OakWood

It's true that salvation is a personal thing and can only come through God's grace. It can take time for the Holy Spirit to work through a person. With some there is an almost instantaneous transformation and with others it takes time. God made us all unique and he respects our individuality as long as we humble ourselves before him and don't let our individual prides get in the way. It was pride that got us into this mess in the first place. Sometimes God may rebuke us before he transforms us. Simply repeating a prayer does not make one saved. It's all about faith, not empty words. God respects free will, and he wants us to want him and to want what he knows is best for us. If you don't really want him, he will know. He's offering us a free gift - you can choose to accept it, or you can choose to reject it.

Finding an alternative is not counting oneself out. It's just using a different battle strategy.

I don't think we can. I think there's a big agenda afoot. We could however create an alternative social media.

Just another example of *Churches bowing down to populism in an attempt to increase their congregation numbers. If a Church wishes to accept transgender people in order to try and save them, then that is a good thing. If however, welcoming them into the Church is to embrace them as they are and pander to their insanity, then it is not a good thing. Unfortunately in this case, the article suggests the latter. The giveaway line is: bishops should consider “preparing nationally commended liturgical materials to mark a person’s gender transition.” Churches are falling as we speak. It looks like the Anglicans are going the same way as the others (if indeed they haven't already done so). There is nothing wrong with serving your Church, as long as it is ultimately a way of serving God. If your Church starts to wander from God then it's time to either stand up and fight for your Church, or get out of your Church - and get out fast! God comes first, and if a Church no longer serves God or follows the wishes of God then it is no longer really a Church but a counterfeit of one. I was shocked when I heard that one of the major Presbyterian Churches in the U.S.A. had begun to accept and ordain 'gay' marriage. Traditionally Presbyterianism has been one of the strongest and most conservative bastions of Christianity. If the Presbyterians can fall, anybody can fall. It's a house of cards; as one topples they all seem to topple. God forbid the day when they all go. I can just imagine the horror of it. If you really like your Church and your denomination, and it falls or starts to fall, you can always leave. You won't be the only one. True believers will set up a new Church just like the old one before it sold out. The old fallen Church will continue to grow and will become even more popular as heretics and false Christians start to join it, but the new one (which is really the old one) will survive too under a new light. The 'traditionalists' of the new Church will understand that Churches were not designed to win popularity contests by man, but to be loved by God. In the future when Christians are persecuted it will be the true Christians that will be persecuted, not the Christians of the progressive, Politically Correct, feel-good Churches. These Churches will be the synagogues of Satan, taking the Lord's name in vain and spreading a dangerous 'New Age' message. The old but true Church will be driven underground. In the meantime, we should be wary of what our Churches are doing. No wonder so many true Christians these days are non-denominational. I can hardly blame them. Remember too, that the entire body of Christian people is really the Church. It only takes two people to make a Church. You can always start your own Church, even if it's just a house church or a prayer-group. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Matthew 18:20 *By the way - for the sake of clarity, I have defined a Church with a capital 'C' as meaning a denomination, or group of Christians under a common culture eg. the Church of England, or Baptists or Methodists and so on - or at its broadest, the body of worldwide Christians as a whole, and the word 'church' with a small 'c' as being the location where people gather for worship, prayer or fellowship, such as a building or a house e.g 'the church on the corner of the street'. I'm not sure if these are strict definitions, but they are the ones that I use.

Facebook isn't brainwashing (yet). But Facebook and Twitter are both encouraging people to spend more time online and reveal more and more about themselves - what they think, their political views, their daily routines, their likes and dislikes, where they work, their strengths and weaknesses, and so on. The information will be used to profile people, and the next generation are being encouraged to be interfaced to everything. Mobile phones will monitor everybody, and social media will eventually be censored so that people will only be able to post info that is 'politically appropriate' and their opinions will be manipulated by such information, having access to no other sources. If you think there's a lot of fake news around now, then you 'ain't seen nothing yet'.

In the final stages, yes. You are right. Homosexuals are people the same as the rest of us. Not all gays are obsessed with sex, but that's only because we are all sinners and all of us are at different stages of our depravity. To put it another way - some of us struggle with sin, others love it and wallow in it. There is a difference between the gay man or lesbian woman who leads a quiet life, and the depraved perverts who thrust their sexuality in everybody's faces at gay pride marches. However if a repeated and unrepentant sin is left unchecked, and a person gets to a point where he loves his sin so much, then God will finally "give him over". Because we live in a society where we are told that homosexuality is normal, we are also seeing more and more gay men and women who have been 'given over' to their desires. There has been nothing to stop them.

I don't trust Facebook. They want EVERYBODY online..... so that people can be brainwashed and monitored.

You say that angels have no bodies, and normally they don't but they can materialise in the flesh and when they do have physical bodies. In Genesis 19 we have: And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. Why would Lot insist that these men not have sex with the angels and offer his own daughters instead? If these angels had no physical form then sexual contact with them would be impossible anyway. Lot knew that what these men were trying to do would be a great sin (and homosexual too as the angels appeared as men) that he preferred even fornication with his very own daughters than the men commit such an awful abomination. The angels ate food so they must have had physical bodies with digestive systems. They had eyes, ears, faces and they physically pulled Lot into the house, no doubt with real physical arms. If they have all the other physical attributes of humans then there is no reason that they did not have genitals too.

Every reference to angels is masculine. Of course it is. That's why scripture tells us that the sons of God came to the daughters of men and not the other way around.

As O.O. says, demons are most likely the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim who are the hybrid offspring of fallen angels. Demons are probably responsible for most of the psychic phenomena experienced throughout history and throughout different cultures, such as ghosts, banshees, poltergeists, apparitions, fairies, leprechauns, U.F.Os and various entitities given different names by different people in different religions in different places in the world, and at different times in history. In some cultures they are worshipped as gods, although more likely it is the materialisation of fallen angels themselves that were responsible for false god worship. Only the word of God tells us what these things really are. All other religions have been deceived.

It's still a book..... but a book made up of other books. Okay, strictly speaking it's a compendium. But it's still okay to call it a book...... because it is...... sort of......

You are correct. I studied Islam for years and you have condensed most of what I know into one post. We have gone over most of these subjects before on Worthy. On a nutshell, Islam is not from God - it is from Satan, a counterfeit disguised to look similar to Christianity and under the pretence of worshipping the same God as Christians and Jews. It's a lie, it is dangerous, and it is deceptive.

It's probably from one of these: A history of the Popes Volume II: Middle Ages to the Protestant reform Wyatt North The Papacy: Its history, Dogmas, Genius and Prospects J.A. Wylie History of the Papacy J.A. Wylie But I'm not sure. I have other books on the subject. It's my own fault, I made notes of the quotes but forgot to list the source. Incidentally I try to keep a balance of sources. I have books on the Papacy written by Catholic sources and books on the Papacy written by non-Catholic sources. When it comes to quotes, I usually check another source to see the validity of the quote, and this may sometimes include an online source, so a spot of Googling may help. I am also collecting books on the Protestant Reformation so I have material from those too. I also try to spread the age of the books if possible, so for example, I will have books on a particular historical subject that may date from the 19th Century, but books on the same subject that were written in the 16th Century. I'm going to keep looking for the source of these quotes, I'm sure I have it somewhere.

I forget it, but I'll try and find it again. Give me some time.

It's not just the Popes who declared such blasphemies. Many members of the clergy have uttered them: The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ himself, under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who is speaking. Cardinal Guiseppe Sarto (Pope Pius X) Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest in his bosom. He who rebels against our father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him, we do to Christ. We honour Christ if we honour the Pope. Catherine of Sienna (later canonised as St. Catherine)

While we're on the subject, be wary of the Doeuy-Rheims Bible. Here is the KJV version of Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. and here is the Douey-Reheims version of the same verse I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Notice the change of the wording 'it shall bruise thy head' becomes 'she shall crush thy head'. - this verse is referring to the seed of the woman (Jesus Christ), but the Douey version has changed the word to 'she' to declare that is the woman who destroys the serpent, not the man. The Doey-Rheims Bible is often known as the Jesuit Bible and the tampering of this verse is a Jesuit attempt to encourage the worship of Mary.

I've tried it. KJV passes the test, Geneva Bible passes the test. NIV fails the test.

They kept the Bible from the masses because they knew that the word of God exposed them for the heretics that they were. If you were absolutely sure that your interpretation of the Bible was correct then you would have no hesitation in letting others read scripture, but they knew deep down that Catholicism had been built on a lie and scripture exposed that lie. Roman Catholicism came about as a form of controlled opposition. Rome had tried for centuries to destroy Christianity but to no avail. It had tried lots of different methods ranging from 'good cop' to 'bad cop'. It had persecuted Christians on and off for nearly three centuries. Then it finally decided, if you can't beat them join them..... if you control Christianity then you control Christians. Once Rome established itself as the official church, it outlawed all other churches and quickly introduced Pagan elements. The Romans were polytheists. They had a different god for different things - Mars, Jupiter, Apollo and so on... a god of war, a god of love, a god of the Sun, a god for partying. They didn't want to lose these traditions so they introduced the idea of sainthood, a different saint for each circumstance. A patron saint of this... a patron saint of that... a saint for blacksmiths, a saint for travellers. It's all the same thing just under different names. The idea of partnering Jesus with Mary dates back to the partnering of Osiris and Isis. Its the same Pagan legend recycled over and over again and it's demonic in origin. The false gods are always the same wherever you go but with different names. Whether its the Viking gods or the Greek gods there's always a king of the gods, a god of war and so on..... To the Vikings they were Odin and Thor, to the Greeks they were Zeus and Ares, to the Romans Jupiter and Mars. The leader or king of the gods is always Lucifer, the great deceiver who loves to disguise himself under different names. To the Aztecs he is known as Quetzlcoatl or the serpent god (derived from the serpent in the garden of Eden). Rome had to be very careful and had to change the Pagan structure slightly so it adopted Biblical themes as a mask for its deception. It also had to an adopt a fake reason for its authority by claiming that the apostle Peter was the founder despite Peter having died over two centuries before. The reason for Peter being the choice was because Jesus had told Peter that he was the rock on which his church would be built. The reason that Catholics are told that salvation also comes from Mary as well as Jesus is a Satanic deception to make people pray to someone else other than Jesus, which of course is a threat to one's salvation. Of course Catholics are not specifically told to pray to Mary instead of Jesus, but they are told that Mary is a mediator between man and Jesus which is a complete blasphemy and completely in contradiction to 1st Timothy 2:5. Mary was a righteous woman but a sinner like the rest of us. She has no power over a person's salvation. Any manifestations or apparitions of Mary such as the miracles of Fatima and Lourdes are demonic in origin. They are merely a ploy to lure Catholics into further idolatry. Over the years Rome stamped down any opposition to its rule, and it did so brutally. Heretics were burned at the stake and Bibles were forbidden to all but Roman clergy. Then the Church split into two with the Great Schism which saw the Western Roman Church separating from the Eastern Orthodox Church, which also makes more of a mockery of Rome claiming to be the original one-and-only Church. Who is the original Church now? Is it Rome or is it Constantinople? Popes have always declared themselves to be the representative of Jesus on Earth with some even claiming to be God himself, another blasphemy. The Pope holdeth place on Earth, not simply of a man, but of the true god Pope Innocent III I am in all, and above all, so that God himself, and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory and I am able to do almost all that God can do Pope Nicholas V I alone am the successor of the apostles, the vicar of Jesus Christ, I am the way, the truth and the life Pope Pius IX Rome will even declare that Protestants have no authority because Protestantism has different denominations so they can't be the true Church because how can the word of God be divided? But what Catholics don't realise is that they too are part of a denomination. Rome was not the first Church, the early Church were the martyrs who were murdered by Rome, and the Catholic Church has been split since the Great Schism, so it too consists of denominations - Rome and Eastern Orthodox. Catholicism has absolutely no claim whatsoever to be the true Church, the only viable claim it has is to being one of the first counterfeits of the true Church. Catholics would do well to leave Rome - they would be doing themselves a favour by coming to Christ as born-again worshippers. Catholics are decent lovely people but Rome has been deceiving them. They need to get out. And I heard another voice from heaven say,Go out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues: Revelation 18:4 (GNV)

Yes it was, and I believe it broke his heart to be forced to leave the Catholic Church but he was given no choice so he formed his own Church movement and removed not only the herecy of indulgences but removed a few more of the corrupt doctrines as well.

I think you're missing the point slightly when you say we need to get off the homosexual merry-go-round. Christians are speaking out against homosexuality for a reason, and that's because to my knowledge it's the only sin trying to legitimise itself. We don't see adulterers going on adultery pride marches. We don't see thieves campaigning for equal rights for thieves. We don't hear of murderers claiming that there is nothing wrong with murdering people, and that they can't help it they were born that way. We don't hear fornicators claiming that if Jesus was around today, he would approve of their lifestyle. The big deal with homosexuality is that society has been pressured to accept it as normal thanks to decades of gay-rights lobbying and Media propaganda. Thus homosexuality is no longer just a sin, it is now an iniquity. To declare that a sin is not a sin, is completely different to being a sinner but knowing that what you are doing is wrong! Christians appear to single out homosexuals for special criticism, but that's only because homosexuals have deliberately put themselves in the line of fire. They haven't just come out of the closet, they've taken over the entire room. People who claim that homosexuality is no worse than any other sin, and that we should get off their backs are failing to understand why homosexuality has now become an exceptional case. There is no repentance within the gay lobby, there's not even shameful practising in secret. Not only are they unrepentant they are shamelessly thrusting it in our faces. They don't even pretend that they are not doing it and hide it behind closed doors. They are proud of who they are, what they are, and what they do, and they want everybody - man, woman and child - to embrace their lifestyle.

But what's the point of it. Why would God give somebody a gift that has no use? And how can we be sure that somebody is really speaking in tongues if we can't understand it without an interpreter? They could be making it up. And why in the book of Acts did all these people understood what the apostles said in their own language? There were no interpreters. How can you be sure that the above scripture is not referring to language. If you substitute the word 'language' for 'tongue' in the above examples that you have given then it still makes sense. In fact it makes more sense. It is telling us, for example, that anybody speaks in a different language then an interpreter is needed, and if an interpreter is not available then that man should keep quiet (makes sense), and it is also telling us that with men who speak different languages, only God can understand them all. And how can speaking in tongues be a sign for the unbeliever? That makes no sense at all. All an unbeliever would hear would be gibberish unless he has an interpreter to translate for him. Anybody can do that. I could pretend to speak in a made-up foreign language, and you could pretend to translate it for me. Who would be convinced of that? But if tongues is a miraculous language that everybody understands in their own language then that would truly astonishing... a sign to an unbeliever that there is something spiritual taking place.

There is no need for an interpreter. Everybody can understand 'tongues' but only those with the gift can speak it. The whole point of speaking tongues is that whenever anybody hears it, they can understand it in their own language - a Frenchman will hear it in French, a German will hear it in German and so on. This is how the apostles spread the word of God. They travelled from nation to nation speaking to people who spoke different languages, yet they made themselves understood by speaking in 'tongues'. If anybody claims to speak in 'tongues' and all you can hear is foreign-sounding nonsense, then it's not 'tongues' but a demonic counterfeit. There is no point in God creating a language that has no use. Those who claim to have a special relationship with God by praying to him in 'tongues' are deceiving themselves. They are not speaking' tongues', they just think that they are. It's a trick of Satan. God does not need a special language - he already understands every language in Earth. It's all based on pride where a person who speaks gibberish believes he has a special gift from God. If it sounds gibberish then it is gibberish. The confusion with believing that an interpreter is needed to understand tongues is caused by the fact that the word tongue can also mean 'language' such as the Arabic tongue, or the Hebrew tongue,or the Russian tongue. So in this verse we have: After these things I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations and kindreds, and people, and tongues stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with long white robes, and palms in their hands. Revelation 7:9 It's clear that word in this passage is not referring to the language of 'tongues' but is referring to people who speak different languages. Likewise: And to another the operations of great works: and to another, prophecy: and to another, the discerning of spirits: and to another, diversities of tongues: and to another, the interpretation of tongues. 1st Corinthians 12:28 Notice the mention of diversity of tongues. If this is referring to the sacred language of 'tongues' then why would there be diversity? Does that mean that there are different versions of 'tongues'? Its referring to different languages - English, French, Spanish, Chinese etc. We know that the disciples spoke a common language that could be understood by everybody where every man miraculously heard what was being said in his own language. This common language is the language known as 'tongues' and to be able to speak it is a gift from God. And they wondered all, and marveled, saying among themselves, Behold, are not all these which speak, of Galilee? How then hear we every man our own language, wherein we were born?Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, and of Judea, and of Cappadocia, of Pontus, and Asia,And of Phrygia, and Pamphylia, of Egypt, and of the parts of Libya, which is beside Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, and Jews, and Proselytes,Cretes, and Arabians: we heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. Acts 2:7-10

Protestantism was NOT started by a disgruntled Augustinian monk. Protestantism was started by lots of different people who once they had read the Bible for themselves discovered the heresies found in Catholic doctrine. We had the Albigensians, John Wycliffe, the Hugenots, Jan Huss, William Tyndale all who came before Luther. Then there was John Calvin and John Knox. All these are different people from different backgrounds and different times in history and they had discovered for themselves how Catholicism had corrupted the word of God. What is different about Luther is that his reformation was successful and this was due in no small part due to the invention of the printing press. Roman Catholics were burning bibles because they didn't want people to discover the truth for themselves. Fancy that, eh? A so-called Christian organisation wilfully destroying the word of God! But in Luther's time they couldn't burn the bibles fast enough thanks to the Guttenberg press which managed to churn out 3,000 copies a day. The Pope knew the game was up, the cat was out of the bag...... there was no going back.

Regardless of whether or not the gift of tongues still exists or not, it's easy to tell that these people are not really speaking in tongues because when they do I can't understand a word of it. If you can't understand, it's not 'tongues'.

Beware, beware. If you claim to speak in tongues and nobody can understand what you are saying then you're NOT speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues may be a gift from God, but understanding tongues is for everybody, believer and non-believer alike. The reason for being given the gift of tongues is so that you can speak to everyone, regardless of what language they speak and they will be able to understand you. When the apostles travelled around preaching the gospel, they visited many different nations and each nation spoke a different language, so they would not have been able to understand what the apostles were saying. This is why God gave the apostles the gift of tongues. Cretes, and Arabians: we heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. Acts 2:11 The above verse means that everybody there understood what was preached. They heard it in their own language, so the Cretans heard it in Greek and the Arabs heard it in Arabic. Anybody can make a claim that they have the gift of tongues and speak any old gibberish, but if it sounds like gibberish, that's exactly what it is - gibberish! God does not give anybody special gifts to be used in private. Any gift from God such as prophecy for example, is meant to serve God's purpose and that is to teach others. Tongues is NOT a special language that you use to speak with God during your intimate time with him. God does not need a special language to communicate with, he understands all languages. Bear in mind when you read the Bible the word 'tongue' can also mean 'language' and this is where confusion lies. For example: And to another the operations of great works: and to another, prophecy: and to another, the discerning of spirits: and to another, diversities of tongues: and to another, the interpretation of tongues. 1st Corinthians 12:28 Why would there be a 'diversity' of tongues if this verse is not referring to language? If 'tongues' is meant to be a language from God then why are there different ones? In this case diversity of tongues means different languages (English, French, Aramaic etc.) and is not referring to the language called 'tongues' that is a specific miraculous language and a gift from God. Anybody who claims to speak tongues is being deceived, unless the language they speak is universally comprehensible. Anybody who speaks gibberish that sounds incomprehensible to others, may have a gift of some sort but it doesn't come from God. Anybody who sits alone in the dark praying in tongues, believing they have some special gift is being deceived by malevolent spirits. I'm not even convinced that anybody has the gift of tongues today - we don't need it. We have interpreters, translators and if its on TV we have subtitles. Besides, English is fairly universal anyway.