in three parts. They would argue that it is our mind that has limited God and our concept of him. OK, but if I married three women I can't think of a court in this country that wouldn't throw me in jail. I can just see it now, "I have only one wife judge." Judge says, "I count three women right there, Sue, Jenny, and Sally." Me, "NO judge they are one wife in three parts. See they act as one so they are one wife." Maybe that's how polygamy started (kidding). I also find it difficult that God would talk to himself, "This is my son in whom I am well pleased." There are also some very clear verses like 2 Timothy that states, "The is but one God and one Lord the man Jesus Christ." I think there was a popular book named after that verse. For me how we define the word used for Lord in Romans 10:9-10 is of the utmost importance. It is essential for both salvation and who Jesus Christ really is. Even though I don't own a aramaic concordance the greek is very telling here. So I have about 4 to six months worth of work ahead of me here. Lots of bible reading, as well as reading sections of "One God and One Lord" By shoenheit, "The Trinity Christianities Self Inflicted Wound" By Buzzard, "The Nature Of God" by AW Pink (pro trinity book), and another pro trinity book I have yet to receive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Part 2
    As of yet I find a lot of trinitarians who use scare tactics. They try to get one off base by using "Your following another Jesus. Your going to hell." And many other statements like that. For many, such things are good enough to make them fear for their salvation and never question the trinity again. I find it to be a useless scare tactic that makes many turn their brain off out of fear for their own salvation. Who Jesus Christ is should speak for itself using the bible and resources to explain jewish cultural issues that we don't understand 2,000 years later.

    The history and brutality that went into the doctrine of the trinity in the 3rd and 4th centuries (brilliantly explained by Reubenstein) should not give unitarians or trinitarians confidence in the doctrine. The councils were flawed, and one must go back to prior to the councils and their dogma to reach the truth. There is enough evidence that they skillfully eliminated the forged books and got our biblical cannon right though. So that is where I'm heading. I hope to post on my blog along my journey. Take Care brother, and again, brilliant blog.

    Br'er Marc

    ReplyDelete
  7. Part 1 Of 2:

    FAE ~
    First, I want to commend you for leaving a fine comment on this post. I sincerely appreciate the intelligence that my few readers display in my comment sections on a regular basis.

    >> . . . I believe you are saying that Mr. Bullinger espouses Bible study from a more academic approach than a Spiritual one, thus proving its spirituality.

    No, not "proving its spirituality". I think it would be more accurate to say that he espouses a comprehensive academic approach thus proving its authenticity as a Divine message to mankind by its incredible integration of the Old and New Testaments, and also revealing the meanings and important information it contains through correct methods of interpretation. [Br'er Marc, feel free to chime in on this question if you think it could be better expressed.]

    >> . . . I do believe that I would have a very difficult time enjoying and understanding the Bible without the aid of the Holy Spirit.

    That reminds me of a similar statement you made in an Email which I haven't found time to answer but which specifically pertains to this topic...

    I'm paraphrasing you, but you had said something to the effect that you prefer to study The Bible and allow God's Holy Spirit to teach you the meaning of the Scriptures, rather than studying what other followers of Christ have written.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you about allowing The Holy Spirit to teach us (just as Jesus told His Disciples that it would), but I don't think it's necessary (or even the wisest thing) to restrict one's self to that method solely.

    A great deal of my interpretations and what I have learned came directly from Holy Spirit instruction. In fact, I would say a good majority of what I know about Biblical meaning came to me by Holy Spirit instruction. (As an example, the verse I referred to in part 1 of this series about Old Testament Isaac carrying the wood on his back foreshadowing the New Testament Jesus carrying His wooden cross on his back was taught to me by The Holy Spirit; it was not something I ever found in a Christian apologetics book.)

    But I believe strongly that there is no reason to refrain from benefiting from the Truth that has come to some of our fellow followers of Christ. Why reinvent the wheel? And why prosper from only one source when multiple sources are available to us? I refer you to 2nd Peter 1:20 which says, "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation...", and I believe that applies to all Bible study.

    Of course, when studying the teachings of others, it's always wise to pray that we be led to Truth and our minds protected from false teachings. I have done this myself.

    >> . . . Having not read any of Mr. Bullinger’s writing and after reading the thoughtful and insightful comments by your other readers, I do feel somewhat intimidated to comment myself

    Oh, c'mon! We both know you are far, far away from being the "dumb blonde" you sometimes like to jokingly call yourself, and you can hold your own here as well as anyone else can!

    >> . . . Perhaps as a woman myself, I feel a bit offended. You state ‘unfortunately for women, they are especially susceptible to mental conditioning having been naturally wired by God to be more emotional.” On this point I could not disagree with you more … I do not believe God would have ‘wired’ me this way if not to serve his purpose…

    It’s very clear to me that you greatly misunderstood my meaning. Far be it from me to pronounce “unfortunate” ANYTHING that God has done, is doing, or will do! What God does will ALWAYS be perfectly correct.

    Continued Below...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Part 2 Of 2:

    When I wrote “Unfortunately for women, they are especially susceptible to mental conditioning having been naturally wired by God to be more emotional” I sure as hell did NOT mean that it was unfortunate that women have been wired by God that way. What I meant was it is unfortunate for women that a by-product or repercussion of being wired to feel things more emotionally also makes them more susceptible to manipulation via those same emotional reactions. We all have our strengths AND our weaknesses, men and women in general, and men and women individually. We’ve all got our positive points AND our Achilles’ heel. But this is as God designed it and who am I to argue with the eternally loving Creator?

    By NO MEANS was I denigrating women or their emotional wiring! It is because of that wiring they make such good Mothers, such excellent caregivers; and because of that wiring they make such perfect companions for men – different from men but by no means unequal to men in value. NOWHERE on the Internet or in any of my private writings will you ever find me stating that women are of less value to God or to the world than men.

    As a matter of fact, I have stated that as Mothers and as the people traditionally most involved in the raising of children, the role that God gave to women is superior to the role that men are supposed to play.

    While I was composing this blog bit I had intended to include a link to a review I wrote years ago for what I consider to be one of the most important books I’ve ever read, but this piece was already so lengthy that I left it out. I will include a link to that review here though, as it will cut off at the pass any accusation by anyone that I am a misogynist or that I undervalue women in any way. Which is not to say I think you’re accusing me of either of those things, but please read this:

    The Antidote For Feminism (Or, “Real Woman” Defined)

    >> . . . The important thing to remember always is that God intends this to be a partnership between men and women.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    >> . . . An interesting and insightful post, as usual.

    Thank you!

    >> . . . I would suggest that at the very last one mentioned 1 Peter 3: 1-6 you extend it to include verse 7, as it seems to pertain to the rebellion also.

    While I agree that it is something men should be reminded of, and of course there are plenty of other very similar Bible verses that tell men how they are supposed to act toward their wives, the reason I did not include it is because it didn’t really apply to the theme of this blog bit. The theme was not about rebellion against God in general, but about the possibility of a very specific type of rebellion against God: goddess worship.

    Thanks again for leaving such a thoughtful comment, FAE.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

    ReplyDelete
  9. BR'ER MARC ~

    >> . . . I got the "throwing the baby out with the bath water" quote over two years ago from a web site

    Ahh! Well, it's actually a very old expression that I have used often, so I just kind of guessed that maybe you were quoting me back at myself from the first part of this two-part series.

    >> . . . OK, but if I married three women I can't think of a court in this country that wouldn't throw me in jail.

    Well, if there is one court that would proclaim you innocent, I'll bet it's somewhere in Utah. Ha!

    >> . . . I also find it difficult that God would talk to himself, "This is my son in whom I am well pleased."

    Right. And seriously, Jesus was praying to some other part of Himself in Heaven? DOH!

    I have often thought it almost astounding that the Trinitarian concept became "orthodox" dogma. I mean, it just seems almost laughable on its face to me.

    Well, it's certainly admirable that you would read all those pro and con arguments, but your own mind and your own spirit have already discovered the flaws in that concept, and if I were you, I think I'd just pray to God that He send His Holy Spirit to confirm or deny your current belief. It really can work that way!

    >> . . . There is enough evidence that they skillfully eliminated the forged books and got our biblical cannon right though.

    I agree. Have you ever read the book 'EVIDENCE FOR FAITH: Deciding The God Question' edited by John Warwick Montgomery? I give it my highest recommendation and I think you would love it. (Part 4 includes a chapter titled "The Canon Of Scripture: Can We Be Sure Which Books Are Inspired By God?")

    >> . . . Take Care brother, and again, brilliant blog.

    Thanks so much, Brotherman!

    ~ Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stephen:

    Just so we are starting out on the same page…my comment regarding my feelings of intimidation at commenting on this particular post does not stem from any of my dumb ‘dumb blond’ jokes, but rather feeling far out of my league in making comments on a book I have not read and also my innate ability to create misunderstanding when we ‘talk’ about serious matters.

    I’m going to take my time and fill up five or six comment blocks if necessary, in an effort to be understood, because you are important to me and therefore so are these beliefs that you hold dear. If you choose not to post these ramblings in the blog comment box, I will understand.

    Because I cannot ‘copy and paste’ from the comment box I will attempt to reference the first few phrases of the paragraph we are talking about. Please tell me immediately if I am creating more confusion that I’m clearing up.

    FIRST = No, not “proving its spirituality”. I think it would be more accurate to say that he espouses a comprehensive academic approach …

    OK, that clears up a misconception I was under.

    SECOND = I’m paraphrasing you, but you had said something to the effect that you prefer to study The Bible and allow God’s Holy Spirit to teach you the meaning of the Scriptures, rather than studying what other followers of Christ have written.

    It’s possible I said that very thing, but if I did my intention was not made clear. What I was trying to express is that with any study of The Bible I feel it necessary to have the Holy Spirit testify to me of the truthfulness of the material, that it might be engraved upon my heart and become an irrefutable part of my core beliefs.

    All dumb blond jokes aside, I would be far from having the knowledge acquired thus far if I were simply to rely upon my own study and the confirming powers of the Holy Spirit. Once again, I did not make myself clear. I did mention in that email that you refer to that I strongly resist being told what to believe and that is true, but it is not to say that I do not invite the teaching of others into my study. If that were so, would I be reading this very blog.

    continued...

    ReplyDelete
  11. continued...


    My earlier misunderstanding of your explanation on Mr.Bullinger’s technique may have caused me to resist his teaching more strongly than necessary.

    This next section is where we seem to have a fundamental breakdown in understanding one another. Do you really think I would say that ‘you are important to me as well as the beliefs that you hold so dear’, if I really thought you were denigrating women in any way, or if I felt that you strongly held misogynistic beliefs. I think we both know better than that.

    You quote my comment as such; “Perhaps as a woman myself, I feel a bit offended. You state ‘unfortunately for women, they are especially susceptible to mental conditioning having been naturally wired by God to be more emotional. On this point I could not disagree with you more…YOU DID NOT FINISH MY STATEMENT AND I FEEL IT GOES ON TO EXPLAIN WHEN I SAY…I personally feel very FORTUNATE to have been naturally wired by God to feel things deeply. While it has caused me much heartbreak…..I do not believe God would have ‘wired’ me this way if not to serve his purpose of creating, bearing, and nurturing, children, along with the ability to stand beside and support, if only at an emotional level, the men in my life.

    I understood exactly what you were saying when you wrote “Unfortunately for women…. And I sure as hell did NOT think or mean to insinuate that as ‘it was unfortunate that women have been wired by God that way’. In no way was it my intention for that statement to anything but corroborate your sentiments and my feelings to them. I can see clearly that it was a mistake to say that ‘Perhaps as a woman myself, I feel a bit offended.’ In retrospect, it’s apparent that those words alone may have mislead you to think I was offended and arguing your point. Nothing could have been further (or farther – I’m not sure which) from my intention.

    My final comment about including 1 Peter3:7 with your scripture references was not an attempt to cause confusion about the rebellion against God or an attempt to be sure men are equally reminded of their responsibilities but a suggestion to further (or farther) reduce the risk of ‘goddess worship’ by clearly stating where each party in the partnership should stand with respect to their relationship to each other and their relationship to God.

    continued...

    ReplyDelete
  12. continued...


    As a side note someone once explained to me that if in any relationship between a man and a woman they should view themselves at standing at the bottom corners of a triangle with Jesus Christ standing at the apex of the same triangle. As the man and the woman each draw closer to the Savior traveling up the sides of the triangle they also draw closer to each other. It would seem to me that this simple illustration and its institution into the lives of more people would be a handy tool to dismantle the theories of feminism and any notion of ‘goddess worship’ Satan might be working to bring about in the world today. I can only imagine how different my life might be this very day, if that had been a practice by the men who claimed to hold me dear.

    I again need to apologize for any confusion I have caused and hope that these comments have helped to clear them up. My comments here where meant to support you, if only on an emotional level.

    I did go and read the blog titled ’The Antidote for Feminism (Or, ‘Real Woman’ Defined) and found it interesting. Apparently, I am most guilty of those items referenced on page 9 and again on page 66. I keep trying to be better and feeling as though I'm failing miserably.

    I do appreciate the time you have taken to explain things further (or farther) to me.

    On another note, I have learned that honesty and integrity are not near as important as protecting the feelings of a friend. I would rather cut my tongue out than have been so honest about something. I will ever be sorry and beg a thousand times for forgiveness that I did not lie.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Stephen,

    Don't get me wrong. I started as a trinitarian and became a unitarian. Much of what I know came from others though. So for me looking at both sides of the argument but allowing the holy spirit to speak to me and teach me is vitally important.

    As for your interpretation of Bullingers methods I think your right on. Though I would say to Farawayeyes that not reading him is a mistake. He gives many insightful nuances and keys that can help any student of the bible. Even Bullinger himself says (and would be offended) if someone read his books and let him do all the research, thinking for us. Where I disagree with Bullinger is that he at times puts too much emphasis on the academic and not enough into developing our relationship with God.

    Farawayeyes,
    When you stated,

    "Perhaps as a woman myself, I feel a bit offended. You state ‘unfortunately for women, they are especially susceptible to mental conditioning having been naturally wired by God to be more emotional.” On this point I could not disagree with you more … I do not believe God would have ‘wired’ me this way if not to serve his purpose."

    I believe women have a unique and unparalleled mission in our world. A man can not nurture the way a women can. A man can not fill the place of a women in child rearing (and vica versa I might add), and outside the whole reproduction aspect this world would be a dark and lonely place without the unique talents only women can bring. However, our world has distorted the true talents and unique beauty only women have. In attempting to make women "equal" with men they have done just the opposite. Text books can't have pictures of women taking care of children, cooking, or nurturing. They will show them working on a construction site with jack hammers. And what are they saying by doing that? You must try to be a man, being a women ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH. What a lie, and it's all done with the mask of feminism. Further more the marriage relationship is one of our examples of our relationship with Christ. Christ being the head of the church, and we being his bride. The Word of God has many examples of godly women doing amazing things I could never dream of pulling off. When I look at women I don't see someone inferior to myself. I see someone who has talents and skills I will never have. Too bad many of them shun them.

    Br'er Marc

    ReplyDelete
  14. Another very well thought out post worthy of much contemplation. I would agree with just about everything you say here.

    I do think past interpretations that seem wrong or faulty may have been due to certain lack of knowledge. I can recall back in the 60s and 70s there being many different schools of thinking about prophecy and such that are now different and have been revised as new knowledge has been revealed. So I can't fault scholars and prophets from the past in seemingly getting things wrong or where they don't sound quite right now.

    Also, I didn't see any reference to homosexuality and the emasculation of males as they get in touch with their feminine sides. The homosexual movement is a huge problem and threatens our traditional concept of morality in a very serious way. This movement would I think also support your argument about the feminist trend. I can't imagine that anyone 40 or 50 years ago would have in any way given serious thought to 2 men getting married to one another and now it's a major political issue. I see a real problem with that, not to mention the acceptance of the practice of homosexuality.

    You've got some heavy stuff going here. Good research.


    Lee
    Wrote By Rote

    ReplyDelete
  15. NWB (a.k.a. FAE) ~
    I thank you for clarifying things here.

    >>...This next section is where we seem to have a fundamental breakdown in understanding one another.

    Yes, I agree. And to be honest, I think we still aren't understanding each other very well on this point, but no matter. I'm not a misogynist and I never for a second thought that you perceived me as one, so it'z all good.

    >>...As the man and the woman each draw closer to the Savior traveling up the sides of the triangle they also draw closer to each other.

    That's a pretty nice illustration.

    Yak Later, Nitro.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  16. BR'ER MARC ~
    Thanks for your input, and I totally concur with you that regardless of how much a Bible student might disagree with Bullinger on some issues, the scholar displays a great deal of knowledge and some of his theories pertaining to methods of Biblical discovery are very valuable.

    You said that a bone of contention for you was that Bullinger put "too much emphasis on the academic and not enough into developing our relationship with God" which seems to be another way of expressing WithCHRIST.Org's argument that "Mr. Bullinger did not clearly acknowledge the necessity of the Holy Spirit's sovereign illumination of the Text."

    I agree entirely.


    ARLEE BOID ~
    Thanks for stopping by and commenting.

    Yes, I didn't address "homosexuality" because I figured I was already addressing a large enough and controversial enough topic as it was.

    However, you are correct that homosexuality and lesbianism could not be excluded in a thoroughly comprehensive examination of this topic.

    Under the imprimatur of the National Organization for Women, it has been said, "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be indentified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." And where homosexuality and lesbianism meet you have androgyny, and the next step to be taken from there is the elevation of women and the subservience of men.

    Without a doubt, these "abominations" (to borrow a Biblical pronouncement) are viewed as steps on the path to a greater, more disastrous agenda.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete

--> NOTE: COMMENT MODERATION IS ACTIVATED. <--
All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.