Families and False Prophets
May 23, 2011
David Mills
As you will have noticed, the world did not come to an end—or, to be precise, begin to come to an end—on Saturday evening at 6:00 local time, wherever you happened to be. The latest false prophet to be picked up by the media for the comic possibilities he provided proved to be wrong, as everyone but the gullible and deceived knew he would.
Christians may cringe or shrug or roll our eyes, or may even laugh along with everyone else, but such speculations do not merely amuse the secular and embarrass the religious. They hurt people. There is a reason Scripture is so hard on false prophets, no matter how sincere they seem to be.
“Make My Bed? But You Say the World’s Ending” tells of the Haddad family’s trip to New York, after Mrs. Haddad gave up her job, to warn people that human history was almost over. (Mr. Haddad kept his.) It was not a happy time for their children, reports the New York Times.
“People look at my family and think I’m like that,” said Joseph, their 14-year-old, as his parents walked through the street fair on Ninth Avenue, giving out Bibles. “I keep my friends as far away from them as possible.”
“I don’t really have any motivation to try to figure out what I want to do anymore,” he said, “because my main support line, my parents, don’t care.”
His mother said she accepted that believers “lose friends and you lose family members in the process.”
His poor sister reported that “My mom has told me directly that I’m not going to get into heaven.”
This is what happens when false prophets prophesy falsely. It’s all very amusing—Those whacky fundamentalists and their end times! Next at 11!—till people act on the prophecy and bad things naturally happen, like children being alienated from their parents. And perhaps even their parents’ faith in Christ, because many children cannot separate that faith from the bizarre theories that led them to Ninth Avenue. Especially when, on Saturday evening a little after six, the children see that it was all a crock.
St. Paul twice, in his letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians, warns fathers not to provoke their children to wrath, and reasonable resentment is a form of wrath to which parents can provoke their children. We may want to say that the children should be able to ignore the embarrassments their religious parents inflict upon them, but that would require of them an adult level of maturity or a level of sanctity most of us haven’t managed.
The child’s faith can be fragile. Children should not be pushed too far without reason. As the twig is bent, and all that. I think that’s why St. Paul brings this up.
Harold Camping may have meant well. He may have believed it all, though I’d be interested to know if he emptied his bank account and gave away his house and car on Friday—the Christian ought to be kind even to the damned and some of the people left behind will be cold and hungry. He may have been caught up in the pleasures of arcane speculations and the intoxicating feeling he’s discovered the secret key and found something no one else has ever seen.
He may have, though why he ignored Our Lord’s instructions not to speculate on such things escapes me. That does not speak well of him. Even if he were sincere, he was very wrong, and untruths like his damage other people. He bears some blame for that damage. He bears some blame for Joseph Haddad feeling his parents don’t care. That’s the responsibility you take when you set yourself up as a teacher.
I don’t think I’ve ever done anything as odd as the Haddads. I’d like to think I haven’t done so because I am exceptionally sensible, but I suspect I haven’t in part because I lack whatever virtue it is that makes one give up one’s job and take to the streets of New York in the hope of saving souls. And I have the great blessing of being part of a tradition that protects its members from such things, and faithful Christian friends and colleagues whose good opinion I would not want to forfeit.
You don’t want to feel smug after reading a story like this, thinking that you’d never do this kind of thing to your children. You’ve undoubtedly failed them in other ways, and you may in some way have provoked them to wrath, and to the form of it that can be called reasonable resentment. Even if you happen to be St. Francis or St. Clare, you have not been the perfect parent, and that imperfection may well be written upon your child.
In any case, the Haddad’s story is unsettling, and not just because it reveals the pains eccentric forms of Christianity cause unnecessarily. It reminds all of us parents that our children live in a world that makes our, and their, beliefs eccentric if not laughable. Even the plain, traditional belief many Christians declare when they recite the Nicene Creed on Sunday feels, to the world, nearly as nutty as Camping’s predictions that the world would end last Saturday.
It is not easy for children to be Christians and to have dogmatically and morally rigorous parents, even when their parents are perfectly normal mainstream Christians, because that normal expression of the Faith no longer looks normal to the wider society. At best it looks odd, at worst delusional and oppressive, especially when Christians insist on it as a public truth. The world is always with us, and the worldlings will happily smear the competition by trying to make it seem as weird and uncool as possible.
The poor kids are marked out at the age at which children simply don’t want to be marked out. We should not increase the pressures upon them when we don’t have to, since there will be times that we will have to. That is one very good reason to shun false prophets.
Fortunately, the Christian tradition provides a vision of the end of history we can easily commend to our children, and to everyone else, as a wisdom and a hope that cannot be weird and uncool. A man might not believe it, but he would be a fool to think it comical or crazy.
In being directed to reflect on the end of history, we are being directed to reflect on the men and women we ought to be. The orthodox Christian belief in the Lord who will “come again in glory, to judge the living and the dead,” as the Apostles Creed declares, should make us more attentive to the end to which our lives should be directed, and to the inevitability of death and the possibility that it is closer to us than we realize, even if we are still young. (One of my closest friends growing up survived two years battling a vicious cancer, only to die of another, entirely unrelated cancer at 22.)
It should make us live so that we earn the lines we’d like written on our gravestones. It should make us strive to be men and women of virtue. It should drive us closer to the Lord who will make us what we want to be. It should produce in us a greater love for the Lord who (to adapt a prayer from the Mass) we pray will “grant us his peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those he has chosen.”
That can easily be commended, with no risk that at 6:05 one night you will know you’d been fooled. The world will still try to make such reflections look weird and uncool, but how weird and uncool can it possibly be to be a saint?
David Mills is Executive Editor of First Things. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES:
The New York Times’ Make My Bed? But You Say the World’s Ending.
Meghan Duke’s Save the Date, her reflection on Camping and the end of the world.
Comments:
5.23.2011 | 3:49am
Übersetzer says:
I'm rather sceptical about this eschatological view ("Fortunately, the Christian tradition provides a vision of the end of history ... as a wisdom and a hope"), or rather, its positive interpretation, especially if your compare the directional model (Christianity) to a cyclical one (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.). Weird and uncool? Ir depends on your background.
5.23.2011 | 4:15am
Bill says:
This is what happens to people in man-made "Christianity" which does not have the support of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.
5.23.2011 | 4:32am
Dean from Ohio says:
As a commenter on this site pointed out to me yesterday, is someone who interprets the Bible by fully disclosing his method, but does not claim extra-biblical revelation, technically a false prophet? Or just a false teacher? In other words, does making a prediction in this way about what God will do become a false prophet rather than a false teacher? Does speaking falsely about what God will do merit more severe judgment than speaking falsely about what God has done or is doing now? Is that judgment scaled by the degree of evil effect that their words and actions have?
In any case, James 3:1 applies: "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."
Harold Camping should repent, reimburse his followers who acted on this false prediction from his personal funds, resign from his leadership role, and fully submit to an authority besides himself and the 1611 KJV.
In any case, James 3:1 applies: "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."
Harold Camping should repent, reimburse his followers who acted on this false prediction from his personal funds, resign from his leadership role, and fully submit to an authority besides himself and the 1611 KJV.
5.23.2011 | 4:35am
David Nickol says:
The difference between Harold Camping and the millions of others promoting their religious "truths" is that what Camping preached was verifiable. If the billions of people who believe mutually exclusive "truths" had found out on Saturday which of them (if any) were right and which were wrong, it would have been the most traumatic day in the history of the world. Even here on First Things, where contributors and commenters are much more like-minded than in the world in general, there are myriad mutually incompatible beliefs. I am not willing to give up on the idea of religious truth, and I am not recommending that others should. But I think it should be remembered that even the strongest religious faith is quite different from certainty.
5.23.2011 | 4:57am
Dean from Ohi says:
Statisticians who evaluate a hypothesis by sifting through data are subject to two chief types of errors, conveniently labeled Type 1 errors and Type 2 errors. The first is seeing a pattern in the data that is not there, and the second is failing to see a pattern that is there. One website (http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/T1T2Errors.html) illustrates these two respectively as convicting the innocent and letting the guilty go free.
What makes this so difficult are noise and bias--the unwanted corruption of data, whether utterly random or due somehow to the systematic way I obtain my data.
In the past few days, i have read several authors remarking with varying degrees of circumspection that the older and more structured traditions of Christianity effectively guard against such events as H2K (Camping's second great prediction error). That is true. However, such traditions are likewise subject to a different source of error that takes up a similar symmetry to Camping's, just as Type 2 errors lie opposite Type 1 errors. There are, it seems, nearly always two ditches alongside the road.
What some of these recent authors are missing is that company Christians--the older, larger traditions--are likewise subject to errors, just different ones than freelance and small business Christians. They can be slow to see what God is doing in the world, they can elevate their tradition so that it plainly contradicts scripture (to my mind, the sinlessness of Mary the mother of Jesus is asserted opposite Romans 3:23), and they can let their religion become something that is done to them, as was explained to me by a Mormon who had been raised in Catholicism.
So, thank you authors who have pointed out the weaknesses of atomized evangelical Christianity. You are right. But please don't steer too closely to the other ditch. Both ditches are just as deep, and both will require a visit by the Holy Spirit's tow truck.
What makes this so difficult are noise and bias--the unwanted corruption of data, whether utterly random or due somehow to the systematic way I obtain my data.
In the past few days, i have read several authors remarking with varying degrees of circumspection that the older and more structured traditions of Christianity effectively guard against such events as H2K (Camping's second great prediction error). That is true. However, such traditions are likewise subject to a different source of error that takes up a similar symmetry to Camping's, just as Type 2 errors lie opposite Type 1 errors. There are, it seems, nearly always two ditches alongside the road.
What some of these recent authors are missing is that company Christians--the older, larger traditions--are likewise subject to errors, just different ones than freelance and small business Christians. They can be slow to see what God is doing in the world, they can elevate their tradition so that it plainly contradicts scripture (to my mind, the sinlessness of Mary the mother of Jesus is asserted opposite Romans 3:23), and they can let their religion become something that is done to them, as was explained to me by a Mormon who had been raised in Catholicism.
So, thank you authors who have pointed out the weaknesses of atomized evangelical Christianity. You are right. But please don't steer too closely to the other ditch. Both ditches are just as deep, and both will require a visit by the Holy Spirit's tow truck.
5.23.2011 | 5:10am
ferd says:
One of my co-workers quit last month and left to San Francisco after trying to convert of few of the Thialand immigrants to the notion of May 21st and Christianity. I found myself doing damage control. Telling everyone I could about how old Brother Camping...etc.
This entire incident has revealed to me what Jesus meant about "barring the way to heaven". Scandals, like Camping's false doomsday, can actually close a door to people's faith. My own grandmother saw a "preacher" handing out crutches behind a "revival" tent back in the 1940's...and she swore off all religious belief after that day. Voted Woman of the Year in San Diego for starting schools for the learning disabled back in the 1960's, she died later with my mom in tears because of her adamant refusal to be baptised.
This entire incident has revealed to me what Jesus meant about "barring the way to heaven". Scandals, like Camping's false doomsday, can actually close a door to people's faith. My own grandmother saw a "preacher" handing out crutches behind a "revival" tent back in the 1940's...and she swore off all religious belief after that day. Voted Woman of the Year in San Diego for starting schools for the learning disabled back in the 1960's, she died later with my mom in tears because of her adamant refusal to be baptised.
5.23.2011 | 6:52am
pentamom says:
"the Christian ought to be kind even to the damned and some of the people left behind will be cold and hungry."
I don't disagree with the point you're making here at all, but in point of fact, Camping has long preached that caring for the physical and emotional needs of others (actually, anything other than verbally preaching the gospel in spoken or written form) is a waste of resources because hearing the gospel message is the only thing that matters and it's a zero-sum game, and mercy ministry might actually give false comfort to unbelievers. (The cynic would say this is a convenient way to make sure that his followers gave all of their charitable monies to Family Radio, and the cynic could well be right. Or he could just genuinely be that theologically twisted.) So actually, he would have seen giving his substance for the aid of the suffering as worse than useless. If he was consistent, he should have poured all his resources into promoting his final message and left himself impoverished as of Saturday. And maybe he did, I don't know.
I don't disagree with the point you're making here at all, but in point of fact, Camping has long preached that caring for the physical and emotional needs of others (actually, anything other than verbally preaching the gospel in spoken or written form) is a waste of resources because hearing the gospel message is the only thing that matters and it's a zero-sum game, and mercy ministry might actually give false comfort to unbelievers. (The cynic would say this is a convenient way to make sure that his followers gave all of their charitable monies to Family Radio, and the cynic could well be right. Or he could just genuinely be that theologically twisted.) So actually, he would have seen giving his substance for the aid of the suffering as worse than useless. If he was consistent, he should have poured all his resources into promoting his final message and left himself impoverished as of Saturday. And maybe he did, I don't know.
5.23.2011 | 6:54am
Jeremy says:
Harold Camping broke a fundamental rule if you're going to talk about the supernatural or God. And that rule is: Never make a statement about God or the supernatural that is falsifiable. Always use ample symbolism and hedge your bets.
5.23.2011 | 7:39am
Jacob says:
What in the world is a Maronite family like Haddad following the admonitions of anybody besides Maroun or Charbel? For the love of Peter, their native tongues are French, Arabic, and Aramaic. I don't want to be overally hard, so I bookend it with this question. What caused them to stray from the Divine Liturgy?
5.23.2011 | 8:10am
Mike says:
Jesus said that nobody other then the Father knows the time when it'll all end, not even Jesus Himself while He was still on this earth. If Jesus as a man didn't know, how can anyone else think they know? I prefer to trust Jesus' word and judgement vs. any other human being.
5.23.2011 | 8:14am
CKG says:
I just thought that the whole 'May 21' thing was bafflingly odd, coming from someone who presents himself as a 'Bible Christian'. What part of 'no-one knows the day or the hour' do you not understand?
5.23.2011 | 8:18am
S. M. Hutchens says:
I think you've hit squarely, David, on the most damaging aspect of Camping's prediction--the alienation of young people in various deviant sects from what they have been raised to believe is orthodox Christianity, and so their natural tendency to reject thereafter Christianity in any form.
About Harold Camping: I wonder if the man is senile. Of course he has made inaccurate predictions in the past, but I have observed that often old people, without becoming obviously non compos mentis, almost imperceptibly slip into a version of themselves that exaggerates traits or opinions they had when their minds were in better condition. Along with this slippage comes inability to look at their own thinking critically, and strong, sometimes even belligerent, defensiveness when even lightly challenged. The larger the switch these people are posted at, the bigger the train wreck that follows.
About Harold Camping: I wonder if the man is senile. Of course he has made inaccurate predictions in the past, but I have observed that often old people, without becoming obviously non compos mentis, almost imperceptibly slip into a version of themselves that exaggerates traits or opinions they had when their minds were in better condition. Along with this slippage comes inability to look at their own thinking critically, and strong, sometimes even belligerent, defensiveness when even lightly challenged. The larger the switch these people are posted at, the bigger the train wreck that follows.
5.23.2011 | 8:24am
Judy K. Warner says:
My Communist parents put me through a little bit of the same kind of grief the Haddad children suffer from, though they tried to avoid it. I remember in elementary school (in the early 1950s) some kind of Freedom Roll was passed around the class that we were supposed to sign. My mother had told me not to sign it -- it was anti-communist in nature -- but I was too young to understand why. I was going to pass it on without signing, but was sent on an errand and returned after the thing had gone around the room, so I was asked to sign it in front of the class and had to stammer out something about my mother not wanting me too. It's that feeling of being caught between loyalty to one's family (which I had in spades) and the intense dislike of being thought bad (which I also had in spades) that makes this kind of thing so traumatic.
But the country has moved so far now in the direction of my parents that, as David indicates, it is the child of orthodox Christian parents who would be subjected to this kind of pressure. It is a good idea for the children's sake to live in an area where one's views do not radically stick out. If you are a serious Christian (or an NRA member) don't live in Amherst, Berkeley, or Madison. But that is not always possible.
But the country has moved so far now in the direction of my parents that, as David indicates, it is the child of orthodox Christian parents who would be subjected to this kind of pressure. It is a good idea for the children's sake to live in an area where one's views do not radically stick out. If you are a serious Christian (or an NRA member) don't live in Amherst, Berkeley, or Madison. But that is not always possible.
5.23.2011 | 8:45am
Danny Haszard says:
Armageddon-aint-a-coming-so-im-a-getting-outta-here...
Watchtower Jehovahs Witnesses have lost credibility with their own *Millerite Math* doctrine of Jesus *invisible* second coming October 1914.
Watchtower society false prophets declare Armageddon end of world in 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, and 1984....
---Danny Haszard been there!
Watchtower Jehovahs Witnesses have lost credibility with their own *Millerite Math* doctrine of Jesus *invisible* second coming October 1914.
Watchtower society false prophets declare Armageddon end of world in 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, and 1984....
---Danny Haszard been there!
5.23.2011 | 8:55am
Steve Martin says:
Camping may be a nut, but I was raptured on the 21st at 8pm PST.
The Lord took one look at me and threw me back at 8:01 PST.
I'm hoping for better luck next time.
The Lord took one look at me and threw me back at 8:01 PST.
I'm hoping for better luck next time.
5.23.2011 | 9:02am
Mick Lee says:
I am stunned that I've only heard one objection to Camping by referring to Scripture
in all my listening and watching the mass media and Christian web sites. I am
specifically to Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32.
These passages clearly state that the day and hour of the end of the world is not
known by any man and woman. The day and hour isn't even given the the Son.
Only the Father in heaven knows.l
The direct implication of predicting the end is that those such as Camping know more
than Jesus Himself. It seems to me that Scripture puts an end to discussions like
these.
in all my listening and watching the mass media and Christian web sites. I am
specifically to Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32.
These passages clearly state that the day and hour of the end of the world is not
known by any man and woman. The day and hour isn't even given the the Son.
Only the Father in heaven knows.l
The direct implication of predicting the end is that those such as Camping know more
than Jesus Himself. It seems to me that Scripture puts an end to discussions like
these.
5.23.2011 | 9:08am
Richard A says:
DC,
When you write "What some of these recent authors are missing is that company Christians--the older, larger traditions--are likewise subject to errors, just different ones than freelance and small business Christians" you fail to account for the easily verifiable, historical fact that the recent Magisterium of the Church (beginning, say, with Rerum Novarum) has discerned difficult to see patterns that are there and provided sound Christian guidance in response. In addition, many of Her children have done likewise (Peguy, Chesterton and Belloc being three I can suggest off the top of my head). In addition, the Church allows for the possibility of extra-Biblical private revelations, with the wise proviso that there can be no doctrine introduced on the basis of such revelations, and that your "company Christians" can be free to believe in them or not.
"they can elevate their tradition so that it plainly contradicts scripture (to my mind, the sinlessness of Mary the mother of Jesus is asserted opposite Romans 3:23)"
If that's what you think, then the Church asserts the sinlessness of Jesus the son of Mary in opposition to Romans 3:23. Unless you think Jesus was not a man as all of us are.
If you admit of exactly one exception, it is no defect of Scripture or Christian doctrine to admit of exactly two exceptions. The point is that if you're reading this verse, you're in this category. (For all we know, St. Paul wrote Romans after Mary departed this life, so he was technically accurate at the time he wrote the verse and at all times subsequent.)
When you write "What some of these recent authors are missing is that company Christians--the older, larger traditions--are likewise subject to errors, just different ones than freelance and small business Christians" you fail to account for the easily verifiable, historical fact that the recent Magisterium of the Church (beginning, say, with Rerum Novarum) has discerned difficult to see patterns that are there and provided sound Christian guidance in response. In addition, many of Her children have done likewise (Peguy, Chesterton and Belloc being three I can suggest off the top of my head). In addition, the Church allows for the possibility of extra-Biblical private revelations, with the wise proviso that there can be no doctrine introduced on the basis of such revelations, and that your "company Christians" can be free to believe in them or not.
"they can elevate their tradition so that it plainly contradicts scripture (to my mind, the sinlessness of Mary the mother of Jesus is asserted opposite Romans 3:23)"
If that's what you think, then the Church asserts the sinlessness of Jesus the son of Mary in opposition to Romans 3:23. Unless you think Jesus was not a man as all of us are.
If you admit of exactly one exception, it is no defect of Scripture or Christian doctrine to admit of exactly two exceptions. The point is that if you're reading this verse, you're in this category. (For all we know, St. Paul wrote Romans after Mary departed this life, so he was technically accurate at the time he wrote the verse and at all times subsequent.)
5.23.2011 | 9:15am
West says:
I agree with what you said towards the end about how we should live our lives. The only thing I disagree with is how you explained that parents having a Christian faith and having their kids with that faith will make it harder for them to live life with others. I don't think that children need to blend in. Its good to be your own person and have your own opinions. The thing is, If we don't have our own opinions and faiths as children, what makes you think that as an adult, our opinions or faiths would be accepted. It begins in childhood and follows into adulthood. We need to teach our children to me accepting of others beliefs. It doesn't mean they have to agree.
5.23.2011 | 9:32am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
Well said, David.
As I understand it, Camping based his "prophesy" or "calculation" on his dating of the Flood and the time which has since passed. These dates, in turn, were based on his interpretation of the Genesis genealogies. When I heard this explained on the radio last Friday, my mind instantly recalled the admonition in Titus 3:9:
"But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless."
The misuse of the Genesis genealogies have caused untold controversies, dissensions, and quarrels and have generally proved unprofitable and worthless. Harold Camping is just the most recent example one could cite.
Perhaps if we spent more time making disciples and living as one and less time speculating about when the world began and when it will end, our children would be less likely to depart from the faith we teach them.
As I understand it, Camping based his "prophesy" or "calculation" on his dating of the Flood and the time which has since passed. These dates, in turn, were based on his interpretation of the Genesis genealogies. When I heard this explained on the radio last Friday, my mind instantly recalled the admonition in Titus 3:9:
"But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless."
The misuse of the Genesis genealogies have caused untold controversies, dissensions, and quarrels and have generally proved unprofitable and worthless. Harold Camping is just the most recent example one could cite.
Perhaps if we spent more time making disciples and living as one and less time speculating about when the world began and when it will end, our children would be less likely to depart from the faith we teach them.
5.23.2011 | 12:24pm
Sophia Mason says:
"[E]ven the strongest religious faith is quite different from certainty."
This is a fair point, but I think it's worth remembering where the lack of certainty comes from. Check out Thomas Aquinas' Summa, I:I:5. To paraphrase:
"It seems that [theology] is not nobler than other sciences; for the nobility of a science depends on the certitude it establishes. But other sciences, the principles of which cannot be doubted, seem to be more certain . . . Therefore other sciences seem to be nobler. . . . [But] other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err; whereas [theology] derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be misled. . . . It may well happen that what is in itself the more certain may seem to us the less certain on account of the weakness of our intelligence, 'which is dazzled by the clearest objects of nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun' (Metaph. ii, lect. i). Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths, but to the weakness of human intelligence."
This is a fair point, but I think it's worth remembering where the lack of certainty comes from. Check out Thomas Aquinas' Summa, I:I:5. To paraphrase:
"It seems that [theology] is not nobler than other sciences; for the nobility of a science depends on the certitude it establishes. But other sciences, the principles of which cannot be doubted, seem to be more certain . . . Therefore other sciences seem to be nobler. . . . [But] other sciences derive their certitude from the natural light of human reason, which can err; whereas [theology] derives its certitude from the light of divine knowledge, which cannot be misled. . . . It may well happen that what is in itself the more certain may seem to us the less certain on account of the weakness of our intelligence, 'which is dazzled by the clearest objects of nature; as the owl is dazzled by the light of the sun' (Metaph. ii, lect. i). Hence the fact that some happen to doubt about articles of faith is not due to the uncertain nature of the truths, but to the weakness of human intelligence."
5.23.2011 | 2:01pm
Ty says:
I agree this type of thing can be very damaging to young people. It happened to me with ICOC (or the Boston Movement). After growing up in a cult, it's almost impossible to trust anything anyone says when it comes to God or religion. My sisters and I all stopped going to church within a few years of our family leaving ICOC (I was 13). But the twisted views are so ingrained in me I still feel like I will go to hell over every little thing. I haven't been to any church in years. I still call myself a Christian. . .but I don't know if it's because I fear God's wrath about leaving Christianity or my parents. I feel so bad for these kids. Once that trust is broken, you can't get it back.
5.23.2011 | 2:59pm
Don Roberto Hill says:
St. Augustine said something to the effect that we must be careful to "avoid bringing scorn upon the faith" (by attributing to it subsidiary beliefs which can be shown by reason to be false). I think it applies as well to Camping as to "young Earthers."
And thank you, Richard A. Hopefully DC is a sincere seeker and will eventually see the Truth. (Perhaps studying Revelation would help.) I ask my friends whether, if they could make their own mother, would they put in a flaw, one as terrible (and we should all know 'terrible' is an understatement) as Original Sin? Eve was born without Original Sin. And we can trust the Magisterium, which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus, instructs that the New Eve was likewise born without the taint of Original Sin: God's most perfect creature. One need not pray to her, but she merits our veneration and deep contemplation; and it seems to me uncontroversial to say that even the slightest disrespect directed toward the Mother of God (e.g., the sort of speculation we hear from "feminists") ought to be avoided.
†
And thank you, Richard A. Hopefully DC is a sincere seeker and will eventually see the Truth. (Perhaps studying Revelation would help.) I ask my friends whether, if they could make their own mother, would they put in a flaw, one as terrible (and we should all know 'terrible' is an understatement) as Original Sin? Eve was born without Original Sin. And we can trust the Magisterium, which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus, instructs that the New Eve was likewise born without the taint of Original Sin: God's most perfect creature. One need not pray to her, but she merits our veneration and deep contemplation; and it seems to me uncontroversial to say that even the slightest disrespect directed toward the Mother of God (e.g., the sort of speculation we hear from "feminists") ought to be avoided.
†
5.23.2011 | 3:46pm
David Poecking says:
The whole affair is a salutary warning against parochial (pardon the term) Christianity and foolish disputation. Camping prophesies falsely based on a self-consciously anti-historical-critical reading of the Bible, a foolish reading so chosen by Camping and his predecessors precisely because it defies the liberal demythologists of the 19th century. As with most foolish defiance, it tends to welcome the Trojan horse presuppositions of whatever error provoked it, and so falls before it even sets out. In this case, Camping has borrowed the assumption that the Bible sets out a timeline in which one age may be distinguished from another, so that the Bible may be disproved (or validated) by empirical study.
The solution is not less mainline theology, but more---especially, attention to Catholic and Orthodox methods of biblical interpretation that for all their faults have been more circumspect about borrowing Enlightenment epistemologies.
The solution is not less mainline theology, but more---especially, attention to Catholic and Orthodox methods of biblical interpretation that for all their faults have been more circumspect about borrowing Enlightenment epistemologies.
5.23.2011 | 5:19pm
Greg says:
The only difference between Harold Camping and every other "Bible Only" Protestant are their varying degrees of math and theology skills. Nobody has authority to say "you're wrong"! After all THE BIBLE PROVES IT, RIGHT?
5.23.2011 | 6:48pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@Richard A - "If that's what you think, then the Church asserts the sinlessness of Jesus the son of Mary in opposition to Romans 3:23. Unless you think Jesus was not a man as all of us are."
The Bible nowhere asserts the sinlessness of Mary, as it does of Jesus, who was and is fully God and fully man. I assumed Jesus' sinlessness would be obvious to all from scripture (e.g, Heb 4:15) so I did not mention it.
But there's more on the the true need of Mary for forgiveness of sin, as with the rest of us. Why else would the Magnificat contain that phrase, "My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour"?
In Romans 5:18-19, even when quoted here in Nabbish, it's clear that condemnation came to ALL people until Jesus, whose righteous act did not occur until the latter part of Mary's life:
"In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous."
The Apostle John, who cared for Mary until she died, continues in 1 John 1:8-10 (also in NAB):
If we say, 'We are without sin,' we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. If we say, 'We have not sinned,' we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
Since John is establishing a general principle in this context, and makes two sweeping statements that all people are sinners, here would have been just the place to recognize the exception of the woman he knew better later in her life than did any other human being. He did not.
I respectfully assert that your leaning over backwards to ignore what the Bible plainly says in multiple passages is a perfect illustration of my point--you are persistently elevating church tradition and teaching over the plain testimony of scripture. This was the very thing the Jewish leaders, especially the Pharisees, did that earned Jesus' condemnation. They added tradition that invalidated the plain meaning of scripture, as in Mark 7:9-13 (NAB):
"He went on to say, 'How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition! For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother," and "Whoever curses father or mother shall die." Yet you say, "If a person says to father or mother, 'Any support you might have had from me is qorban'" (meaning, dedicated to God), you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother. You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.'"
I don't know if you do many such things, but you do this one.
The Bible nowhere asserts the sinlessness of Mary, as it does of Jesus, who was and is fully God and fully man. I assumed Jesus' sinlessness would be obvious to all from scripture (e.g, Heb 4:15) so I did not mention it.
But there's more on the the true need of Mary for forgiveness of sin, as with the rest of us. Why else would the Magnificat contain that phrase, "My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour"?
In Romans 5:18-19, even when quoted here in Nabbish, it's clear that condemnation came to ALL people until Jesus, whose righteous act did not occur until the latter part of Mary's life:
"In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous."
The Apostle John, who cared for Mary until she died, continues in 1 John 1:8-10 (also in NAB):
If we say, 'We are without sin,' we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. If we say, 'We have not sinned,' we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
Since John is establishing a general principle in this context, and makes two sweeping statements that all people are sinners, here would have been just the place to recognize the exception of the woman he knew better later in her life than did any other human being. He did not.
I respectfully assert that your leaning over backwards to ignore what the Bible plainly says in multiple passages is a perfect illustration of my point--you are persistently elevating church tradition and teaching over the plain testimony of scripture. This was the very thing the Jewish leaders, especially the Pharisees, did that earned Jesus' condemnation. They added tradition that invalidated the plain meaning of scripture, as in Mark 7:9-13 (NAB):
"He went on to say, 'How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition! For Moses said, "Honor your father and your mother," and "Whoever curses father or mother shall die." Yet you say, "If a person says to father or mother, 'Any support you might have had from me is qorban'" (meaning, dedicated to God), you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother. You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.'"
I don't know if you do many such things, but you do this one.
5.23.2011 | 6:53pm
Tim Trainor says:
I'm listening to Harold Camping right now on Family Radio. I was expecting some humility and an apology. With a room full of reporters, he's declaring that the Lord DID return on May 21, and judgement DID come on May 21, but it was purely "spiritual". The great earthquake and all the other horrors are still coming on October 21. We're not out of the woods yet!
5.23.2011 | 6:58pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@Don Roberto Hill
Thanks for your concern. I appreciate it. However, to me it seems you have laid out yet another example of elevating tradition above the plain meaning of scripture. Where the 'The New Eve' in Scripture? It's not there, and it questions the integrity of Paul's entire argument in Romans 3:20 - 8:39. You are unknowingly making an argument against Paul's teaching of male headship, and so you are, in effect, making common cause with feminists who are eager to do the same thing.
Mary is indeed worthy of great respect. But speaking the truth in love is not disrespect, even about Mary.
Thanks for your concern. I appreciate it. However, to me it seems you have laid out yet another example of elevating tradition above the plain meaning of scripture. Where the 'The New Eve' in Scripture? It's not there, and it questions the integrity of Paul's entire argument in Romans 3:20 - 8:39. You are unknowingly making an argument against Paul's teaching of male headship, and so you are, in effect, making common cause with feminists who are eager to do the same thing.
Mary is indeed worthy of great respect. But speaking the truth in love is not disrespect, even about Mary.
5.23.2011 | 7:22pm
Mary says:
Of course it says Mary was without sin. She is "full of grace" using a word attributed to no one else in the Bible -- even Jesus -- a word that means she has the perfection of fullness of grace at all times. And what does grace do?
"Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."
Since grace transforms us so that we are no longer sinners, the fullness of grace transformed her throughout her life, at all times, to not be a sinner.
"Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."
Since grace transforms us so that we are no longer sinners, the fullness of grace transformed her throughout her life, at all times, to not be a sinner.
5.23.2011 | 7:50pm
Silvana says:
As a student of Theology and currently studying Eschatology,I have come to realize how important it is to seek understanding of the mystery of God and our Universe. The writers of the Scripture have provided us with an opportunity to interpret and seek answers from the scriptures, but we need to be cautious that we don't fall into the trap of speculating or predicting events that are beyond our own limited knowledge. There are things that we simply do not know, such as the Second Coming of Christ as a perfect example. I think it would be very arrogant and irresponsible of me as a theologian to pretend that i know more then Jesus does, and make wild predictions of the end of times that can adversely affect people's life. If we live our lives following in the footsteps of Jesus our Lord, and by working at being good examples to our children, family and friends , we can than look forward to the end whenever that will come, at a time that is of God choosing.
5.23.2011 | 8:01pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@ Mary - thank you for your reply.
You missed John 1:14 (NAB): "And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth." Please be careful not to elevate Mary above Jesus, especially when not in accord with Scripture.
Thanks to God's grace, we will one day be without sin. When that happens, says John, we will not be like Mary (except incidentally, which I grant), but like Jesus:
"Beloved, we are God's children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." - 1 John 3:1-2 (NAB)
But not fully until then.
You missed John 1:14 (NAB): "And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth." Please be careful not to elevate Mary above Jesus, especially when not in accord with Scripture.
Thanks to God's grace, we will one day be without sin. When that happens, says John, we will not be like Mary (except incidentally, which I grant), but like Jesus:
"Beloved, we are God's children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." - 1 John 3:1-2 (NAB)
But not fully until then.
5.23.2011 | 8:11pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@ Mary - I do see your point on the different expressions in the Greek:
- Hail favored one/full of grace (Luke 1:28).
- full of grace and truth (John 1:12)
Whether the form kekaritomene is stronger than the construction beginning with pleres I will leave to others. But asserting Mary's sinlessness on this seems to be a real stretch. Thank you though.
- Hail favored one/full of grace (Luke 1:28).
- full of grace and truth (John 1:12)
Whether the form kekaritomene is stronger than the construction beginning with pleres I will leave to others. But asserting Mary's sinlessness on this seems to be a real stretch. Thank you though.
5.23.2011 | 11:14pm
Don Roberto says:
*True feminism* (certainly not the recent version) is okay by me. To quote(Sts. Ireneus, Jerome, and Epiphanius: "What the virgin Eve bound by her unbelief, Mary loosened by her faith. " And in Lumen Gentium: "For believing and obeying, Mary brought forth on earth the Father's Son. This she did, knowing not man but overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, as the New Eve. who put absolute trust, not in the ancient serpent, but in the messenger of God. We, the faithful of the Church are called to follow Mary's example of trusting faith and fidelity to the Holy Will of God."
†
†
5.23.2011 | 11:35pm
Steve Cornell says:
Camping is still at it. Now he moved the date to October 21: http://www.christianpost.com/news/harold-camping-breaks-silence-predicts-october-21-rapture-50438/
I see seven lessons: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/now-that-the-world-didn’t-end…-seven-lessons-to-take-to-heart/
I see seven lessons: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/now-that-the-world-didn’t-end…-seven-lessons-to-take-to-heart/
5.24.2011 | 12:26am
RedOnion says:
In Romans 5:18-19, even when quoted here in Nabbish, it's clear that condemnation came to ALL people until Jesus, whose righteous act did not occur until the latter part of Mary's life:
5.24.2011 | 2:27am
Craig Kimble says:
David I couldn't have put it better myself. People like Camping should be locked up for talking such nonsense and allowing it to affect so many people's lives in such a bad way. How many times have we heard of such "cult" leaders causing people to take their lives by mass suicide for such complete and utter nonsense and masking it by using the "religion" bait switch. Publicity stunt comes to mind... and even more shameful is the large news broadcasters giving it so much airtime and riding on the coat tails to profit from the "news". This behavior just disgusts me to be honest and makes me think of the human race as really quite pathetic in instances such as these. There I said it.
5.24.2011 | 4:51am
Ron says:
It is a shame so many were suckered into his beliefs and lost their life savings, homes, jobs and more. There should be a way for them to recoup some of it for being duped by Camping.
5.24.2011 | 8:11am
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
I believe it is unseemly and highly disrespectful to speculate on the sinfulness of our Lord's mother. I suspect that if I were to speculate on the sinfulness of your mother, you would be offended, as I certainly would if you were to speculate on the sinfulness of mine. To recount the sinfulness of our own parents is to dishonor them, to uncover their nakedness if you will. That is condemned in the Ten Commandments. If we are to so honor our own parents, we most certainly should honor our Lord's mother.
While Scripture is quite explicit in recounting the sins of the luminaries of our faith, under both the old and the new covenant, it is silent on any sins of Mary. Not a single sin is attributed to her. Where Scripture is silent, should we seek to insert our own speculations, especially speculation that attributes to our Lord's mother sinfulness? On the other hand, Scripture tells us that Mary herself, inspired by the Holy Spirit declared, "from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." It seems to me that we would be well advised to honor Mary, to declare her full of grace, as did the archangel, and to call her blessed and to refrain from dishonoring her by speculating that she may have been sinful.
Sometimes we Protestants, in our zeal to counter Catholic dogmas, go too far in the other direction. I believe this certainly is one of those cases.
While Scripture is quite explicit in recounting the sins of the luminaries of our faith, under both the old and the new covenant, it is silent on any sins of Mary. Not a single sin is attributed to her. Where Scripture is silent, should we seek to insert our own speculations, especially speculation that attributes to our Lord's mother sinfulness? On the other hand, Scripture tells us that Mary herself, inspired by the Holy Spirit declared, "from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." It seems to me that we would be well advised to honor Mary, to declare her full of grace, as did the archangel, and to call her blessed and to refrain from dishonoring her by speculating that she may have been sinful.
Sometimes we Protestants, in our zeal to counter Catholic dogmas, go too far in the other direction. I believe this certainly is one of those cases.
5.24.2011 | 5:05pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@ Gregory K. Laughlin
Yes, Mary was full of grace and deserves great respect. But the speculation here is not mine, but comes instead from church tradition, which stretches this phrase "full of grace" into perfect sinlessness which, like the title Queen of Heaven or the Latin rendering Mater Dei (for the more accurate Greek word theotokos, God bearer). Those speculations are what I object to, because they aren't in the word of God. Your counsel against speculation, I think, should be pointed the other way. It is yet another example of the elevating tradition of men above the word of God.
The church pays a price for every doctrine that is taught as true but is not, even this one. Therefore, I respectfully submit that this topic is not off limits for discussion. However, I won't bring it up any more here.
To finish my example, we can instead talk briefly of saints, which are always listed in the plural in the New Testament. This word is always applied to believers as a whole, and never to overachiever individuals, as is the practice of the Catholic church. Honor those individuals who were greatly used by God? Absolutely! Elevate them to a status not assigned in scripture? No. The cost to the church of doing that is that an "ordinary" believer does not see herself positionally as a saint already, does not feel called to live up to her God-given status, and is not energized by God's high expectations for her. She is content with a second-class kind of pursuit of holiness, while mistakenly believing that true holiness must be for others.
Pointing this out is not off limits, because it is not dishonoring the great men and women of God who came before or claiming holiness or works above or even equal to them. It is simply following God's word. In recognizing that these men and women overcame weaknesses and sins to honor God and receive his grace, and seeing that they too fought the good fight, finished the course and kept the faith, we too may run and win:
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith." Hebrews 12:1-2 (NAB)
Yes, Mary was full of grace and deserves great respect. But the speculation here is not mine, but comes instead from church tradition, which stretches this phrase "full of grace" into perfect sinlessness which, like the title Queen of Heaven or the Latin rendering Mater Dei (for the more accurate Greek word theotokos, God bearer). Those speculations are what I object to, because they aren't in the word of God. Your counsel against speculation, I think, should be pointed the other way. It is yet another example of the elevating tradition of men above the word of God.
The church pays a price for every doctrine that is taught as true but is not, even this one. Therefore, I respectfully submit that this topic is not off limits for discussion. However, I won't bring it up any more here.
To finish my example, we can instead talk briefly of saints, which are always listed in the plural in the New Testament. This word is always applied to believers as a whole, and never to overachiever individuals, as is the practice of the Catholic church. Honor those individuals who were greatly used by God? Absolutely! Elevate them to a status not assigned in scripture? No. The cost to the church of doing that is that an "ordinary" believer does not see herself positionally as a saint already, does not feel called to live up to her God-given status, and is not energized by God's high expectations for her. She is content with a second-class kind of pursuit of holiness, while mistakenly believing that true holiness must be for others.
Pointing this out is not off limits, because it is not dishonoring the great men and women of God who came before or claiming holiness or works above or even equal to them. It is simply following God's word. In recognizing that these men and women overcame weaknesses and sins to honor God and receive his grace, and seeing that they too fought the good fight, finished the course and kept the faith, we too may run and win:
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith." Hebrews 12:1-2 (NAB)
5.25.2011 | 12:37pm
Michael Snow says:
"Families and False Prophets" etc.
We seem to be giving false prophets a bad name by using the term so glibly.
As I understand it, Camping made no claim to making a prophecy. Rather, he thinks that he can mechanically figure it out with the numbers.
We ought to call him what he is: A false teacher [with lots of other people's money for publicity].
Secondly [but it ought to be primarily], in my limited reading, I do not see Christiians making the point that we should be seizing this opportunity.
How often do we get a chance like this to broach such a topic with others? We need a call for diligent teachers more than a bemoaning of a "false prophet."
We seem to be giving false prophets a bad name by using the term so glibly.
As I understand it, Camping made no claim to making a prophecy. Rather, he thinks that he can mechanically figure it out with the numbers.
We ought to call him what he is: A false teacher [with lots of other people's money for publicity].
Secondly [but it ought to be primarily], in my limited reading, I do not see Christiians making the point that we should be seizing this opportunity.
How often do we get a chance like this to broach such a topic with others? We need a call for diligent teachers more than a bemoaning of a "false prophet."
5.25.2011 | 1:00pm
Gregory K. Laughlin says:
Maybe Dean, but you really have no solid Scriptural evidence to insist that Mary did sin. Again, the Bible is silent on her sinning. You insist that "full of grace" does not mean she was sinless, even though the Catholic argue that a necessary consequence of being full of grace would be being gifted by God with sinlessness. Yet you then insist that when we read in Romans 3:23 that "all have sinned" it means everyone without exception. In fact, you know it doesn't mean everyone without exception because Scripture also teaches that our Lord never sinned. Further, the same Greek word which we translate as "all" in Romans 3:23 is used in other contexts in Scripture where Protestants will readily admit that it doesn't mean every single one.
So, you are guilty of the exact same thing you accuse Catholics of doing, taking a text of Scripture out of context and using it to prove a point which it wasn't addressing. I am not saying Mary was sinless. I am saying that Scripture doesn't disclose any sins which she may have committed. Indeed, don't you find it notable that the same Scriptures that reveal in all their ugliness the sins of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the sins of Moses, the sins of David, the sins of Peter and the sins of Paul, are silent on any sins which Mary might have committed. At the very least, might that lead you to conclude that our Lord would not dishonor His mother by exposing her sins? And if He would not, should we insist, nonetheless, that she was sinful and go about trying to use His Word to prove it? I can't imagine that our Lord is pleased when we exegete Scripture to cast dishonor on His mother.
So, you are guilty of the exact same thing you accuse Catholics of doing, taking a text of Scripture out of context and using it to prove a point which it wasn't addressing. I am not saying Mary was sinless. I am saying that Scripture doesn't disclose any sins which she may have committed. Indeed, don't you find it notable that the same Scriptures that reveal in all their ugliness the sins of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the sins of Moses, the sins of David, the sins of Peter and the sins of Paul, are silent on any sins which Mary might have committed. At the very least, might that lead you to conclude that our Lord would not dishonor His mother by exposing her sins? And if He would not, should we insist, nonetheless, that she was sinful and go about trying to use His Word to prove it? I can't imagine that our Lord is pleased when we exegete Scripture to cast dishonor on His mother.
5.25.2011 | 2:38pm
Sue Abromaitis says:
Does anyone else see the likeness to the doomsday environmentalists' prophecies in this event? The predictions of an ice age, of global melting, of the population bomb: all have been given credence by the respectable media figures, academics, and politicians. And when a prediction doesn't come about, it is forgotten and forgiven.
Essentially all of this, whether "religious" and secular, is the result of the ever persistent hubris: man is in control, particularly illuminated man.
Essentially all of this, whether "religious" and secular, is the result of the ever persistent hubris: man is in control, particularly illuminated man.
5.30.2011 | 7:58am
Sarah Miller says:
For me, end of the world will not happen as a whole. From the Bible "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the father." It is like saying individual death, your world will be ended when you die, and no one knows when you are going to die. That's how I interpret "end of the world." individual faith.
6.5.2011 | 7:33am
Verdell Shingleton says:
I'm rather sceptical about this eschatological view ("Fortunately, the Christian tradition provides a vision of the end of history ... as a wisdom and a hope"), or rather, its positive interpretation, especially if your compare the directional model (Christianity) to a cyclical one (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.). Weird and uncool? Ir depends on your background. What in the world is a Maronite family like Haddad following the admonitions of anybody besides Maroun or Charbel? For the love of Peter, their native tongues are French, Arabic, and Aramaic. I don't want to be overally hard, so I bookend it with this question. What caused them to stray from the Divine Liturgy?
6.11.2011 | 10:37am
Cissell Heike says:
"Beloved, we are God's children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." - 1 John 3:1-2 (NAB) You missed John 1:14 (NAB): "And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth." Please be careful not to elevate Mary above Jesus, especially when not in accord with Scripture.
7.24.2011 | 1:27pm
Ray says:
Is Matt Crouch of TBN the anti-Christ or, perhaps, the false prophet?
Have we been looking in the wrong direction for these Satanic personalities? Recently, largely as a result of Matt Crouch's disapproval of his methodology of preaching, Jack Van Impe was cancelled from TBN programming. They refused to air one of his programs dealing with Chrislam and a number of false teachers who are promoting it, some on TBN itself, so he voluntarily backed out of any further telecasts involving that network. Also recently, TBN just opened a new broadcast studio right in the middle of Jerusalem to cover Israel. There is a prophetic passage in the Bible that speaks about the abomination of desolation, standing where it ought not, on a wing of the temple which puts a stop to some form of revived ancient Hebrew ritual of daily animal sacrifice. Could this be a reference to some type of Christian influence...pressure, if you will, along with the assistance from animal rights advocate groups to get animal slaughter banned from the prophesied future 3rd Jewish temple during the end times? After all, it is the Christian belief that animal sacrifice is no longer needed, or even accepted anymore, since they believe Jesus Christ was the lamb led to slaughter on the crucifix by the Romans. Is it possible the "wing of the temple" from Daniel 9:27 might be referring to the Christian Quarter of Jerusalem or maybe a section of the temple complex itself, like the West Wing of the White House? There is a general consensus among contemporary theologians that the 3rd Jewish temple mount complex will share the massive foundation sitting above the western wall (wailing wall) with the Islamic controlled Dome of the Rock. Will Christianity demand a collective representation of their religion and set up an image of their own atop this lofty place? Might this be the origin of the prophesied "one world religion" Revelations speaks of, perhaps with a three-tiered legislative constituency made up of Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Judischristlam, if you will? It might be relevent to mention that Matt Crouch is also a young man, which is one of the requirements of the end times false prophet. It yet remains to be seen whether he will assume operational control of that center but I have noticed in watching him that he likes to take the reigns of conversation when the camera is on him. Even his dad and founder of TBN, Paul Crouch, complained (in a submissive way) about his son's arrogant, overbearing tendencies with guests and staff members on the air.
Daniel 9:27 (HCSB)
27 He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator.
Daniel 12:11
11 And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days.
Mark 13:14
14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
Matthew 24 (Christ speaking here even gives the first name of the false prophet)
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Have we been looking in the wrong direction for these Satanic personalities? Recently, largely as a result of Matt Crouch's disapproval of his methodology of preaching, Jack Van Impe was cancelled from TBN programming. They refused to air one of his programs dealing with Chrislam and a number of false teachers who are promoting it, some on TBN itself, so he voluntarily backed out of any further telecasts involving that network. Also recently, TBN just opened a new broadcast studio right in the middle of Jerusalem to cover Israel. There is a prophetic passage in the Bible that speaks about the abomination of desolation, standing where it ought not, on a wing of the temple which puts a stop to some form of revived ancient Hebrew ritual of daily animal sacrifice. Could this be a reference to some type of Christian influence...pressure, if you will, along with the assistance from animal rights advocate groups to get animal slaughter banned from the prophesied future 3rd Jewish temple during the end times? After all, it is the Christian belief that animal sacrifice is no longer needed, or even accepted anymore, since they believe Jesus Christ was the lamb led to slaughter on the crucifix by the Romans. Is it possible the "wing of the temple" from Daniel 9:27 might be referring to the Christian Quarter of Jerusalem or maybe a section of the temple complex itself, like the West Wing of the White House? There is a general consensus among contemporary theologians that the 3rd Jewish temple mount complex will share the massive foundation sitting above the western wall (wailing wall) with the Islamic controlled Dome of the Rock. Will Christianity demand a collective representation of their religion and set up an image of their own atop this lofty place? Might this be the origin of the prophesied "one world religion" Revelations speaks of, perhaps with a three-tiered legislative constituency made up of Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Judischristlam, if you will? It might be relevent to mention that Matt Crouch is also a young man, which is one of the requirements of the end times false prophet. It yet remains to be seen whether he will assume operational control of that center but I have noticed in watching him that he likes to take the reigns of conversation when the camera is on him. Even his dad and founder of TBN, Paul Crouch, complained (in a submissive way) about his son's arrogant, overbearing tendencies with guests and staff members on the air.
Daniel 9:27 (HCSB)
27 He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator.
Daniel 12:11
11 And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days.
Mark 13:14
14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
Matthew 24 (Christ speaking here even gives the first name of the false prophet)
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
12.9.2011 | 2:21am
Iacob says:
At the very least, might that lead you to conclude that our Lord would not dishonor His mother by exposing her sins? And if He would not, should we insist, nonetheless, that she was sinful and go about trying to use His Word to prove it? I can't imagine that our Lord is pleased when we exegete Scripture to cast dishonor on His mother.
Why is there such great need to believe in such negative prophecies in the first place?