DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay:

I guess that there was a good reason that i went to our weekly Lenten Disciples in Mission prayer group this evening, and then immediately upon getting home, I put the NCAA championship basketball game on the TV. I have just tuned into it for a few minutes, but will probably not waste my time for too long.

I suspected that this ABC show would turn out to be tripe and trash by the time it was done...you have confirmed my suspicions and put my mind at ease. Thanks for 'taking a bullet' for me and watching the show. At least I now know I didn't miss much.

Believers don't make news shows interesting for the networks, sensationalism does. Sad but true.

God Bless,

John

Jay,

When the devil knows that his time is almost up, he will pull out all desperate attempts. That has been Satan's MO since Genesis. To pull mankind away from God.
Regardless God's will shall be done.
I didn't see the show either thanks to the NCAA's, but from what you posted, it reminds me of an episode of Phil Donohue. He used to have a talk show on MSNBC. Anyways, the topic was "Can you get to heaven without Christ"
The panel included a messianic jew, a jew, and 3 pastors from various churches. One of the pastors held the view that he does not know how God will judge a man based on whether he accepted Christ or not. To make a long story short, Phil Donohue lost it. Any comment that was pro Christ whether from the audience or the panel drew quite a response from Phil. Suprisingly(to Phil), the majority of the audience was pro Christ. If he was not rudely cutting the audience short during their comments (the pro Christ portion), he was blowing up and turning red. I would even say that during that episode, Phil blasphemed the name of the Lord.
The messianic jew and the 2 pastors, who were supportive of the FACT that the way to the father is through Christ, stood firm in agreement with each other as well as with the audience(the pro Christ portion)in letting Phil know the truth, one pastor seemingly prophetically warned Phil that he keeps missing on his chances to accept Christ and asked why does he keep fighting it. Phil completely lost it, throwing his hands up and covering his ears. It was as if the truth was hurting him.
Well as of today, Phil has no show. It was cancelled. Is it punishment for Phil? I believe not. I think that the Lord is working Phil Donohue so that Phil will hit rock bottom, and finally look up. We do, after all, serve a almighty, merciful, loving God.

God Bless

Marc

Jay, I disagree with your assessment of Peter Jennings’ “Jesus and Paul” telecast wholeheartedly. This was the very best line-up of biblical scholars I’ve seen to date when it comes to one of these “Jesus” shows that have been cropping up (especially during Easter) over the past few years. Even Crossan is tolerable (barely though, I admit) if one recognizes that he works from a perspective of historical-critical positivism that is methodologically flawed when it comes to getting at even the “historical Jesus.” He almost can’t help but come to the conclusions that he does…as WRONG as I think he is too!!!

With respect to the (other) scholars being “liberal” – this might be so, relatively speaking. But then, who is to say that it is not possible for a “liberal” scholar (relatively speaking) to be a “believer”? You seem to suggest that “liberal” scholars cannot be believers. I know for a fact that E.P. Sanders is a confessing Christian (1) believing Jesus was God; (2) believing the Bible was inspired by God; and (3) is respected as a theologian – though, Sanders himself is humble about this, preferring to be referred to as a historian. And N.T. Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England, is a Christian too – a powerful and moving evangelist of the gospel! Both of these fellows are two of the most prominent Historical Jesus scholars working today. Follow this URL to read George Weigel’s glowing assessment of Wright’s latest book “The Resurrection of the Son of God” http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=1&art_id=20912

I do think that Jennings’ suggestion – via a couple of the scholars’ opinions – that Paul founded the Church is certainly a strange exaggeration that is held as true by a small minority – a minority even among “liberal” scholars. Paul was however, the principle apostle to the Gentiles, though Peter was the first to bring the message to “the Nations” according to Acts 10. And there is evidence even in Paul’s letters that there was some friction between his Gospel (Paul makes reference to “his” Gospel often) and that of other Jewish believers in Jesus Messiah – but this is because Paul’s (version of the) Gospel was being taken to the Gentiles for whom circumcision, dietary restrictions, a festival observances formed a considerable hurdle. The Judaic Christians – Peter, James, John et al back in Jerusalem – continued following such observances of Torah well after Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, it wasn’t until the “Church” became principally Gentile in character that circumcision, etc. was abandoned entirely by Christianity – cf. the concessions made at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 well before belief in Jesus Messiah became primarily Gentile in character, and so broke away from its Jewish roots. This is not garbage! This is the story of the workings of the Holy Spirit.

I just don’t think it is fair to jettison Jennings’ show simply because it did not offer a “biblical literalist” perspective.

Jack,
It went much further than that. Most of the scholars were "Jesus Seminar" types, like Crossan, which basically believe very little of the Bible. I don't require a literalist perspective, but they didn't believe one word of the Bible - it was comical. From pointing out that Judas probably wasn't a real person (based solely on his name which was a common name in that period) to running through the nonsense that the trial of Christ wasn't anything like the Biblical accounts, this show was far from objective. All I'm asking is for one Scott Hahn (who I know you have issues with) or Fr. Fessio. Is that too much to ask?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
I understand your frustration with Crossan – and especially since he always seems to get invited to do programs like Jennings’ (what else is one to do in one’s retirement, I suppose?). Something positive about him though, is that he forces you to think about what you think you believe and what you think you know about the Bible ( I include myself among the “you”). Generally speaking though, most of the scholars that Jennings spoke with do historical reconstruction of Jesus, Judaism, and the early believers in Jesus Messiah, but with diverse results – not all of them conclude that Judas probably did not exist. Indeed, there are many “liberal” NT scholars who are not Christians and do think that Judas probably did exist. [NB: it is good history to use the word “probably” – whether or not the historian believes something was in fact, the case. Doing good historical reconstruction requires probabilities and not certitudes. However, when one shifts into doing theology, experience of the risen Christ is everything!]

Regarding Jesus’ trial, the historian must consider evidence from outside the context of 1st Century faith in Jesus Messiah when doing historical reconstruction. Thus, consideration of Jewish sources – Mishnah esp., as well as the Hebrew Scriptures, sheds some relevant light on how 1st century Jewish trials were conducted by the Sanhedrin. It is from such sources, taken along with the NT, that many scholars think that the Gospel accounts may not have been interested in correctly articulating how a Sanhedrin trial should be held, if, yes, even held at all. No NT scholar will claim that this was the aim of any of the Gospel writers! The NT theologian, on the other hand, need only look to the Gospel texts to learn, to KNOW that God’s salvific work through the death of Jesus Christ, was forwarded via very mundane, human means – a number of the Judean Religious leaders who were threatened (somehow) by what Jesus said or did, collaborated with the Romans who had Jesus summarily executed – for the sins of the world!

I personally would love to see Scott Hahn on a show like this. He is a scholar and a theologian on fire for the Gospel! I don’t know why you think I have issues with him (unless, as I am suspecting, you somehow know more about me than I know you know; do I know you Jay?). ALthough Hahn and I had brief correspondence in the late ‘90s re: his work on covenant, I’ve nothing but admiration for Hahn’s good work. I think that Wright’s presence on the show filled the shoes that Hahn might have, though indeed from an Anglican perspective. As I said in the last post, Wright’s faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ burns at least as hot as Hahn’s. Though, as it would be for Wright, one would be hard pressed to fill shoes fitted for Hahn.

In Jesus and Mary!

I like your review, Jay. I had all of those thoughts exactly.

But I think I may have spotted a new post-Passion trend. I thought the tone of the special was decidedly more respectful of Jesus than I am used to seeing. It still wasn't respectful enough for me but I thought there was definite improvement as in they often gave the conservative opinion the last word before moving on. However, when it came to Paul it seemed like open season. i wonder if they think that they'll be able to get away with questioning Paul's character and own testimony if they are only more respecful of Jesus.

My answer would have to be NOPE! I also turned the show off in disgust. Do you think that just once someone could start with an assumption other than, "this stuff can't be true so what really happened?" ?? Is it really so hard??

Hi,

Imagine someone believing in an all merciful god, all merciful in a way that when angered He wipes out every man, women, and innocent child on the planet without batting an eye. Now imagine that same person who believes this, calling historians bound by what they know and learn as being non-objective.

Truth is believing you know nothing at all.

Be good, do onto others, and when the time comes, we'll all meet in heaven. But remember the ceturies of unfortunate prejudice and discrimination that "organized belief" brings to the earth and how it can distort even the most obvious facts. Concentrate on being good, not spreading anyone's word. In the end, it will accomplish so much more.

Hi,

Imagine someone believing in an all merciful god, all merciful in a way that when angered He wipes out every man, women, and innocent child on the planet without batting an eye. Now imagine that same person who believes this, calling historians bound by what they know and learn as being non-objective.

Truth is believing you know nothing at all.

Be good, do onto others, and when the time comes, we'll all meet in heaven. But remember the ceturies of unfortunate prejudice and discrimination that "organized belief" brings to the earth and how it can distort even the most obvious facts. Concentrate on being good, not spreading anyone's word. In the end, it will accomplish so much more.

Acts 15:1-20 shows that it was Peter, not Paul, who first instructed against the requirement of circumcision [mistakenly credited to Paul by Jennings] for gentiles after Peter received a vision from the Holy Spirit that also instructed that strict, Jewish food laws were now nullifed. Moreover, after this instruction, Acts 16:3, Paul then violated this new rule when he circumcised Timony before travelling with him.
Thomas Jefferson said of Paul that he created a religion about Jesus not about what Jesus taught. Jefferson also wrote in the margin of his great work about Jesus (found in the Smithsonian) that the separation of church and state is not to protect the church from the state but to protect the state from the "corrosive religion of Paul".

John 14: 6 - 7l A simple man of Truth said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him and have seen him." When will Civilized man realize what Jesus of Nazareth realized and preached -- That God is Truth. Love is Oneness with Truth. When duality ceases -- LOVE IS. In that eternal moment we are all Sons of God, indeed Christs. However, through powerful Satanic institutions of mindcontrol and belief headed by Scholars and Priests, man has been cursed to muddle through life worshipping the false "god" of intellect with all of its conflicting images all the while eschewing TRUTH which is evident all around yet hidden in plain sight from the Spiritual blind. As such, civilized man has "Fallen from Grace" and suffers from Amnesia of his True Estate.

Raymond Karczewski--A Christ Without Amnesia

Raymond (and Bob),
One question: why does the Bible refer to the Church (which you call a "satanic institution") as the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15)? Why does the Bible say that "through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known" (Eph 3:8-10)?

Actually Satan wins when he convinces humans that organized religion is evil or that institutions are bad. In this way, he pulls people out of the Church Jesus founded (Matt 16:18) so that they form their own religion based on misguided understanding of the Bible. TRUTH is only found in the Catholic Church (the oral Word) and the Bible (the written Word).

God bless,
Jay

I'm sorry to everyone to open a side discussion but please bear with me a sec.

Bob,

You said "Imagine someone believing in an all merciful god, all merciful in a way that when angered He wipes out every man, women, and innocent child on the planet without batting an eye"

It seems to me that you have completely missed the point of the Biblical story of the Flood. Since it might help you to understand The Bible better, I thought that I would chime in with a couple of answers to your statement.

The Jews did not invent the Flood story. It is found in the native mythology of almost every culture in the world. It was particularly prevalent in the Middle East where it seems to be something like a race memory of a great flood, possibly of the Black Sea bursting its banks. It was believed by all in that region to be irrefutable fact before ever a Jewish author attempted to put the Jewish version on paper.

But the Jewish story is drastically different in many of its details. And the Jewish God, our God, as he is represented in this Biblical story is also drastically different from any other contemporary depictions of wrathful gods sending floods. He differs from them in the following three ways.

1) Given that for them The Flood was a historical fact, the Jews were felt bound to put forward an explaination for such a terrible event as so many had before them. But their answer was unique in that the god in their story was concerned about the morality of humanity. In it, God becomes angry about mankinds lying and stealing and murder etc. He cares about how we treat one another.

2) The Jewish God, our God, is the first in recorded history to make an unbreakable promise to His creatures that He would never destroy the earth again in anger. Unlike any other known god in history, our God voluntarily limits Himself for the sake of future generations.

3) The Jewish God, our God, is the first diety to make a promise not only to protect the "in" group, the Jews, from Himself. He also vows to protect absolutely everyone outside of that group as well. The God of the Bible is was the first to cross that line dividing tribal God from tribal God to show respect for all people.

These three characteristics represent a staggering advance in the moral understanding of humanity. Christians attribute such inexplicable leaps in understanding to revealation. In other words, we believe that regardless of the circumstances surrounding the writing of the The Flood story, our God used that author to reveal many truths about Himself to us.

The Jewish God is the first and only deity to possess all of these qaulities. He cares about human decency more than He cares about mindless propitiation. He makes and keep promises, making Him the only God who is Himself moral. He not only has regrets for His tempestuous acts, he also admits that He regrets. Lastly, He expresses an undying constant love for all His Creation.

But you can only see something negative in the Flood story. I suggest that you go back and read the Bible again with the above thoughts in mind. I hope that you would appreciate the ultimate point that God's written Word is trying to make when it includes such stories.

Sorry for the long post. I hope it helps you.

Jay,
My answer to you and all other institutionally conditioned blind believers is what do you know but for what you have been conditioned to know by those in whom you have placed your trust? Have you not heard the adage "The Sins of the Fathers shall be visited upon their sons?" As a child you were conditioned by your parents who were conditioned by their parent, and their parents, and their parents, etc., etc., etc. That conditioning has been an unbroken string even unto the present moment in time. Hell, wasn't it?

Raymond Karczewski -- A Christ Without Amnesia

Raymond,
You ignored my question, Raymond. Is the Bible a "institutionally conditioned blind believer"? The Bible is clear, even if you misinterpret it. I'm not "institutionally conditioned" - I'm a convert to Catholicism after studying for years and being lead by the Holy Spirit to the True Church. I hope you find the way as well.

But in the meantime, please explain why the Bible contradicts your position.

God bless,
Jay

Raymond,

j: > You ignored my question, Raymond. Is the Bible a "institutionally conditioned blind believer"?

rk: Jay, your question presupposes that I ever claimed an inert book to be a "institutionally conditioned blind believer" Please point to the evidence in my writing that such statement was ever made. In the meantime, I shall not argue with you over your self-projected fantasy. To do that is the very essence of "Resisting Evil."

j: > The Bible is clear, even if you misinterpret it.

rk: How can that which is misinterpreted BE CLEAR? A book is a book is a book is a book. No matter how you attempt to dress it up, it is still a book. A book is a compilation of words written by men. In the Bible's case, it was a book written under the patronage and direction of powerful worldly leaders espousing a particular view, both religious and political in nature. The power of words are Satanic (opposing) in nature, for they depend on interpretation. Through such "influenced interpretation," they divide peoples. Division is the cause of all of the worldly ills and suffering that mankind has, and continues to endure.
Wholeness is the Essence of Divine Intelligence, of Truth, of Love, of God. Division, fragmentation, contradiction is the glitched essence of SATAN, the petty "god" of thought, of Intellect.

j: > I'm not "institutionally conditioned" - I'm a convert to Catholicism after studying for years and being lead by the Holy Spirit to the True Church.

rk: So you converted from one system of thought to another system of thought. Is not conversion a synonym for "institutionally conditioned"? Are you not still immersed in such fragmenting thought, though it be superficially different? Do you not still worship and promote the petty "god" of thought? Are you even aware that the "god" of thought is SATAN? You see, jay, such ignorance rules the world of blindly believing, Civilized Man.

j: > I hope you find the way as well.

rk: Any "way" undertaken leads searchers to the partial, never to the whole. There is no "way" that one may take to grasp the whole, the Infinite. There is only WHAT IS, and one either sees it or does not. The whole, the Infinite, is revealed when all searching (partial interpretation) comes to an end.

j: > But in the meantime, please explain why the Bible contradicts your position.

rk: Nice try at misdirection! Have you not understood the adage "Resist Not Evil?"

God bless,
Jay

rk: Jay, In view of the "particular" letter-of-the-word focus of your silly, obfuscating questions posed in this communication, your "positive imaged" closure of "God bless" rings hollow at best.

Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- -- A Christ without Amnesia

So, Raymond, what do you base your beliefs upon?

God bless,
Jay

So, Raymond, what do you base your beliefs upon?

God bless,
Jay

rk: Belief is a Lazy Man's Truth!! Ignoramuses
tarry at the level of belief, never understanding
that which exists beyond such hypnotically induced beliefs.

Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- -- A Christ without Amnesia

So basically, Raymond, you believe that you alone have the truth? And we should simply follow your rantings?

It seems that you can offer nothing to substantiate why you are correct and I am wrong. I can know that I am following the truth, because God Himself guaranteed it in the Church. You can only hope that what you invent is correct.

God bless,
Jay

Hi Jay,

Even though we have are moments. The True Christ answers people like Ray:

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called:

Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here [is] Christ, or there; believe [it] not.

Mat 24:24 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.

So how do we know that Ray is not conditioned ny society?

Ray,

I am at your website and listening to your RAM and WAV files

Very interesting,

I am conditioned by Christ to pray for you.

Simon

God is Truth -- Satan is Illusion

Jay wrote:

Raymond Karczewski (arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote:

j: > So basically, Raymond, you believe that you alone have the truth? And we should simply follow your rantings?

rk: No, not at all! I merely place the obvious Truth right under the unaware noses of blind believers, and they will either awaken to it or not.

j: It seems that you can offer nothing to substantiate why you are correct and I am wrong.

rk: What is offered in our interaction, and what your present dualistic time-bound SATANIC intellect is unable to grasp, is the actual nondualistic energy of "WHAT IS" observed to be unfolding in the eternal, timeless moment of NOW. It is only a quiet, non-chattering consciousness which allows the blessed recipient to discern the difference between holistic truth and dualistic, fragmented belief. Read your own comments. Is it not you who has introduced the dualistic judgment of "correct" and "wrong" into this dialogue?

rk: You may go back to my comments in this thread and/or scour the Google archives over the last eight years of writing. I challenge you to find any such preemptive, projected divisiveness arising from my keyboard. The divisiveness experienced in this and other communication is the reflection of the image which stands mirrored by a simple man of Truth, a Christ.

rk: Satanic intellects do not take such mirroring lightly. With lightning speed, such satanic consciousness react with their own self-damnation (their mirrored actions), rush to lay their judgment off onto the pristine Mirror of Truth which only reflect that which stands before it. That rush to judgment is their escape from exercising self-responsibility. That rush to judgment imprisons them in the psychological cell of DENIAL. A mirror is a mirror. Does it not merely reflect what stands before it?

rk: However, a favorite ploy of Satanic (Intellect) worshipping minions, oft-seen on these newsgroups and forums is the erection of a secondary distorted mirror, one which accurately depicts their present state of glitched consciousness so as to misdirect attention, twist and evade the primary, pristinely clear reflection shown by the nondualistic mirror of Truth. Test it for yourself, place opposing mirrors facing each other. One clear, the other smudged. See for yourself, if it is not the smudge that is reflected, ad infinitum.

j: > I can know that I am following the truth, because God Himself guaranteed it in the Church. You can only hope that what you invent is correct.

rk: Jay, until you and millions of other blind believers who follow their own blind leaders, come to understand the flakey foundation of your heavily religious conditioned belief system to be SATANIC (dualistic) in nature, your spiritual life has about the same chances for spiritual survival as the proverbial snowball in the heat of hades.

rk: The awakening to SATANIC mind control is the beginning of the Resurrection of the nondualistic Spirit of Divine Intelligence.

rk: Jay, presently your divisive religious conditioning does not allow you to see such simple Truth.

Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- A Christ Without Amnesia

God bless,
Jay

Jay, I am actually appalled with your statement that "no real believer" was on this show. You are nuts and wrong. I personally know several of these men and they "know Jesus Christ as their personal Savior" It is your type of judging when you really don't know what your talking about that gives Christians a bad name. It is one thing to know what your talking about and then judge. It is a far different matter to not know and still judge. May the Holy Spirit of God forgive you. In Christ, Walt Keib

Jay, I am actually appalled with your statement that "no real believer" was on this show. You are nuts and wrong. I personally know several of these men and they "know Jesus Christ as their personal Savior" It is your type of judging when you really don't know what your talking about that gives Christians a bad name. It is one thing to know what your talking about and then judge. It is a far different matter to not know and still judge. May the Holy Spirit of God forgive you. In Christ, Walt Keib

Jay, I am actually appalled with your statement that "no real believer" was on this show. You are nuts and wrong. I personally know several of these men and they "know Jesus Christ as their personal Savior" It is your type of judging when you really don't know what your talking about that gives Christians a bad name. It is one thing to know what your talking about and then judge. It is a far different matter to not know and still judge. May the Holy Spirit of God forgive you. In Christ, Walt Keib

Walt,
You're correct - I worded that improperly. I didn't mean that no real Christian was on the show - I have no right to judge these people in this way. I meant that virtually everyone on the show came across as not believing the Bible was the infallible, inspired Word of God. This may have been in the way ABC presented their arguments, but the show was clearly a condemnation of those (like me) who believe the Bible is infallible. Point after point, Peter Jennings and his band of "theologians" decided that the Bible was incorrect. Point after point, they referred to extra-Biblical writings as "probably more correct." There may have been true "Bible-believers" on the show, but if so the editors removed any semblence of it from the presentation. This is my issue, I didn't mean to imply that those on the show did not believe in God or Christ. My apologies.

God bless,
Jay

Look what I found on Usenet! It is an FAQ about Raymond Karczewski.

Whoops, your board doesn't post the URLs...

http://tinyurl.com/3dxwz

A note an bRay Karczewski: Take him up on his
challenge to read his Google archives.

You'll note that there, as here, he doesn't "do" dialogues, he just uses your previous post to contradict you and expound upon his own "rightness".

You'll discover that he has seven felony convictions (He thinks that they "don't count" because he didn't agree to be prosecuted), and
tried to file a phoney lien on one person to the tune of $1.7 Billion - for posting bRay's name.

I haven't researched Roy Masters, but rumor has
it that the Kazoo 'lifted' most of his screed from Roy.

But don't take my word for it, read the archives
and get your own take on him. (_I_ think that he's an arrogant, hate-filled nutjob, but that's just me - go read for yourself)

Pray for help - Ray's real fond of forums.
He's already dug in on some Bravenet forums, and
once there, he generally doesn't leave. he's got staying power, as he's been on this kick for 8-9 years now, and of course he's on Usenet.

Also be advised that he will post your replies elsewhere without your knowledge or consent.

If you would like more info, ask in at AFA-B,
or Alt.usenet.kooks. The Kazoo is well known
in both.

Have a Nice Day.

Bookman

And on top of what "Bookman" stated Raymond has been literally BANNED from dozens upon dozens of web sites.

I realize that the Christian thing to do would be to firgive him. But in his case, he is delibertely rude, and causes so many problems between people, and he lies on a continuous basis, that I'm afraid forgiving is out of the question.

He calles himself a "Christ" but is in reality much closer to Satan.

I'm sorry you had to even hear the vile things that come out of his mouth. Hopefully, we won't be hearing them muck longer. He has been just asking for that eigth felony for months now.

Bless you all, Kathy L. Dean
pS...I live near him and he has been stalking me for about 3 months now. Plug into Google "Arkent3 , Kathy" please. BTW, all statements you read there against me are fabricated.

Post a comment