Note by Me: I don't agree with Craig on the NT and OT because even secular history validated on how accurately perserved the OT and NT is. The NT has over 20,000 copies making it the most perserved ancient document in history. If the NT is a fraud, then all ancient scripts from Babylon to ancient Rome are frauds. Tiberias, the Jewish explusion from Rome, the Augustine census, the existence of Jesus (proven by ancient Roman historians and even the talmud), and Herod the Great mentioned in the NT have been validated by historians. Also, the OT does specify how old the Earth or the Universe is. Since light travels in trillions of years, the universe is extreme old by that simple example.
By Timothy
_________________________
Dear Eric,
I disagree with much of your writings below. I totally believe the New Testament to be a complete fraud almost completely contradicting the Old Testament. I also believe Luther was a Rosicrucian and the evidence for this is tremendous. Regardless of wether Freemasonry is illuminised or not, it has nothing to do with any bible teachings you follow. Their God is not your God and never has been from day one of the Masonic teachings. Their God is Lucifer period wether so-called illuminised or not. The King James Bible is no where near the be all and end all. Yes it's the be all and end all of the true history on Earth which it's hidden. It's utter nonsense to believe this World is only what 6000 years old? Crazy but yet again when you realise who created it finally then you can understand why they would write themselves out of history completely. I know I would do exactly the same if it were me in their shoes.
Thankyou
Craig Oxley
"The Unhived Mind"
--------------------------------------
Eric,
Greetings, just a brief question. I have read some of the information on your website linking to Luciferian Freemasonry.
On Craig Oxley website, I have read many of your posts, and you speak very highly of Luther, Washington and Bismark giving freedoms to the public. Now that may be so, but weren't those guys Freemasons surrounded by Freemasons?
Luther was not a Freemason, ever! He was a mere Augustinian monk who left the Order after he was saved by the grace of God, he fully understanding justification by faith alone (Romans 1:17). Washington was inducted into the lodge in 1754 but according to his own letter quoted in VAIII, he did not enter a Masonic lodge but once or twice during the last thirty years of his life. Futher, Washington became a true saved Bible-believing man; for one of his captains, Baptist Calvinist Pastor John Gano, baptized the father of our Calvinist Republic (1787-1868) in the Hudson River after the War for Independence. Bismarck was a low level Freemason whose loyalto was to the Word of God and to his Kaiser. For this reason he expelled the Jesuits in 1872, gave 550,000 German Jews the vote, and planned for another war with the French thus working with General von Molte the Elder to devise the Schliffen Plan. Washington lived during the first great Masonic Schism and Bismarck lived during the second great Masonic Schism.
All three men were hated by the Jesuits. Luther died in 1546 under questionable conditions, looking like poison to me. Washington was poisoned with anthrax and the guides at Valley Forge will even tell the tourists this fact. The assassination of Bismarck was attempted once in 1866 and again, after his victorious victory over the French, in 1874. Bismarck even had the priests arrested in their pulpits for preaching sedition against the Kaiser via the Falk or May Laws.
Why should the rest of the populace feel that we should be guided by individuals who swear secret oaths. Your Luciferian Freemasons link suggest that Freemasons are going very much against the word of God and the word of the Bible.
Agreed.
Yet you praise Luther and Washington as being "bible-believeing Christians". Isn't there a conflict between of loyalties if you are a Freemason.
The first great Masonic Schism was in about 1750. The suppression of the Jesuits was carried out by those Masons advising the kings of Spain and Portugal. Thus at that time Freemasonry was divided---thank the Lord! There was Illuminized Freemasonry serving the Order and low-level Freemasonry that was largely anti-Jesuit and nationalistic. Washington and Lafayette were both anti-Jesuit, low level, nationalistic Freemasons. Thus, politically speaking, they were a boon to the patriots of their day. Neither were devoted Freemasons, as were Jesuit Coadjutors Frederick II and Napoleon I, and neither were active in the Lodge. Nonetheless, no leader of any nation should be allowed to be an active member of a lodge and must formally renounce any attachment to any secret society. The Lord Jesus Christ said nothing in secret concerning his nationalistic purpose; neither should the man of God.
Another point which confuses me a little, You often refer to "bible-believeing Protestants" and the Protestant Bible. I thought the Bible was the same for both the Protestants and the Catholics and the only signficance was the interpretation.
Disagreed. The Bible of the Protestant Reformation is the Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic Text as translated into the languages of the nations. In English it is the Geneva Bible, the AV1611; in Arabic it is the Cornelius Van Dyke translation of 1867, etc. The bible of the Jesuits is Jerome's Latin Vulgate as translated into the English Rheims Douay Version. Today every English bible subsequent to the AV1611 is now in fact Roman Catholic as they are based upon a Westcott and Hort Greek Text. That text is a work of the Jesuits and is merely the Textus Receptus revisied in over 5700 places to comport with Jerome's Latin Vulgate. These false Protestant bibles include the ASV, NASV, NIV, etc. The Order's Council of Trent specifically rejects the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as not being the Word of God. Thus Protestantism and Romanism have absolutely nothing in common including church history.
I know many Catholics who grew up believeing the bible. I went to schools that were predominantly Catholic and reading certain chapters and stories from the bible was part of our education. So whats the difference between the Protestant and Catholic Bibles. The Bible is the Bible regardless of where your coming from.
Disagreed and disproved above.
I also have issues regarding the authenticity of the Bible, how much of it was changed and manipulated particularly in the early years by the early Popes. Didn't Constantine change and manipulate some of the Bible, so how do we know which stories were his and which are genuine?
What God inspired He preserved. If not, we are all yet in our sins and we have no hope of ever abiding by any final authority given by God. Therefore, God has preserved his Hebrew and Greek Testaments that He inspired through "holy men of God." All scriptures are "God-breathed." By the end of the Second Century, the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ had decided upon and accepted what is now the Canon of the New Testament. Constantine, the sun-worshipper and founder of Roman Catholicism, was never allowed to corrupt the true Bible at the Council of Nicea; he had expensive versions of the corrupt manuscripts made from vellum that were written in all upper case Greek letters---completely contrary to the true, Koine Greek NT Scriptures. And the popes neither corrupted the true Bible nor did they succeed in destroying it out of Europe. Rome has always hated the true Bible being in the hands of the "vulgar" peoples with it translated into the "vulgar tongues" of those peoples. The Jesuit Order's Counter Reformation Council of Trent (1545-1563) makes this clear.
Thus, the genuine Bible, the true Word of God, is the Hebrew Masoretic OT composed of 37 books, and the TR Greek NT composed of 27 books---66 books in all---uncorrupted by the Jesuit/Masonic rationalism of the 19th Century. When that Bible is translated into other languages those Bibles are also the Word of God in a specific language as mentioned above. Therefore, we have a lettered Final Authority outside of ourselves. If not, our ultimate final authority will be the pope of Rome.
I have heard King James Bible mentioned alot too. What is the difference with the King James Bible. It has been said to me that the King James Bible was translated in a very big hurry, so it was liable to mis-translations.
Disagreed. The 47 learned and godly Puritan men on three councils (Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster) labored in their work from 1607 to 1611. It was open to the public and not hurried. You should consult Final Authority by William Grady (1993), Our Authorized Bible Vindicated by Benjamin Wilkinson (1930) and Translators Revived by Alexander McClure (1868). These works will answer all of your questions as to the topic of the AV1611.
I grew up in a Roman Catholic family, even though I am not affiliated to any religion these days. I feel the Bible can be read by anyone without needing to be part of an organised religion.
Agreed.
I have sometimes considered going to Protestant Mass, but is the Protestant Church just as corrupted as the Catholic church?
Protestantism is completely corrupted. The heart of the Protestant American Constitution is complete eaten out. It is fraught with Jesuitized, Illuminized Freemasonry; it uses only English bibles based upon pro-Jerome Latin Vulgate Greek Texts. The same is true for the Orthodox Churches of the East. Do not waste your time in any main-line Protestant Church as they are all apostate. The Protestant churches in the National Council and World Council of Churches are all serving the pope.
I recommend that you purchase an Authorzed King James Bible (Oxford Edition) and read the gospel of John. When finished then read the book of Romans following John. The Spirit of God will work upon your heart as he did mine, Lord willing. If you have any questions, let me know.
Regards
Sincerely in faith,
Brother Eric
________________
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/4-Jan-2008.html
___________
In recent months I have become very interested in your work, some of it is available on the internet. I saw a discussion you gave discussing the Jesuits in Europe, and you said Napoleon was a freemason, and said he worked for the Jesuits to conquer their enemies.
Correct. Napoleon's advisor, Abbe Sieyes was himself a Jesuit on the Directorate and later he was the Second Consul of the three.
I would have a few questions,as I am studying Napoleon at the present, and obviously the Jesuits aren't mentioned in the books I am reading.
What the books do mention is that Napoleon was against freemasonry/secret societies and he laughed at them, and they go on to strongly suggest he was opposed to secret societies and thought they weren't anywhere near as powerful as the societies themselves wanted to imagine. Now what makes you think Napoleon was a freemason?
It is an indisputable fact of history. Many sources mention his membership in the Grand Lodge of Paris. Roman Catholic historian Nesta Webster is one of them.
Also King Frederick is mentioned as having been an ally of the Jesuit Superior General and he protected him. Napoleon treated Frederick very badly, humiliated him and divided up Germany and was an oppressor there. So if Napoleon was working for the Jesuits, then why did he oppress and humiliate Frederick so much.
The Bible-hating and author of the Masonic 33rd Degree, Frederick II, was a traitor to his Protestant Lutheran Germany. This may be the reason why Hitler admired him so, as Austrian Hitler was also a traitor to Germany, ensuring the total destruction of Protestant Prussia by the end of the Second Thirty Years' War (1914-1945). Frederick had backed the French Revolution as per his advisors, the Jesuits, whom he protected after the Order's suppression by the pope in 1773. So as Freemason Napoleon secretly worked with brother Freemason Frederick for the attempted destruction of Protestant Germany, even so covert Freemason Hitler worked with covert Freemason Stalin for the destruction of Protestant Prussia and Protestant East Germany. I prove this secret collusion between Hitler and Stalin in VAIII.
WHy didn't Napoleon re-institute the Jesuits himself as soon as he came to power???
Because the collusion between the Order and Napoleon had to remain a secret. That secret nexus between the Emperor and the Company was accomplished by Illumnized Freemasonry. The connection between Jesuit Weishaupt, his Illuminati founded in the Jesuit stronghold of Bavaria, and the French Revolution is also an undeniable fact of history. The same principle is followed by the Order when it instituted Communism in China. Mao openly expelled the Jesuits in 1949, but his secret policy was to remain subject to the Order that had put him in power via the American OSS (Knight of Malta Wild Bill Donovan) and the British SIS. Yes Communist China is completely in the hands of the Jesuits. Alexander Haig, who is the Honorary Advisor to COSCO has a brother named Francis. Francis Haig is a powerful US Jesuit priest.
I would appreciate any details you can give me, as at the present I have to imagine the role of the Jesuits is exagerated regarding Napoleon, based on the information I have at present. You might be able to show me that he was in fact working for them,
Please consult my Vatican Assassins, third edition. Therein I show that every move Napoleon made in the subjugation of his enemies, until his deliberate sacrifice of his Grande Armee in the snows of Russia, benefitted the Jesuit Order. It is impossible to understand the true purpose of Napoleon without taking into account of the expulsion of the Jesuits from Roman Catholic Portugal (1759), Roman Catholic France (1764), Roman Catholic Spain (1767), Roman Catholic Malta by the Knights of Malta (1768) and the formal Bull of Suppression and Extinction of the Society of Jesus by Pope Clement in 1773. Roman Catholic
Austria then expelled the Order in 1774. Meanwhile the Order had been expelled by Peter the Great in 1723 which invasion by Napoleon and the burning of heretic Christian Orthodox Moscow was a payback.
Best Regards
Sincerely in faith,
Brother Eric
___________
sinama:
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/napoleon.html
http://www.atelier-empreinte.fr/lessociete...tes-p-1501.html
Leo says that the scholar Fr.Serge Hutin wrote that Napoleons initiation into the illuminati first happened near Rome and that they plotted Napoleons downfall when he crowned himself Emporor. Fr.Serge Hutin (Sar Pascal), was the Archon of 'forreign affairs' for the 'Ordre Hermetistse Tetramegiste et Mystique' (Order of Hermes), arrested by the Nazis in Cherbourg, France. He was deported to "Camp-Neuengam" were he died in February 1945.
Leo also included a useful link to the Jesuit who was the adviser to Napoleon, Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Joseph_Sieyès
Credit to Leo and Eric for forwarding replies on the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment