My relationship with the ‘church’ began when I was around 35. It was then I joined the Anglican Church.
I used to take my daughter to Sunday School, park in the church parking area, pull out the Sunday papers and read for an hour until Sunday School finished. The latter started before Morning Prayer, and each Sunday the Anglican Pastor would leave the manse and walk over to the church. He had to pass my parked car to get to the church. And without fail, he would ALWAYS make a detour to my car, stop and greet me. He would ask what the news was for the morning, inquire as to the family’s health, smile and continue, robed, into church.
This (would you believe) went on for several years. He never altered his routine, and neither did I. Not once did he mention God or invite me into church. I still smile and chuckle to myself when I reflect upon this.
One day, I said to my wife, “I’m going to church!” She nearly fell over in astonishment. My journey back to God had commenced and also, my Anglicanism, begun as a child, was rekindled.
Over the ensuing years, I was ministered to by a number of pastors who in themselves were top guys and were always available to offer help and succor when you needed it. I thought I was growing in Christ, but like most, I had little or no idea I was actually being fed on a diet similar to what my mother fed me as a small, wee child in the 1940’s.
It was the tight, home-front years, and every family was finding it hard. And of course, in most cases, the principal breadwinner was overseas in uniform – or for Australians, lying in Changi Prison in Singapore or working on the Burma Railway under the cruel hand of the victorious Imperial Japanese Army.
So we had little. And my morning breakfast/lunch consisted of slices of white bread in warmed, sweetened milk. Sustaining, but with little protein. It sufficed and was never questioned because I knew nothing else.
I use this example to make the comparison between being fed on milk and not strong meat, full of protein.
Much later, following my return to church as a regular parishioner, I began to systematically read the NIV Bible. I participated as a Service leader, assisted with Holy Communion, was active on Parish Council and most other of the various roles that we lay folk play in our local churches.
I was also active in Bible study groups and led one or two of them; I studied and taught the required lessons. My scriptural studies consisted of reading the Bible from cover to cover, then starting over. I collected a library of study Bibles and read them the same way, except when I was preparing a study lesson.
I must confess that for many years I really didn’t understand much of what I was reading, nor the elemental truths contained therein. For instance, I knew nothing about Replacement Theology. And I surely did not understand that God has spoken through His prophets and has always dealt with mankind (wash my mouth out; I said a naughty, totally inappropriate word) systematically. And so it was actually very foreign to me that our wonderful Father was working to a great plan or design that He created within His Creation from the Beginning.
In my fifties I became computer literate (passably so), and I thirsted to know more because I could see that this world was, as prophesied in holy writ, commencing to turn to dirt, and that all the decent institutions and relationships I had been taught to respect and practice were now being rejected, one-by-one.
Worse (for me), I found that I was no longer immune from the stain and taint, and my own life was becoming unglued, though I didn’t realize it at the time. That’s another story and not a pretty one.
What I was aware of, however, was that God had become almost universally rejected. And as I write this I make this point. His rejection is now so thoroughly complete that it gets harder to find anyone who happily will confess Yeshua as Lord of all.
Even the name of our Father is now derided and loathed. Reverence of it has long vanished. It has become a thing to be scorned or used within a foul, sacrilegious curse. Many besmirch it as the butt of foul jokes. And perhaps the most disdainful insult is to see the glitterazzi and the untaught young exclaiming in excitement over some nonsensical thing that titillates them, “OMG!”
In this age of Marxist ‘political-speak,’ His name is now almost social anathema to many. They increasingly see it almost a criminal offense to name Him, lest it cause offense to others – the ‘others’ of course being atheist/agnostics, the unrepentant and Satanists. How his satanic ‘majesty’ must chortle at that: what gains he has made as he consolidates his ‘kingdom’ to prepare for the final battle against both the restoration/reconciliation of the Jews and the imminent Harpazo (taking away) of Yeshua’s chosen.
In my own journey, I then came across a site called ‘Rapture Watch,’ and commenced to perceive a series of ‘new’ perspectives (at least to me) about Yeshua and God’s Holy Word.
A world of knowledge was beginning to be revealed to me that I had never suspected, let alone previously understood. From there I graduated to ‘Rapture Ready,’ the ‘Omega Letter,’ and ‘The Prophetic Scroll.’
My eyes began to open. The crunch came, however, when I sat in the pew one Sunday and heard a young Anglican Curate tell our congregation that ‘we no longer need to dwell much on the Old Testament.’ He strongly made the point that the Old Testament was becoming (my interpretation) irrelevant because the New had virtually supplanted it.
By this time I had come to realize that our sermons, although conforming to Anglican doctrine and to Scripture, were very obviously proscribed, meaning that it was forbidden to follow any other road but that prescribed by the doctrine. And that was a pattern that almost never touched upon the prophetic impact of His holy Word. And neither did the set sermons attempt (except in passing reference) to deal with the pain of a passing world.
Both Rome and much of traditional (inclusive of parts of the new evangelical movement) Anglican Protestantism appear to hold the perception that we will continue on; and slowly the world will overcome, and ‘one day’ (few facts given) ‘He will return.’ Codswallop, old boots and balderdash, and of course, absolutely, unscriptural, except that Yeshua will surely return as promised.
Eventually I took this up with our church leaders, particularly in relation to the place of the Jewish people in times to come. As I have Jewish roots (and a great schism in the family to show for it, though all the original participants are now long passed), I was interested to know all I could about present-day Israel and the apparent return from the Diaspora. I was quickly put in my place with the following:
- Prophecy (for all intents and purposes) ceased with the advent, life, persecution, execution and ascension of Jesus. SUBSEQUENTLY, ALL HAS BEEN FULFILLED.
- Be ‘careful’ when reading the Bible, for much is contained within allegory and can only be scholastically understood from that perspective.
- The Bible was not meant to be literally understood (helpful of course to maintain a monopoly over how the Word should be dispensed and by whom).
- The Jews who are presently returning to Israel are not a part of God’s Chosen People and, therefore, have no real prophetic destiny nor land entitlement in the Holy Land. (This of course is the basis of the World Council of Churches and the papacy’s view and vehemently held position towards modern Israel, both of which fervently endorse the spurious ‘claims’ of the ‘Palestinian’ people).
To say I was shocked, hurt and disappointed would be an understatement. The leadership of my local church had been very kind to me when I went through a difficult time (of my own making) and had stood by me. However, I believe that on that day I parted company with Anglicanism, becoming very aware of how, in essence, very little of the ‘truth’ of The Christ’s message had actually made the transition from the early church teachings.
Since then I have studied some of the history of the early ‘fathers’ and searched to establish (in particular) what happened between the deaths of the original apostles/disciples and what I refer to as the taking of the ‘Church,’ particularly as it pertains to the Bishop of Rome and the confirmation of the legitimacy of Christianity by the Emperor, Constantine, who ruled from Constantinople in what was then Byzantium (modern Turkey).
Constantine made the decision to stop the persecution of Christians. This is often stated to be the Triumph of the Church or the Peace of the Church. It was no longer an offense to be a Christian or engage in Christian worship.
It is held that he became a great patron of the Church in response to a vision of the Cross he allegedly saw immediately before the premier battle that delivered the empire into his hand. It is said that he had his army paint the sign of the Cross on their shields, and this helped him as he carried the day against his pagan opponents.
It was Constantine history records, that set a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor as Head of the Church (later passed to the emergent papacy when, ultimately, the empire ceased to be). The position of Christian Emperor was then the bitterly contested ‘toy’ between the two great princes of the church (Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism), and later by the emergent temporal emperors of the West following the fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks.
I may be challenged to some debate about this, but this is the conclusion I have reached. However, I am not a historian and hold little education in that regard.
I did wander back as far as Julius Caesar to explore the function of the office of Pontifex Maximus and its over-lordship over the panoply of the ‘gods’ of ancient Rome.
I established that there is a discernable link between the original office of ‘Bishop of Rome’ and the papacy’s later claim that each incumbent of the emergent papacy becomes Pontifex Maximus, supreme ruler, first and last voice of the faith.
Without question, this title in itself controls the way that ‘permitted’ parts of the gospels are fed to the masses of the ‘faithful.’ This is because the papacy is alleged to be God’s direct lineal representative to the Catholic faithful.
This title alone is proof that the emergent supreme princes of Roman Catholicism well considered that the ‘Constantinian’ title of Christian Emperor was now bequeathed to the papacy also, by default, when eventually the Eastern empire fell. And undoubtedly, successive incumbents of the papacy subsequently not only ruled as Emperors in their own right, but also used the prerogatives of king/emperors.
History records that the papacy waged wars and took the land and cities of their defeated foes. Even to the English Reformation itself and during the reigns of both Elizabeth I and Henry VIII of England, wars were still being fought (even if through proxies) in the name of Pontifex Maximus.
It is suggested that the origin of the title might actually have been derived from an institution convened under the lost Etruscan empire that preceded Rome.
I was intrigued to learn that pagan Rome of the Caesars and The Senate originally used the latter office to both oversee and maintain control over all new religions that wished to establish themselves before the peoples of the empire.
Rome had little problem with taking in a new god or even a gaggle or two of them. In fact, it was common practice when you defeated a particularly brave enemy to ‘take’ his gods and add them to your own so that hopefully some of the good stuff would rub off on you. There was one proviso: the Roman State would never grant carte blanche to any religion or god lest it run amok and threaten the foundation of the empire.
At this time, the Senate was then the heart of the empire. All new religions had to be State approved and overseen. Thus was born the office of Pontifex Maximus (supreme priest or head religious leader over ALL other gods/religions). And Rome ensured that only a Roman patrician held the post.
It was a post for life and allegedly impossible to get out of. Julius Caesar’s enemies in the Senate had the title/office bestowed on him, hoping to sideline Caesar and his own Senate supporters from his discernably ‘dangerous’ ambitions to rule.
Gaius Julius Caesar did escape the confines of his new office, but only after much skullduggery, because otherwise he was no longer eligible to sit in the Senate and wear the purple-edged toga. Though he could command an army, once he labored under this title he had no power from the Senate to raise one under Roman law.
Following the ascension of Constantine and his alleged conversion and subsequent decree that Christianity would become the supreme State religion, I am unable to determine whether he appointed the Bishop of Rome as Pontifex Maximus. If he did, it was perhaps to keep it ‘all in the family,’ but strictly under his control (Constantine then being Supreme Head of the Church).
History records that Constantine considered such control necessary because of the actual bloody in-fighting between the various Christian factions vying for supremacy.
My suspicion is that the title of Pontifex Maximus was NOT the prerogative of the Bishop of Rome during the reign of the last of the emperors. As I remarked earlier, the papacy simply took it later when the empire passed, to enhance their own leadership stature as king/emperor and alleged ‘divine’ majesty.
Undoubtedly, the papacy considers itself to be the supreme manifestation of human royalty. This is confirmed by the fact that even the College of Cardinals refers to its members as ‘princes’ of ‘Mother Church.’
Oh, how it much galls this institution to have been forcibly locked away in its little conclave within Rome and nevermore to be permitted temporal powers. And oh, how the papacy schemes (even now) to reassume its former glory.
This period of the greatest of the early denominational churches appears to run concurrently with the passing of the true fathers (the apostles/disciples). Many of them perished by murder, execution by the State, and in other cases initial banishment.
Do you see the similarity here with the way the ancient Sanhedrin ‘dealt’ with its perceived enemies?
Rome ultimately attains the high ground, doing all that it could to remove ‘the Christ killers’ from any further relationship with the ‘True Faith.’ From thereon in, it was all downhill – at least, insofar as the Jews were concerned, for when suborned by the early Christian Church (now well and truly under Rome’s influence), possibly under the auspices of Clement I, the Jews would not recant the rites and practices of Judaism. Thus, the so-called ‘true’ church of Rome and emergent Orthodoxy had them ostracized, banished, and from thereon persecuted unto death.
Rome subsequently commenced to allow a number of pagan practices (still widely adhered to in many nations subservient to Rome and Constantine and those after him) to permeate the body of the faith. This is reflected almost immediately in its edicts, doctrine and practices where they remain today.
Let me touch for a moment on the obvious links between the cult of Mary worship and its relationship to similar worship/offerings made to earlier examples of alleged ‘Queens of Heaven.’
Queen of Heaven was a title given to a number of ancient sky goddesses worshipped throughout the ancient Mediterranean and Near East during ancient times. Goddesses known to have been referred to by the title include Inanna, Anat, Isis, Astarte, Hera, and possibly Asherah (by the prophet Jeremiah). In Greco-Roman times Hera and her Roman aspect Juno bore this title. Forms and content of worship varied. In modern times, the title “Queen of Heaven” is still used by contemporary pagans to refer to the Great Goddess, while Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglican ‘Christians’ now apply the ancient title to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
These ‘Queens of Heaven’ allegedly go far back into antiquity, certainly as far as ancient Sumer and beyond. Supposedly, Adam had a first wife. She was known as Lilith. She was reputedly, according to myth and legend, a sexual wanton who allegedly was created from the same dirt as Adam and not from his rib, as was Eve.
All the earlier reference to these ‘Queens’ speak of their relationship to sexually oriented rites, probably associated with the dedication of harvest rituals, to ensure the rains came when they should and the grains came to bountiful harvest.
Suffice it to say that the cult now associated with the earthly mother of Jesus, in which is bestowed on her the title, Queen of Heaven, has in very recent times seen her vested with an alleged, almost equal status with our LORD. In the mid 1950’s, the papacy and cardinals decided in conclave that if she was the Queen of Heaven, then obviously (there being no evidence to the contrary), she also did not die but ascended into Heaven as did Enoch and Elijah.
Can one detect a propensity for this huge denomination to simply make it up as they go? I digress… sorry.
Something else that perhaps should get a mention is that Constantine, although making Christianity the State religion, appears to also have permitted the worship of other gods/religions without persecution. I consider that this alone put the pressure on the Bishop of Rome (who was well into the business of attracting new Gentile adherents whilst keeping the Jews out) to permit certain aspects of paganism to enter. By doing this, the papacy created a more familiar and friendly environment to those who had previously worshipped in other ways.
As it was an approved State religion, under these rules it soon attracted legions of new followers/adherents. Even the high hat of the papacy with its two peaks and a chunk out of the middle appears to date back as far as Dagon, the fish god. This hat can also be seen in the Anglican persuasion.
Can we not draw the conclusion that that which was constructed was and is a sickening litany of evil? The gospels are replaced, ignored, or deliberately misinterpreted and the masses told (even lately by the present incumbent, Francis) that ‘it is dangerous to read the Bible without it explained and mentored by a ‘priest.’ And a priest of course gets his divine power to so interpret directly from ‘The Holy Father,’ who is God’s representative on Earth.’
As such, when the papacy is confirmed upon him by some sort of alleged divine transubstantiation (rather like the Mass itself), the Pope’s power flows directly to his holy priesthood and therefore they, individually, are not only legitimized but directly inspired to impart God’s Holy Word (or rather, what passes for it in Roman doctrine).
Let me then reserve for a further time the questionable status of the alleged holy sacraments of Roman Catholicism, and also the altering of the Ten Commandments. These matters really speak for themselves to any Bible-based Christian believer who has looked for biblical confirmation of such heresies, and of course cannot find them; they don’t exist.
Friends, my comments are undoubtedly hurtful to Catholics; but remember, they are our brothers and sisters and they believe passionately that Rome can, with her sacraments, guarantee them passage to Heaven. How could I possibly wish evil upon them? Perhaps better to remind that ‘man proposes but GOD disposes.’
Personally, I believe that what was done to the church that the Christ’s Apostles took to the nations is most certainly not what we have inherited. Therefore, we bear witness to the greatest con job ever perpetrated since the 20th century and the garbage spewed out by the late, un-lamentable, Dr. Goebbels and his mentor, Adolf Hitler.
No wonder the clergy has a blind aversion to the Book of Revelation. Even the most illiterate or the most biased of the brainwashed must shiver beneath the protection and alleged sanctity of their respective clerical collars when they read the ultimate fate of most of our present churches.
Most dismiss The Book as being in the ‘too hard’ basket and, therefore, I don’t think I have ever heard it mentioned in Anglicanism, let alone heard anyone attempt to preach its divine message, except perhaps its closing where we are admonished not to alter the message in any way.
I look at my own erstwhile congregation – in the main, lovely folk, do anything for you and, invariably, they all ‘love’ their church and their settled place within it. They do not question. For even the Bible studies are pre-set to follow the party line. They are completely satisfied that ‘all is well’ and ‘their’ place is thus assured. If their hearts are innocent but their minds betrayed, I cannot see that the Holy Spirit will be denied them.
I cannot speak for another man’s soul as it pertains to our individual spirit, nor will I condemn (I have sufficient trouble managing my own beneath His Burning Eye). But when you try to probe or infer that we might be missing something, most folk, aided by a blind-sided clergy, close down the shutters.
Every day we come a step closer to the removal of the true church by the Bridegroom, and then the beginning of the Tribulation. Time is now of the essence (as they say in judicial circles). From where I sit, even the bigoted, the asleep, the atheist/agnostic and the downright haters of Yeshua can see this world is standing on the brink of ‘something’ bad….but they know not what.
Then, there are those that don’t give a damn. They will party on and be oblivious until the proverbial ‘you know what hits the fan.’ Still many others believe in the innate capacity/ability of man to overcome any hurdle, ‘and if only we could get rid of religion or bring it under State control and One- World Government, we will win through!’
The haters, and particularly those belonging to Satan, are presently doing all they possibly can to bring his brief reign into being through his anti-Christ.
How very sad. How frightening to know that most of the family of man are to be swept away. They tut, they exclaim, they ponder but remain spiritually blind.
Watch the gurus on the panel shows, the talking heads. Amongst them, an ever-increasingly vocal group expounding the death of Christianity, and who await with bated breath the coming of One- World Government – and if the papacy has its way, One-World Religion that is to include Islam.
Our God and Most Holy Father of All has seen their sin and apostasy and has therefore deliberately blinded them lest they ‘see,’ believe and become eligible for saving Grace. There will be, saith the LORD, no saving grace for the unredeemable.
But, how blind and doomed are those postulating as ‘priest and pastor’ who knowingly are leading multitudes to Hell. There is, as Scripture tells us, ‘a special place awaiting them!’
Always in Christ my brethren,