/ Topic > Re: Characteristics of a Cult / Date > 1 March 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
] On 25Feb00 Donna Vann replied: Hi Erasmian, I actually had in mind "Jehovah's
] Witnesses" in particular and cults in general.
.
>> erasmian previously sayeth: Dear Rick, JW's you say? What do JW's have to do with prophets?
>> "cults in general" you say? What do cults in general have to do with prophets? I don't see that
>> JW's, cults in general, or even the churches in general, have much to do with prophecy or
>> prophets. If anything, Christianity in general (ie. as it is practiced today by the myriad of
>> apostate churches) is aggressively (often even sadistically) *anti-prophetic*; (which ought
>> to give you a darn good idea just how far the Faith has fallen in 2000 years)!
.
> On 28Feb00 Rick wrote: Hmmm ... well this thread is not about how churches in general,
> unless of course you believe one of the characteristics of cults is to be aggressively
> "anti-prophetic" (no argument there).
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Rick, you may be right about that. I don't know myself, because I've never actually investigated the matter in depth ... I suppose it all depends on how you define a "cult".
.
> When you say JW's have nothing to do with (genuine) prophecy, I will agree. But if you are
> suggesting that they did not make numerous predictions and claimed divine knowledge /
> backing for them, I must disagree strongly.
.
 Oh no, I'm certainly not suggesting *that*!  :)
.
> Now Erasmian, if you do not believe false prophetic speculation is, what do you
> believe are the characteristics of cults?  -- Rick
.
 Oh, well, that's a tough one alright. I can't say that I can give any sort of authoritative answer to this,
but I suppose I can offer a tentative reply ...
.
 If we are referring to specifically Christian "cults", then we are talking about cohesive groups of people who are relatively small in numbers, who hold beliefs and convictions that are contrary to the views of the majority (and are therefore seen as subversive, dangerous, and heretical), and who engage in practices and behaviors that are not quite right (according to the views of the "orthodox" majority).
.
 Now I'm not quite sure just how adequate all this is, since under these criteria even the Quakers and Anabaptists would qualify as cults. Now I don't normally think of these churches as cults, so I'll have to ask you if they qualify under your list of characteristics ... ???
.
 Bear in mind that the early Quakers and Anabaptists were *very* prophetic. In fact, that quality *was* their greatest strength. Today, however, there is not a single solitary prophetic bone to be found anywhere among these once-great believers! Did they therefore start out as genuine churches, and then gradually degenerate into cults as their tradition-breaking gave way to tradition-keeping? ...
.
 Well, these are certainly tough and interesting questions; but perhaps these are the wrong ngz to be asking questions like this. [Note: That's why I've added the Anabaptist ng to this thread. Maybe we'll get an answer from that end; although I won't hold my breath waiting for it.]
.
 Oh, and one more thing: How about the Salvation Army? Couldn't they also be considered a cult? If so, then perhaps we ought to reconsider the wisdom of approaching the cults with an unrelentingly negative and dismissive attitude ... ???

/ Topic > Re: Characteristics of a Cult / Date > 4 March 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
> On 2Mar00 Mark Wilchek wrote: I saw your post on cults and want to say that while the definition
> offered is correct according to the dictionary I disagree with it. A better definition comes from Walter
> Martin's book The Kingdom of the Cults; "A group of people gathered about a specific person or
> person's misinterpretation of the Bible."
.
 erasmian sayeth: Dear Mark, interesting definition. But it may be that Walter's "better definition" is even more biased than mine (or the dictionary's :) as it follows directly from a judgment that must take a stand somewhere. That is to say, we can only say that Mary Baker Eddy's views on scripture are a misinterpretation of the Bible if we already know beforehand where the "correct" interpretation is to be found (eg. with the Magisterium). Such judgments are hardly objective, and are therefore more likely to misunderstand or misrepresent the cult in question.
.
 Moreover, I don't think we can accurately assert that Quakers and Anabaptists and the Salvation Army are made up of people gathered about someone else's interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible. No, there's far more involved than just that. Social structures, ideologies, and an entire world-view is needed to address the big questions that people need answered before they hand over their allegiance ...
.
> I am curious about your reference to churches being prophetic. I would like to respond to it, especially
> in the area concerning Anabaptists. I don't want to say anything until I understand your meaning.
.
 Well, it all stems from my view that the scriptures of the early Greek churches are an authentic expression of the Faith because that faith was thoroughly prophetic in nature. This means that the New Testament itself is also thoroughly prophetic in nature and essence. It is this prophetic character of the Greek scriptures that links them so strongly to the Hebrew scriptures. That is, the continuity between the old faith and the new faith runs straight through the prophets. But after the third century CE, this prophetic character of the Faith was submerged beneath the ascendant priestly dominance of the Christian religion.
.
 And so it remained (more or less) for the next thousand years of church history. But whenever and wherever the scriptures were read without the priestly yoke, there the prophetic character of the Faith reasserted itself; and usually led to a rejection of orthodoxy. Hence the Lollards and Hussites of the 15th century, the Anabaptists of the 16th century, and the Quakers of the 17th century. Menno Simmons was being prophetic when his studies of the NT led him to the conclusion that the Faith of Rome was unbiblical. In the same way, George Fox studied the Word intensely before embarking on his prophetic evangelization of England. All this leads us to conclude that any church that wishes to be a NT-church must (of necessity, as it were) tap into the prophetic roots of the Faith as it is given in the Holy Bible as a whole.

/ Re: Characteristics of a Cult / 15March2000 / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
> On 14Mar00 Mark Wilchek wrote: erasmian, Sorry to take so long to respond.
.
 erasmian replies: Dear Mark, that's quite alright. I don't mind waiting for a considered reply. Just as long as you don't forget about us and leave everyone swinging in the breeze ...  :)
.
> You are right that the definition I used is biased.
.
 Oh ho! And do you also agree that it requires much revision too?
.
> That is because it comes from the view point that we have God's perfectly
> preserved word with us today.
.
 Did you say "perfectly preserved" word? ... "perfectly preserved"?! ... Just what exactly is that supposed to mean? The scriptures are not perfectly preserved in any way, shape, or form; but are, in fact, fairly riddled with mostly minor errors and editorial irregularities such that it is incredibly unrealistic to even suggest that they could be *perfectly* preserved. As you can see, I tend to make distinctions between theological fantasies and the self-evident reality of the *imperfect* and ill-preserved Word of God as we now have it.
.
 Would you like me to prove this point with an example perhaps?
.
> I have been thinking of what to say to make my point; but if we can't agree that the Bible
> we have today, that is to say, the AV 1611 King James Bible,
.
 Oh lordy! My dear Mark, are you unaware of the colossal contradiction that exists in what you just said? The AV *was* today's bible back in the seventeenth century! Biblical scholarship has not stood still for the last three centuries, and (in fact) today's bible is *vastly* superior to the inferior texts of yesteryear. Why should such a simple fact be so difficult for people to accept?  :(
.
> is perfect and without error then we may as well not continue our discussion.
.
 I tend to agree. There is small possibility of having a rational discussion with someone who is so bound and determined to be utterly senseless and absolutely irrational!
.
> Let me ask you this: Who should interpret the Bible, man or God?
.
 Your question is invalid because the scriptures belong to all true believers, and it is for them to read and understand as best they can. Common sense, a contrite and grateful heart, and the grace of the Encourager, can go a long way toward a fruitful interpretation and understanding of the sacred texts. Having said that, however, does not answer all the problems raised, and so a more authoritative interpretation is sometimes required. This can only come from God, of course, but it must (of necessity) come to the People of God by means of men chosen by the Spirit to be the instrument of divine hermeneutics. These men are called prophets; for it is their business to provide a sound, sensible, and faithful interpretation.
.
> Whether it is for one's own self, a Sunday School lesson, or preaching a sermon, interpretations
> belong to God. As we read the Bible we need to be in prayer to God seeking its proper meaning.
.
 It seems to me that what you are suggesting is that each and every Reader, if s/he prays to God, needs nothing else to discover what you call 'the proper meaning'. The history of the Faith shows very clearly that such a view is not only woefully in error, but also childish and arrogant in the extreme. A pious attitude toward the Bible is simply NOT enough! We all require the aid and assistance of experts in the ancient languages, a thorough knowledge of early church history and the history of the Ancient Near East, a more than nodding acquaintance with textual criticism and the other biblical sciences, and various other skills and know-how that bible scholars must cultivate. Not all believers are scholars, and so the wise ones seek out the best of them to help them read the scriptures well. But scholars are also limited and fallible, and no one of them can master the whole of the Bible.
.
 Therefore an authoritative interpretation cannot be found in the isolated (albeit incredibly pious) individual believer, nor in the bible scholars who carefully study the texts, nor in the leaders of the churches (be it magisterium or your local minister). No. Authoritative interpretations belong to God, as you suggest. But God offers them to the People of God by way of his good slaves, the prophets. So unless you know yourself to be a prophet, don't ever imagine that you have the power within yourself to always and infallibly discern the 'proper meaning'. Such an arrogant attitude comes straight out of pride and vanity; and coming out of sin can only lead you into more sin. The charism of authoritative interpretation belongs *only* to those whom God has chosen to serve in just this special way.
.
> I'm curious to see your response before we continue.
.
 Well, here you have it. And while I'm sure that my answers will not satisfy you, I urge you consider carefully the things I have said above, and how they agree with the spirit and letter of the scriptures as a whole. As a prophet I can only warn you that if you choose to dismiss my message in favor of your own opinions, you do so at your own very great peril.

P.S. About this time the LORD commanded a prophet to say to a friend, "Hit me!" But the friend refused,
and the prophet told him, "You disobeyed the LORD, and as soon as you walk away, a lion will kill you."
The friend left, and suddenly a lion killed him. 1Kings 20:35-36

/ Topic > Re: True vs. Questionable Prophecy / Date > 8 March 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
> On 13Feb00 Michael Dean wrote: I have seen many posts on this newsgroup about the words of
> Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce, among others, but these two are the most prominent. Neither of
> these men submitted to the authority of the Catholic Church regarding their predictions.
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Michael, and just why the hell should they do something like that?
.
> They are not prophets.
.
 That's true. They are far more like fortune-tellers than prophets.
.
> They may have been given insights into the future, or they may not have.
> But they are not prophets in the sense that we accept prophecy.
.
 That's also true. Christian prophecy is very quite different from pagan prophecy. Hence, for example, Savonarola was a prophet, NOT a fortune-teller. And how does the Roman Catholic Church deal with true Christian prophets such as this? Why, they burn them alive, of course!
.
> The Pope, and the Pope alone, is the final judge of all prophetic revelation.
.
 Since when? Did the NT prophets of Egypt ask permission of the (then non-existent) pope before they went ahead and wrote Hebrews, James, Jude, and 2Peter? Did John of Patmos ask the pope's leave to go ahead and write the Apocalypse? No they didn't. So just when exactly did the pope become "the final judge of all prophetic revelation"?
.
> Thus, to fail to submit to the authority of the Pope is the mark of a false prophet.
.
 That's funny. I simply can't imagine any true prophet submitting to the authority of the Pope; (as if the prophet were brother to the spineless sniveling priest). Perhaps you meant to say: 'Thus, to submit to the authority of the Pope is the mark of a false prophet.' I think that's what you meant to say. Please be more careful in future.
.
> There is at least one living, bona fide prophetess in the world -- Sister Lucia, of Fatima.
.
 Oh yeah? And just what sort of prophetic work has she done lately?
.
 btw: It seems to me that a much better candidate for a modern RCC prophet is none other than John Henry Newman; who was not only a great visionary, but also an outstanding scholar to boot. Moreover, it is surely significant that the church chooses (for the most part) to ignore Newman; hence his current 'venerable' status. Thus the church has nowhere implemented John Henry's expansive ideas about universities; but rather has them everywhere remain what they have always been (ie. training schools for their favored ones, the intellectual elite and the practical leadership).
.
> Since the apparition
.
 What do apparitions have to do with prophecy? Methinks that thou art considerably confused about prophecy, sir!
.
> of Fatima has been declared to be authentic,
.
 By an anti-christ, let us not forget ...
.
> we can also believe that the messages confided to Sister Lucia are authentically from
> the Mother of God, the Queen of Prophets.
.
 So Mary is not only the Mother of God, but now she is the "Queen of Prophets" too?! Not bad for an ignorant peasant girl who hadn't the vaguest idea what her eldest son was all about. Oh, it's not that the Romish Cat Anti-Church idolizes Mary; oh no, perish the thought!

/ Re: True vs. Questionable Prophecy / 10March2000 / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
] On 13Feb00 Michael Dean wrote: I have seen many posts on this newsgroup about the words of
] Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce, among others, but these two are the most prominent. Neither of
] these men submitted to the authority of the Catholic Church regarding their predictions. <snip>
 .
>> erasmian answered: Dear Michael, and just why the hell should they do something like that? <snip>
 .
> On 8Mar00 Joseph Geloso wrote: dear jerk, It was me who wrote that, not Michael.
> Get your facts straight.
.
 erasmian replies: Dear Joseph, my facts are (almost) always straight. This is not a matter of facts, but a matter of quotes. The post I answered showed that Michael forwarded these words, so if in fact you wrote them, then you can thank Mr Dean for the mix-up. No big deal in any case, since nothing much was said.
.
>> erasmian: That's also true. Christian prophecy is very quite different from pagan prophecy.
>> Hence, for example, Savonarola was a prophet,
.
> JG: Who?
.
 Don't know much about the history of the RCC, do you, Jo? ...
.
 Most Cats revel in their ignorance; because it makes their faith *strong*, of course!
.
>> e: <snip> Did the NT prophets of Egypt ask permission of the (then non-existent)
>> pope before they went ahead and wrote Hebrews, James, Jude, and 2Peter?
.
> Duh? Peter was very much alive,
.
 Peter was very much dead by the time of the Fall of Jerusalem at the very latest, so it's rather unlikely that he wrote First *or* Second Peter. And besides all that, Peter was never a pope. Being an apostle was quite sufficient for him (and Jesus); (but NOT for the Cats)!
.
> and after him, Linus, etc ...
.
 Ah yes, the episcopal fantasy called 'apostolic succession' ... Where oh where would the RCC be without that? ... Up the creek without a paddle, I expect.  :)
.
> there was never a Church before the Papacy,
.
 Discounting all the early Greek churches (and also the Aramaic church of Jerusalem) is something that Cats do often and well. What a terrible pity that the early Christian scriptures were written in Greek, rather than in Latin ... As they *should* have been! ... Right, Jo?
.
> since the Church was founded ON the Pope. (Rock)
.
 The churches were (and are) founded on faith in the Son of Man (as the texts in question proclaim). btw: 'pope' does not mean 'rock' but rather 'papa'. And what does the NT say about those who would call themselves our 'father'? ... Oh, I better not tell you, lest you accuse me of lying!
.
>> Did John of Patmos ask the pope's leave to go ahead and write the Apocalypse? No they didn't.
.
> Says you -- with no evidence.
.
 All the evidence is there in the texts, Joseph. You'd know this if you took the time to study the Word of God; instead of mouthing off about things that you obviously know nothing about.
.
>> <snip> So just when exactly did the pope become "the final judge of all prophetic revelation"?
.
> When Christ gave Saint Peter the keys.
.
 And just where are these marvelous keys now, O Wise One?
.
] JG: Thus, to fail to submit to the authority of the Pope is the mark of a false prophet.
.
>> erasmain: That's funny. <snip remainder due to Jo's hatchet-job editing>
.
> JG: No, it's not. It's deadly serious.
.
 Oh yeah? Well if it's *so* "deadly serious" how come your beloved Catechism makes no mention of it?
.
> Here is prophecy: You are in grave error.
.
 That's not prophecy, Joseph; that's merely a simple judgment. And a rather poor judgment at that; if you don't mind my saying so.
.
> You try to fight against God, Himself.
.
 And just how does that work anyway? Am I to understand that the RCC is now the equivalent of God? That (in some mysterious way) the RCC *IS* a manifestation of God? ... That would explain a lot. It explains that Cats are shameless idolaters. Geez, I'm shocked beyond measure. Someone please send me a Valium, or I'll never calm down!

P.S. "Do not be carried away by all sorts of strange teachings. For it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not ritual meals, which have never benefited those who participated in them." -- Hebrews 13:9 / NETbible

/ Re: True vs. Questionable Prophecy / 13March2000 / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
] erasmian previously wrote: <snip> So just when exactly did the pope become
] "the final judge of all prophetic revelation"?
.
>>> Jo previously answered: When Christ gave Saint Peter the keys.
.
>> e: And just where are these marvelous keys now, O Wise One?
.
> On Mar11 Joseph Geloso replied: In the hands of John Paul II, of course.
> But you knew I was going to say that.
.
 erasmian answers: Yes, but I must confess that I've never actually seen JP2 with these keys in his hands ...
.
 Are they invisible keys, perhaps?

/ Re: True vs. Questionable Prophecy / 15March2000 / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
>> erasmian said: <snip> Are they invisible keys, perhaps?
.
> On 14Mar00 Joseph Geloso replied: Pretty obviously so -- as far as I am aware.
> They are spiritual keys -- obviously.
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Joseph, invisible spiritual keys, you say? Hey, if these were the keys to an invisible spiritual Buick, how could you tell?
.
 But seriously, its curious that Cats should so often criticize Fundies for being overly-literal in their reading of the scriptures, when they do exactly the same thing whenever it strikes their fancy. This is a good example of this. It ought to be apparent to all that these "invisible spiritual keys" are meant to be symbolic; and yet Cats firmly believe that these "invisible spiritual keys" actually exists in the same way that the moon does. Except, of course, that the moon is neither invisible nor spiritual. In reality, however, these "invisible spiritual keys" have as much real existence as your average unicorn. Which is to say: none whatsoever!
.
 The lesson to be learned from all this is thus quite plain. While the Lord's prophets claim the Holy Spirit as the foundation of all their authority, the Romish Cat Anti-Church builds its excessive claims and worldly demands upon things that have no real existence; such as "invisible spiritual keys".
.
 A word to the wise, Jo: Get out while the getting's still good; because the time is coming soon when it'll be too late to exercise that option. And then there'll be much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth!

/ Re: True vs. Questionable Prophecy / 19March2000 / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
>>> erasmian previously wrote: <snip all of it almost>
>>> - the one who builds upon solid foundations - erasmian ;>
.
>> On 16Mar00 Mrs. Michael replied: By what I've read here.....erasmian:  get a different contractor.
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Mrs. Michael, wut? . . . The Lord just doesn't cut it for you?
.
>> Yours is pulling the old 'solid foundation' trick upon you! -- Mrs. Michael......
.
 Mine is the CornerStone, the Rock, the Solid Bedrock upon which all that is of genuine faith is built.
.
>> p.s. You can't think in the 'spirit' about spiritual things can you?
.
 I think in the spirit all the time, thank you very much indeed. Of course this means that I acknowledge the power and necessity of spiritual realities. That's why I'm also well aware that these alleged invisible spiritual keys are nowhere to be found among these spiritual realities. But they are first in line in the spiritual fantasies department. Too bad Cats can't tell the difference, eh?
.
>>> erasmian wrote: <snip> In reality, however, these "invisible spiritual keys" have as
>>> much real existence as your average unicorn. Which is to say: none whatsoever! <snip>
.
> On 16Mar00 Joseph Geloso wrote: So -- Jesus Christ was lying to Saint Peter?
> Trying to trick him, and us?
.
 Not at all. Your problem is that you are unable to distinguish historical realities from later legendary embellishments. The incident you refer to did not actually happen in real life. It is a fictitious event created by the author of Matthew's Gospel to address certain issues and problems facing his churches in Syria in the 80's of the first century. This is not really a difficult concept to grasp ... IF you put your mind to it.
.
 Look at it this way: If the incident in question actually happened in real life, then it's rather unlikely that Peter would forget it, right? Yet Peter did not bother to mention anything like this in his and Mark's gospel. Why not? Did it did simply slip his mind perhaps? Given the overriding importance placed upon these verses it seems unlikely that Peter could just forget about it. The only rational conclusion to draw is that Peter did not mention it because nothing like this actually happened to him. Thus it is a fictional episode after the manner of Luke's pious building up and magnifying of everything, and having no convergence with actual historical events.
.
 These keys, you see, are a Matthean invention. They are not invisible spiritual keys, but merely fictional literary keys.