Why do you suppose that historic church groups have insisted for a long time on speaking a dead language, Latin? Why do you suppose they couch biblical inquiries in these impossible-to-pronounce words?
Would you ever see Jesus doing that in His sermons? Like His Sermon on the Mount,1 can you hear Jesus engaging in a discussion about convoluted theological things? Would Jesus, for example, explain His return by using language like “the immanence of the eschaton.” Eschatology is the doctrine of last things. Would you hear Jesus referring to anything that way? In the discussions about Christ, the harlot church has engaged ponderous terms.
These things were intentionally hyper-inflated to make the average folk believe that they could never reach God. In the Middle Ages, these words were often spoken in cathedrals, the architecture of which was designed to minimize the human presence within the structure, and intentionally so. As they developed more sophistication, they would strain the sunlight through stained glass windows to make the interior of the church building look like it was what you would envision the location of the throne of God to be. These were just intentionally deceptive things to increase and to maintain the division between the people and God, and to consolidate power in the group that called itself the clergy.
“Clergy” is derived from the word kleroo, which means you have an inheritance from God, which is the basic truth of being a son of God. But they, as thieves and robbers do, developed a scheme and gathered it up all to themselves. And the laity were named so to indicate that they had no inheritance from God, but would only have the crumbs that fall from the tables of the clergy. What garbage!
So they discussed Christ in terms like monophysitism, monoenergism, monothelitism from the word thelema, which means “will.” They talked about whether Christ was God or man. Earlier versions of that would be whether a Holy God could ever dwell in a corrupt vessel. They created tensions where there were no tensions. They did so, in part, to try to explain things that would be explained by the revelation of the Scriptures, but they forged ahead, absent the revelation of the Holy Spirit, to employ reason to bridge the gap. Was Jesus of the one substance of God, or was He God and man? Anyone who had the revelation of the Body of Christ being comprised of human bodies and spirits that had been elevated from the dead by the Spirit of God and energized with the life of God would know the answer.
But in the framing of these discussions to support institutional paradigms—which is what the harlot clothed herself with as she approached kings: with offices that had biblical sounding names but empty of any content that was divinely inspired, divinely understood, or divinely practiced— she was able to create this entire illusion based on the usage of high-sounding words—which, by the Spirit of God, are easily understood.
They defined God in ways that closed up the Book again. That which was timely to be revealed, they reclothed it in mysteries, when God always intended the children’s bread would be the revelation of the nature of God. Do you think God was going to make it so difficult to understand? No. That is the paint on the face of a harlot. That is the garb the harlot wears to give you the impression that she is something special when, in truth, she is just a common opportunist with a heart that has never been given to anybody else, a calculating, hard-edged entity that looked for the profit in every
transaction. Not a nice person. No one you would want to put your trust or your confidence in. Why do you think that the church has so routinely betrayed those who put their trust in it? Why do you think this harlot is unable to deliver love and caring? Because it is not in the nature of a harlot. She cannot do it. She only cares about herself.
Would you ever see Jesus doing that in His sermons? Like His Sermon on the Mount,1 can you hear Jesus engaging in a discussion about convoluted theological things? Would Jesus, for example, explain His return by using language like “the immanence of the eschaton.” Eschatology is the doctrine of last things. Would you hear Jesus referring to anything that way? In the discussions about Christ, the harlot church has engaged ponderous terms.
These things were intentionally hyper-inflated to make the average folk believe that they could never reach God. In the Middle Ages, these words were often spoken in cathedrals, the architecture of which was designed to minimize the human presence within the structure, and intentionally so. As they developed more sophistication, they would strain the sunlight through stained glass windows to make the interior of the church building look like it was what you would envision the location of the throne of God to be. These were just intentionally deceptive things to increase and to maintain the division between the people and God, and to consolidate power in the group that called itself the clergy.
“Clergy” is derived from the word kleroo, which means you have an inheritance from God, which is the basic truth of being a son of God. But they, as thieves and robbers do, developed a scheme and gathered it up all to themselves. And the laity were named so to indicate that they had no inheritance from God, but would only have the crumbs that fall from the tables of the clergy. What garbage!
So they discussed Christ in terms like monophysitism, monoenergism, monothelitism from the word thelema, which means “will.” They talked about whether Christ was God or man. Earlier versions of that would be whether a Holy God could ever dwell in a corrupt vessel. They created tensions where there were no tensions. They did so, in part, to try to explain things that would be explained by the revelation of the Scriptures, but they forged ahead, absent the revelation of the Holy Spirit, to employ reason to bridge the gap. Was Jesus of the one substance of God, or was He God and man? Anyone who had the revelation of the Body of Christ being comprised of human bodies and spirits that had been elevated from the dead by the Spirit of God and energized with the life of God would know the answer.
But in the framing of these discussions to support institutional paradigms—which is what the harlot clothed herself with as she approached kings: with offices that had biblical sounding names but empty of any content that was divinely inspired, divinely understood, or divinely practiced— she was able to create this entire illusion based on the usage of high-sounding words—which, by the Spirit of God, are easily understood.
They defined God in ways that closed up the Book again. That which was timely to be revealed, they reclothed it in mysteries, when God always intended the children’s bread would be the revelation of the nature of God. Do you think God was going to make it so difficult to understand? No. That is the paint on the face of a harlot. That is the garb the harlot wears to give you the impression that she is something special when, in truth, she is just a common opportunist with a heart that has never been given to anybody else, a calculating, hard-edged entity that looked for the profit in every
transaction. Not a nice person. No one you would want to put your trust or your confidence in. Why do you think that the church has so routinely betrayed those who put their trust in it? Why do you think this harlot is unable to deliver love and caring? Because it is not in the nature of a harlot. She cannot do it. She only cares about herself.
-
1
- Show all
