Thursday, October 24, 2013

Christ was not a Communist.....but He wasn't a Libertarian Capitalist either

This is in response to

"Yet Jesus focused primarily on the soul over the senses of men. Such verses support socialism only if you divorce Scripture from its actual meaning. If reading Jesus’ teachings through purely naturalistic or materialist lenses, it’s plausible to support welfare, but even then you must be a “cafeteria” Christian ignoring many more sections that argue fervently against government expansion."

er, you cannot divorce the spiritual from the physical. Doing so is gnosticism,
and at the root of the docetist heresy (that Jesus only seemed to have a 
physical body but didn't really). 

you cannot reform the physical, absent fear, without reforming the spiritual.

and you cannot divorce the two. If you do, you have what is called hypocrisy.
That drew some of the sharpest remarks from Jesus (against the Pharisees).

Now, communism is hardly biblical. But neither are the capitalist values of
greed, glory, ambition, and so forth.

It is not possible to put The Bible squarely in any camp outside of moral 
issues. Communism in the mean time is a kind of heresy in that it, like 
fascism and even libertarianism and extremist monarchism all propose to
create heaven on earth by human means.

There are precedents for a certain amount of govt. intervention and
controls and the charity of the OT was MANDATORY, the third year 
tithe went to the poor, the edges of croplands were not to be harvested
but left for the poor, ditto going over one's fruit trees more than once,
and the tither on the third year was required to make an accounting to
the elders and public to be sure he had in fact done this. 

Punishment to enforce? risk of loss of God's protection and famine, 
disease and foreign invasion as a result.

NT the same more generalized COMMAND, not voluntary, but should come
from compassion that we get from God (IF we are IN FACT spending time
with Him) and not just fear. But if one must fear in order to act right? 
"fear not men who can only kill the body but do nothing more, but rather
fear Him who can destroy body and soul in hell." The soul is immortal, 
but here destruction would relate to the pragmatic lack of freedom, 
the presence of torment. (Kalomiros' nonsense is totally at odd with 
the clear words of Scripture, and even if punishment and blessedness
are not geographically distinct, but only different experiences of God's
presence, you are back to square one, do you face pain or pleasure?
your actions are the result of your spiritual condition, and if the latter
means you find God's presence a torment, then all the piety in the 
world with a personal out of church services life that is at odds with
this means your spirit is still incompatible with God! Exactly this 
condition is warned of by St. Theophan the Recluse and other Holy

Now, another question is, just what DOES help the poor? Sure, there
is an issue of proper use of funds by govt. but the same is true of
private charitable organizations. Discernment is necessary. But if
everyone on food stamps or SSI suddenly had to depend on churches
and Salvation Army, you can count on it those systems would go 

Meanwhile, the real estate agent industry helps drive up property
prices, with their cut of every deal, which in turn is what taxes are
based on, which in turn is what real estate values are heavily 
dependent on, aside from "the market." (and markets can be rigged,
and often are. And the real problem when you look closely, is not 
so much big govt., as big business that OWNS the govt. and runs it.)

This in turn drives up rental prices incl. to stores, which drives up
prices of goods and increases demand for higher wages. As someone
once put it, real estate is a hidden driver in inflation (of prices).

Another problem is the repeal of the parts of Glass-Steagall which 
prevented the derivatives market we have now, which is precisely
the part of the market that caused the disasters in the past 20


Get my two new books on kindle

A Possible History of Life on Mars by Christine Erikson
(don't just judge it by the snippet available, the rest of it is
a lot more interesting).

Karl Mars and The Communist Manifesto by Elliot Erikson
(my late father, shows ulterior motives in Marx's writings
and activities).

If you don't have a kindle, download kindle for PC
or mac, and read on your computer.


Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Alien Ship Closer

another video, of something that matches the general
description in the first one. Bent look, not a real L shape
but good enough.


Sunday, October 20, 2013

Alien Invasion? Breakaway Civilization takeover?

well, folks, if this is true, and if this is not just some for once noticed mining results acquisition visit, HERE IT COMES.

Remember Jesus said there would be wars and rumors of wars, nation would rise against nation (ethnic groups, tribal defined political elements) and kingdom against kingdom (more normal to our modern sense types of govts.) but the end is not yet?

get ready to deal with invaders of an unusual sort, study how Christians under pagan or whatever rule conducted themselves and how they converted some of them. Early church history and writings of the times (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History and Sozomon for starters) might help.

Remember that Christ said that when He comes back, His angels will gather His believers from one end of earth to the other, and from the ends of the heavens?

I don't care what these people look like, remember, if solid physical then they can become children of God also like us. (There might be a few believers among them, probably compromised as most of our believers are with the ways of their worlds just like much of us are with the ways of our world. Trust no one, incl. each other, lean on Jesus Christ for wisdom at EVERY step, take nothing for granted.)

Of course this video might be fear porn garbage. But it might not be. 

Beware of false Christs, beware of false teachings, beware of false information, beware of false analyses political, social, economic, or whatever, reexamine everything you are used to, "test {examine for truthfulness] all things, hold fast to what is good".

And pray for their souls and for no atrocities on either side of any fight that breaks out.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Predestination and The Sovereignty of God

The usual argument by Calvinists and other predestinarians,
is that if you deny this doctrine, you are denying the
Sovereignty of God, and I am sure such can work out a
convoluted chain of logic whereby questioning this one
doctrine you are effectively denying the rest of Christian

But they forget something.

God in His ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY is perfectly
capable of having SOVEREIGNLY decided that an
element of free will would exist. Exactly how much is
another matter.  He could even decree in His absolute
sovereignty that it would be entirely a matter of free
will (though the tendency to use that will correctly has
been compromised by the inherited warp brought into
our souls and germ plasm by The Fall).

The Sovereignty of God is not the issue. The issue is
exactly what, in His Sovereignty, He has in fact decided
to do about the matter.

So Calvinism on this point (and others) is off track.

Now, Pelagius, who St. Augustine fought, held that it was
possible for humans to use their will correctly and live
sinless without help from God. This is biblically false, and
makes like we don't need (or some few special perhaps)
don't need The Atonement/Redemption by Christ. But
most heresies have an equal and opposite mirror extreme
co-falsehood. And absolute predestination from the
beginning of time for each and every individual is apparently
such an error.

This is something of a Mystery, and the unwillingness to
admit that there is anything the finite human mind can't
comprehend is a characteristic flaw of Calvinists and
extreme scholastics.

And that is a sort of heresy in itself, or at least an error
that lays the groundwork for most heresies, if not all,
a heresy precursor state so to speak.


Monday, October 7, 2013

more musings on hermeneutics and prophecy

An important rule of hermeneutics is context, and to who is something
said? in the latter question is often the issue of how (if at all) it can be
applied to the Bible student looking for insight and guidance for his
or her life in general or specific issues.

Now, another rule, is that Scripture interprets Scripture. And look
for patterns.

Applying these two, lets look at the Ezekiel 38 Gog Magog war.
Notice the following:

The razing of Jerusalem in AD 1244 cannot be THE Gog Magog
war, since though the same peoples may have had representatives
there, it was not a formal gathering of any but two or three of them,
and no divine intervention occurred. So while that episode may be
a kind of foreshadowing, it is not THE event, which must be still
in the future.

In the following chapter, we see the burial of Gog Magog,
and that dwellers in the cities of Israel will go about burying bodies
for 7 months, and that the combustible weapons they brought will
be so many that they will be firewood and no need to gather firewood
for seven years.

There is also a rather explicit refernce to Gog Magog people as
having bows in one hand and arrows in another.

This should give some pause to those who assume that this war
will occur when modern weapons of war are in play.

It won't.

Ezekiel, you should note, describes a vision of the New Jerusalem
and the New Temple in chapter 40.

Revelation also describes the Gog Magog war, as happening after
The Second Coming of Christ, when He will reign on earth forever.



Revelation never depicts Christ as ceasing to rule at any time after His
Second Coming. But it DOES depict the devil being bound for 1,000
years, which may be exact or approximate. During that time, he cannot
tempt the nations.

The amillennialist position of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy
and some Protestants, that the devil is bound now and this milennium
is a symbol of the Church ruling on earth and binding satan is obviously
ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE EAST, whatever the schismatic
RC may or may not have declared in some council. 

Because if true, there would be no need for exorcists, and no need for
the prayers of exorcism before baptism, and such like things. 

It is argued that the binding is relevant to the Christians (or specifically
the RC or EO Christians, whichever group is speaking), since indeed
Revelation says he can't tempt THE NATIONS.

But if that were true, there would be no need for spiritual warfare 
by monks and non monastics, no temptations to the Christian except
perhaps from the flesh and the world but we are taught and hear of

The reason Revelation got relegated to not-in-use-in-The-Holy-Liturgy, 
and that some even doubted its legitimacy, and is not used to base
any doctrines on or argue them from, is mostly because the Montanist
heretics, not unlike some modern charismatics, misused it so much
they gave it a bad reputation. 

So the devil is CRIPPLED and bound in that sense, but not absolutely
permanently bound, because he can (with difficulty) tempt the devoted
Christian, and easily tempts the unbelievers and nominals.

Revelation also says, that the devil will be released after that 1,000 years
to briefly tempt the nations one more time, which will result in the Gog
Magog war, ending in disaster for Gog Magog. And the devil at that point
will be finally and permanently bound so he can't whisper to anyone.

Then you have the resurrection and judgement of ALL the dead and
the New Jerusalem, described as a city that is of such measurements
that they work out to around 1200 or 1500 miles high wide and long, a
huge CUBE.

This is after the new heavens and the new earth are shown, so apparently
the laws of physics have undergone an overhaul as well.

Now, the prophecy "experts" read modern conditions into The Bible,
and IGNORE everything that doesn't fit. Is a chariot mentioned? the
writer didn't know how else to describe a tank. Are arrows mentioned?
Don't even deal with it.

But modern technology is fragile and dependent increasingly on things
that can be destroyed. For one thing, a huge network of specialists are
needed, and financial networks, and power grids and all kinds of stuff,
which can be easily destroyed in a catastrophe, such as Revelation
chapter 6 describes happening after The Fourth Horseman.

Albert Einstein once said something to the effect that, he didn't know
how WW 3 would be fought, but WW 4 will be fought with spears and
arrows or clubs and stones.

And Bible Prophecy seems to support him.

Justina (Christine Erikson)

musings on prophecy and hermeneutics

Okay, I am going to explain some points of how to think on this.
I say how to think not "how I think" though that would be true
also, but this is in accord with Biblical interpretation or
hermeneutics throughout Church history.

Some history.

In the first several centuries AD two major schools of thought
developed, Alexandria, Egypt and Antioch, Syria. Antioch was
where we were first called "Christians" and since Christos is
Greek for Messiah, both mean "Anointed One," a Christian is
a Messianist.

Alexandria's first bishop or episkopos, overseer, was St. Mark,
the son (whether literal or spiritual is unclear) of St. Peter. But
the school there came heavily under the influence of Origen, who
initially was a well educated genius who supported The Trinity
against deniers and converted many and was in general okay,
but he was too smart for his own good. Influenced by platonism
(neoplatonism being an AD pagan philosophy development out
of platonism) and gnostics and so forth, he got too far into wild
speculation and over applied allegory in hermeneutics.

This led him into notions like pre existence of the soul, not standard
multi life reincarnation but that some judgement for pre incarnation
sin and some decisions were made and the soul was then put in
an embryo; the dense physicality of the sun and stars and planets
being because they fell from contemplating God to contemplating
themselves or creation in general; that various spirits or angels
fell in varying degrees, some becoming demons others becoming
human and others became other creatures.

These and other speculations including the notion of the apokatastasis
(I think I spelled that right), a misinterpretation of "restoration of all
things" to mean that gehenna would be temporary and ultimately all
would be saved (now called universalism), got him condemned and
anathematized post mortem at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.

However, Origen during his life had great influence including on
important men and women who, due to their defense of The Faith
against heretics and pagans, were themselves glorified as saints
after their deaths.

Therefore you find that St. Gregory of Nyssa incl. precisely the
condemned elements of Origen's teaching in his Philokalia of
Origen, and a trend of thought crept into Orthodoxy to be found
sometimes today, partly due to the refocus by Blessed Seraphim
Rose on The Fathers such as St. John Chrysostom who, thanks to
Origenist influence, upheld the following notion.

That "the coats of skins" given to Adam and Eve after The Fall
was our dense physical flesh, and that though physical, humans
before The Fall were less densely physical.

This notion was not listed at Ephesus probably because Origen
hadn't gotten around to developing it yet. But it is the exact
analog to the same idea about the stars and sun and planets
mentioned above, and if false about them it is false about us.

Alexandria became known for focussing more on allegorization to
extract material supportive of doctrine or otherwise useful ideas, from
verses of no apparent relevance (I am not denying the doctrines just
questioning the applicability in all cases of allegorized verses to
serve them). Heretics of course did the same thing to support some
of their doctrines. St. Paul does some allegorizing, but nothing as
extensive or extreme as Origen and his heirs and assigns, which,
effectively, Alexandrian theology and hermeneutics became.

In Antioch, we have a city whose first bishop was St. Peter himself.
(There is no reason to deny he ended his life in Rome, one detractor
in detailing the timing on his life and travels, trying to argue he could
not have been in Rome at all, nonetheless left two years unaccounted
for, during which he could have been at Rome. There is however
some dispute as to whether he was actually Rome's first bishop. One
version of events has him appointing Linus as Rome's first bishop.
Linus appears therefore either first in the Roman list, or second after
Peter if Peter is calculated as first bishop. St. Paul addressed them
as needing some spiritual gift or blessing to establish them, which he
hoped to get to visit them and do this for them, so apparently they
had no bishop, but were a ragtag group of expatriates from elsewhere
and converts in need of shepherding.Clearly Paul didn't found that
church either, neither did Peter, but rather converts went there and
met and converted others and at least one Apostle caught up with
them later.)

In Antioch, the pattern of hermeneutic or Bible interpretation was
more sensible and literal. Sure, symbolism exists in The Bible and
is usually explained in The Bible after it is presented. But the focus
was less on extracting hidden meanings that understanding and applying
the plain text. Some allegories are analogic extrapolation statements,
comparisons to something you already know about to give you a
general idea of what you don't know about.

Both schools produced heretics, of course, Nestorius from the Antiochian
tradition, though at odds with it, because he drew a distinction between
Jesus as God and Jesus as man, too much so, and confused nature with
person enough that you end up with two persons. (Nestorius denied this,
but didn't come to face charges either, and his students certainly seemed
to hold to this notion. A key to most Christological heresies is confusion
of person and nature.

For instance, I am an individual aka person, my nature is human. My cat
is an individual, her nature is cat. Jesus is both God and Man so He
from eternity is of the nature "God" and is the Person God The Son.
When He took on human flesh, He added to His pre-existing divine
nature, a human nature. This was done without blurring or hybridizing
or mixing the two natures, without altering either of them, and it is a
permanent union in His Person of the two natures. Nature is not person.
Sometimes it is used to refer to personality, character, but that is not
correct in this context. Jesus is the Person Who being originally only
divine, added to His divinity humanity.

Now, once you confuse person and nature, two things can happen.
1. you can divide the two natures after the Incarnation too much and
make like two persons existed, or
2. you can blur them too much together.

the latter was the heresy of Alexandria (also opposed by Orthodox
Alexandrians) which came from an overly mystical orientation in
teaching. Eutychus argued that the human nature was so swallowed up
in the divine as to be virtually nonexistent. It is presumably his tractate
that was rejected by the relics of St. Euphemia at the Council of Chalcedon.
Eutyches was also rejected soon after the monophysite schism, as being
too extreme.

But the confusions of person and nature continued with monophysite
Coptic Pope Shenouda III arguing for such a mixing of sorts being necessary
or God didn't suffer on the Cross and our sins aren't paid for.

Jesus being divine, could not suffer or die UNLESS He became human (at
which point He had the name Jesus), BUT IT IS THIS PERSON, THIS
BACK TO LIFE. This PERSON was able to do this only because He
acquired human flesh. A second nature. So THIS PERSON being God
indeed God suffered and died for us and came back to life, BUT THE
DIVINE NATURE WAS UNAFFECTED, only the human flesh could
NATURES and WHO IS INDEED GOD it follows that you don't need
to argue for a blurring of natures for The Atonement to be legitimate.

So the monophysite heresy now calling itself miaphysite at this point claims
to have been misunderstood, but what they say at the Chambesy Conference
and what Pope Shenouda III said in a booklet on all this, are two different
things. (They also say, that there are two natures in appearance but not in
reality, but have it backwards. In reality there are two natures, but as you
look at Jesus since He is ONE Person, there appears to be only one
nature, but the two are always there, now one more obvious than the other,
now the other more obvious as at The Transfiguration.

The Oriental Orthodox are called Orthodox because they accept The Trinity,
which was the doctrine that first got us the name Orthodox as opposed to
Arian, which refers to the followers of a priest named Arius who argued that
God The Son was not coeternal with God The Father, and not equally divine
with Him, but that "there was a time when He was not" and though Arius may
not have relegated Jesus to being a mere creature of the created ex nihilo, out
of nothing, category like everything else, but he denied His full equal
divinity with The Father, and his successors went even farther, until today you
have Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, who are retreads of several ancient
heresies, who deny Jesus' divinity altogether. (The latter deny God The Father's
absolute divinity as well, claiming he is an evolved man, but that is another matter.)

Meanwhile, St. Cyril of Alexandria in fighting Nestorius used the formula
"One divine nature incarnate" which he though was from St. Athanasius but was
actually from Appollonius ancestor to Eutychianism. This phrase has been
used by monophysites to claim loyalty to Cyrilian Christology, but the phrase
itself puts the lie to this one, because one divine nature having become incarnate
now by definition is two natures, one person who is of divine nature now has
two natures, the divine and the physical. The divine remains divine but it is ONE
person, one individual, the physical remains physical but it is ONE person, one
individual who has BOTH natures.

If I with a human nature, were to somehow acquire also the nature of a cat, lets
say someone dumped a ton of cat DNA into me  I would now have two natures,
human and cat, but I would still be one person. And I were then exposed to a 
species specific poison for cats, I the person with human and cat natures, 
would experience illness and death because of the cat nature though my
human nature would not be affected. 

Does that help you understand at all?

Hermeneutical errors

From the foregoing, it can be seen, that two errors are to overapply literalism
on all points, in other words, to demand that EVERYTHING be easily
understandable by limited human reason (which is wrongly assumed to be
unfallen uncorrupted and somehow infinite, the implicit error of the scholastics
in the West)


to overspiritualize things, turning The Bible into a subjectivist playpen. The
latter makes every heresy and pagan infiltration and even some blasphemous
notions such as among the Manifest Sons of God crew possible.

The problem with a lot of prophecy interpretation especially since the Protestant
Reformation but also throughout history, has been to over spiritualize some
things in The Bible. Just because referring to God's hand or Him sheltering us
under His wings like a chicken her chicks does not mean that He literally is
a big chicken with human hands and chicken wings, does not mean that other
things shouldn't be taken at face value.

Now, especially with The Book of Revelation you get a bunch of stuff that
has been treated as symbolic of political upheavals, or the rise of the Reformation,
or whatever, always of course something to do with Europe, ignoring that The

Also in the Old Testament Prophets, it is sometimes hard to tell if God is using
hyperbole or speaking exactly.

For decades, the communism obsessed Christian prophecy experts focussed on
Ezekiel chapter 38 invasion of Israel as being a Soviet Union thing. But only after
the collapse of the Soviet Union was the scenario even possible, because the
peoples listed as attackers included peoples that were only political entities after
the USSR breakup. (It could be argued that these ethnic groups would be part of
the Soviet military forces, but one gets the impression they tended to use Russians
for most of the military.) Yet during the decades of the Soviet Union, this invasion
was being predicted as likely to happen any year or at least in a few years or 
any decade soon by these writers.

Also ignored in all this is the lack of the Arab peoples as attackers, conspicuous
by their almost total absence in this scenario, which means that whenever this happens,
Israel will be at peace with most of her Arab neighbors.

Which effectively ruled out this happening in any time in the mid to end 20th 
century or even now.

Did any of these self appointed experts on prophecy and current events take
any notice of those verses?

Of course not.

Why? well, one possibility is this rule of hermeneutics which is more likely to
be recognized and described by detractors than admitted by its user, and it
is of course NOT a rule of hermeneutics but exactly how NOT to do

If it agrees with your preconceived notions, then you interpret it literally. If
it doesn't, then you spiritualize it away or ignore it altogether.

I confess I was taken in also, it wasn't till later events made things clearer,
because when you hear something pronounced often enough you tend
to believe it. Of course since one prophecy expert begets another so to
speak, this is part of the reason these verses were ignored, skimming over
or just taking your teacher's word for it and blathering on from there.

(Regarding that Ezekiel 38 thing, it is possible that it refers at least in part
to Crusader times, and the Ottoman empire, which included peoples from
most of the locations listed. Or not. And even if it
did, there is a peculiar tendency in The Bible for DOUBLE FULFILLMENT
OF PROPHECY, that something happens more than once. A classic
example is Abraham  and Sarah, aged sterile and have a son, who then in
his old age also becomes a father, though not as old as Abraham was.

The AD 1244 devastation of Jerusalem by Khwarazmian mercenaries, a
Persian people, under the leadership of a Turkic ruler who had Kipchak
slave warriors acquired after the Mongol invasion of the Kipchak-Cuman
coalition, which spanned all Scythia and would have included those peoples,
might fit the bill for this. But like I said, this wouldn't rule out it happening

But I think the main reason for this hermeneutical failure, and application
of the bad hermeneutics principle I just outlined, was money and popularity,
exploiting fears of Communism and the Soviet Union (while partnering with
expatriate Nazis such as the old crew at Radio Free America).

Ironically, atheist commies were seen as the worst evil ever, but in fact
Nazism is worse, because instead of being an atheist void, that leaves
people hungry for something better and they sooner or later start looking,
some into the occult some into Christianity, Nazism provides several
options of worship, pagan, occultic, ethnic and a twisted form of Christianity
ultimately moving to flat out heresy. It is easier to convert someone from
nothing to something, than from something to something. The former will
be out there looking, the latter will take a lot longer to do so. Also, though
Nazism is famous for killing Jews, it intended to start on the Christians
once it was done with the Jews, it would just take more time to work out.
The ultimate goal was elimination of all non Aryan faiths, especially of
semitic based faiths, though Hitler did have some admiration for the
warrior orientation of jihadi type islam. Another problem, is that Nazism
targetted people for extermination based on things they could not change
or hide easily, i.e., ancestry and disability and inferior even if pure Aryan
ergo to be culled genetics, while communism targetted people for
extermination based on behavior and politics, far easier to negotiate or
disguise, and even these were open to change without violating communist
theory, while the exterminationist standards in Nazism were inherent to it.)

Various efforts to identify the antichrist in the past always focussed on
European figures. Another error in hermeneutics - writing your personal
concerns and/or preferred homeland familiar geography into The Bible,
and of course the later notion of America as redeemer nation, chosen 
of God, New Jerusalem, etc. didn't help much.

Replacement theology also plays a role. Replacement theology, held by EO
and RC and some protestants, is that The Church totally replaced Israel
so all promises relating to Israel now shift to The Church no exceptions.

Replacement theology DOES have a solid Scriptural foundation, BUT ONLY
PARTLY. St. Paul warns in Romans that God has NOT cast off His people
and they are beloved for the fathers' sakes, though enemies for The Gospel's
sake. But they are the root that bears us not vice versa, we are a wild olive
branch grafted in among the domesticated olive branches, and we should
not boast against them.

So it is not either replacement theology or not, but both/and, so to speak.
And the accusation that this gives two rival standards of salvation one
relying correctly on Jesus and one not, is false, because the issue of the
Jews in Israel now is not an issue of salvation and being in The Kingdom
of Heaven, but an issue of title to real estate and a role to play out in

(One can also argue that the righteous among Jews would meet and
instinctively recognize and accept Jesus when the Jew dies, which leaves
Jesus STILL The Way The Truth and The Life, and The Only Way To
The Father, even if this plays out post mortem.)

This is all I can put together now. I will probably get to this again later.

Justina (Christine Erikson)