One man holding the office of president in 30 countries might leave the impression of a single presidential office although the offices be in fact separate offices. The Queen of New Zealand, the Queen of Australia, the Queen of Canada are separate offices. If a crown goes on a queen's head how can she be that which she wears on her head? Who is the utmost source of power and authority: (1) the crowned, (2) the one who puts the crown on the head of the one crowned, or (3) the one who owns the crown.Originally Posted by xparte
Re: Unam Sanctum
It is said that when some of the Templars were captured and queried, eventually they allegedly admitted that they worshiped "Baphomet" and that such may have been misunderstood in that they really instead were saying "Mahomet" (Mohammed). Though yet still it is alleged that among certain secret societies, statues of Baphomet are common. Anyways, taken with 'rumors' of Freemasons saying that they outwardly pretend to be "Christians" or "Judahites" but secretly are Islamists and putting that together with history, an interesting picture emerges. No surprise Islam is being promoted if not forced or coerced in Europe and throughout the Levant. The Simonian syncretism is errantly mistaken for the "Real McCoy" or the original doctrinal system.
It must be understood that "Christian" is what Judeans and former-Gentiles that continued the house of Judah with Jesus/Yeshua were called at Antioch but they were otherwise known as "holy ones". However, doctrine of those that were called Christians extended back to before the time of Abraham but cannot be attributed to Abraham's native society FOR HE WAS CALLED OUT AND SET APART FROM THEM. It was a continuation because it was the Hebrew/Abrahamic/Melchizedek belief systems and those clearly predate the existence of Rome and Babylon and have more to do with Old Dynastic Egypt than with Babylon or Rome. The idea of Rome originating these things just seems to boggle the mind that such an idea could even be entertained. Melchizedek and Abraham lived before Nebuchadnezzar. Rome wasn't established until 753 BC or so. Rome is similar to Amor or Amorite backwards, and is said to have been partly established by Romulus and Remus ("Sumer" spelled backwards). Rome was moreso associated with the Etruscan belief system before the Babylon-Rome merger after Attalus II and under Julius Caesar.
In the book The People That History Forgot, Erwin L. Martin lucidates that Babylonian and Simonian doctrines and ideas drifted Westward. So while I make zero statements for or against a particular religion or political system here, a key point is that, claiming something originated something else when it is clearly false is offensive and deceptive: that Rome or Babylon originated organic Israelite/Judahite Hebrew/Melchizedek-associated Christianity, clearly that could not be the case. As for Simonianism or Islam, that is up to the reader to investigate. The "pesky" facts matter simple because lies are not true. The one named at Exodus 3:14 clearly didn't have a penchant for strange gods and syncretism: he has warned consistently of the dangers of sycnretism and the consequences (see: conflict of laws) thereof.
Before Rome Was...
It must be understood that before Roman Catholic missionaries made it to Africa, the British Isles and the area called India (afaik an Ethiopian or Egyptian province), Israelite/Judahite Hebrew/Melchizedek-associated Christianity was already established in those places. Again, the point isn't about being for or against this or that: it is truth of the record because again if someone is deliberately telling lies or evidences being deluded then the reliability of their words or doctrines can be considered soundly.
The Templar Inns and Mosques
The Templars as the scans allude weren't associated with the law schools of the English churches but of the law schools associated with Mosques. So again, you see why Islam is being promoted in Europe. But it is also important to see where Islam originated. The historical record alludes to Crusaders making a change of religion. (Related: The Dark History of the Templars)
According to the Book of Daniel, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar and his trusteeship had limits. He had tried to get the saints to worship him, to bow down to him. That was ultra vires and a major no-no. But "one like the Son God" intervened. The "one like the Son of God" existed before Rome existed. Rome did not create him. Even if Nebuchadnezzar or any modern-day counterpart claimed to be the origination or creator of the Son of God or of the man in the fire at Daniel 3:25 in order to attain worship by association-and-proxy, would such a claim necessarily be true?He answered and hath said, `Lo, I am seeing four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth [is] like to a son of the gods.' Daniel 3:25 (YLT)
Re: Syncretism and Idols
While one can apologize for idols and symbol worship, exactly what liability might such apologists incur for re-installing a veil in the temple in place of that which was removed or torn asunder? And by whose authority would such a veil be re-installed?
The scriptures refer to God separating of light and darkness. Who then are those who make a hobby of undoing that separation?Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. --Matthew 27:50-54
Reply With Quote