what are your thoughts of Apostle Kathryn Krick

What is @SophieT mistaken about sister? Her claim about her understanding of the place the Scripture has in relation to the anointing of God - as she says she belies you once sated - or her clear rejection of Kathryn Krick?

anyway thank you to all who participated in my thread.

really?

I am loved because you cannot identify the demonic when it rears its ugly head?

you have less than 0 clue about me. you are the proud one my dear. God kicked that caboose out of me years back when everyone was telling me I was really something

I forgive you for these comments you direct at me. what I have, is untouchable by you or any other person anywhere taking a fancy to condemn what is true

I can smell that fear a mile away. you are not protected by claiming I am false

God loves you and me and the entire globe. I need you telling me that like I need a toothache cause the thought behind it, is not right

I followed what is false for about 7 years and suffered greatly for it. miracle? oh yeah we had 'em . prophecies? check people being saved? yup and a whole lot more

and we also had a practicing homosexual who was kicked out of the Assemblies of God...finally and amen...

it's been a long road...but God is faithful

one morning as I was praying, the Holy Spirit spoke this reference into my mind:

Psalm 107:20

He sent forth His word and healed them; He rescued them from the Pit.

I did not know that was in scripture...in fact, I did not know a whole lotta verses were in scripture

I realized that God had those words put in my mind and they have been my lifesaver, salvation and instruction and freedom from deception from then until now. be sure it was a process and happy to say it still is

when someone says the spoken word or prophecy has more authority then the word of God...you look them in the face and rebuke them in the Name of Jesus. you are being lied to.

keep playing with unholy fire. it will undo you. and those words are for everyone and no one in particular

I will add that I have watched a few other of these videos and in one, she is telling some man that revival will only come through him to the US. what the bizzaro?

reject this nonsense. this harmful nonsense

why is everyone waiting for revival? revive yourself in the presence of God...you will find Him when you search for Him with all your heart

His mercies are new every morning

="ResidentAlien, post: 4765241, member: 306907"]If you want to know about Kathryn Krick, you have to know about GeorDavie Maarifa: https://narconnections.com/kathryn-krick-2/

They're both connected to the New Apostolic Reformation. Wolves and false prophets both. The fact that people would even entertain the idea that either one of them are legit shows clearly the times we're in.


actually, this is the video I was thinking of

anyone who thinks that the Holy Spirit has anointed either one of these shysters......

she says to him 'I am nothing without you'...whatever demonic anointing he has was passed on to her

Interesting.

What I noticed from an empirical perspective is that some of those contortions seemed to go beyond the realm of nature, unless she is a contortionist or gymist with an uber strong and flexible core. The Crucible depicted the Salem witch hunt situation as non-supernatural, but I read that during the trial the girls bodies were contorted in unnatural ways. I do not think they handled it right if they believed these spirits' testimony and stuff like that to accuse others.

I do not think we have to see something totally unnatural for it to be a demon. I mean they don't have to levitate and their head doesn't have to spin around (like in some movie) for it to be real. I do not sense the presence of a demon. She gave a creepy look. It's on film though. And in real life, I do not always sense the presence of a demon, just sometimes. Even if an exorcism or purported exorcism is going on, I do not necessarily sense it.

I am inclined to think this may be a genuine exorcism, though I know little about her. Some people might want attention and flop around even though they are pretending to be inhabited by evil beings. Or they could pretend under the persuasive influence of evil beings, not knowing such things are real. Or they could be doing it out of some sort of psychological thing, mass hysteria or whatever. Or it can be genuine.

As far as the exorcism goes there, I am glad she did not try to interview the spirit. Jesus asked a question-- what is your name-- to a legion, so some people use that as an apologetic for interviewing demons. It was short though.

I was a little disappointed to find out that in real life, they don't always just come out in two seconds when you mention it. I was taught in Sunday School or some meeting in that room in church that if you tell them to go in Jesus' name, they do. We sang a song, "In the name of Jesus.... demons will have to flee." Someone pointed out to me that there is a certain ongoing tense, and I think it shows up in Luke 8. The Lord Jesus told the demons to come out of the guy infested with legion before he finally cast them out.

I know some people who do exorcism want to get at the root of sin (maybe devil worship through idolatry, occult stuff, etc.) or unforgiveness (based on delivering to the tormentors in the parable of the unforgiving servant) while casting out demons. They may tell people who have never done it who just say it will be instant that it may take some confession or repentance to get rid of the demons legal 'right.' I understand the rationale for that. But I don't see specific instances of that in the Bible. The reasons I see for not being able to cast a demon out are unbelief in Matthew 17, combined with some manuscripts saying, "This kind cometh not out but by fasting and prayer." Another is it took a while apparently for a huge number of demons, legion, to come out. We don't know how long all of Christ's other exorcisms took.

I would not want the idea that I had to go through an elaborate methodology to cast out a demon to hinder my faith in any way--- getting people to renounce sin and repent first. Can't that be taken care off after so the spirit does not come back and inhabit with reinforcements? I suspect some rather sinful people in Biblical times got demons cast out of them. One was a diviner probably with the Apollo cult that Paul cast a demon out of. Those are sinful things. Of course, she was a Gentile during a time of repentance and remission of sin through Christ's name was newly being preached among her people. I would imagine if someone had enough power from God for it, that the demon could just go out instantly and some of this other stuff would be resolved. The outliers here might be the kind that comes out through prayer and fasting, maybe multiple demons taking a bit longer. I think I've seen the fast and slow kind, both in person and on film, but probably more of the slow kinds in cases where there seems to be more evidence of the demon there.

The other issue is the power to cast out demons. Jesus had it. He gave it to the Twelve and the 70. In Mark 16, we read that them that believe will cast out demons, lay hands on the sick and they shall recover, take up serpents, etc. There are some people who have taken that serpent thing quite literally. If you interpret the passage to mean that each and every individual that really believes is going to cast out demons, take up serpents, and heal, then you end up with people feeling condemned and thinking they aren't saved unless they handle a snake and some miraculous things happen. I see it as the group of believers will manifest these signs, rather than necessitating every believer has to heal, has to cast out devils, etc. I think Apostolic Constitutions made a similar point. I read that in there a while back if I have the title right, maybe from the 400's AD.

Casting out demons is also a miracle/sign, according to Jesus. Apparently the 'children' of the Pharisees could cast out demons according to Jesus in Matthew 12. There were other people not following with the disciples who cast out demons in his name. John didn't like that and the apostles forbid them, but they were wrong to do so. Manifestations of the Spirit are given as the Spirit wills, but God is generous, and the Spirit can give a one-off manifestation of the operation of powers/miracles so we can cast out a demon when we need to. All things are possible to him that believes.

I don't understand what she meant by 'family death.' My guess is that might have been some terminology used in some teaching I am not familiar with, some kind of theology the exorcist there holds to. I have mixed feelings about 'generational curses.' I think 'curse' may be the wrong word. Someone has to communicate a curse-- usually speak it. It could be written to. Someone has to curse someone else for there to be a curse. Israelites and those who get circumcised and take upon themselves the obligation to obey the law of Moses with an intent to be justified by the law are under a curse, because they violate the law (all have sinned) and there is a curse in the law for those who do not obey it. Is that multi-generational? Does it apply to Gentiles? That does not seem clear to me. So who put a __curse__ on all these people with sins in their bloodline or whatever they call it?

There is this verse from Exodus 20.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

God is speaking to Israel. We all learn from the ten commandments. The principle is is more general though. The fourth (generation) of them that hate God. God visits the wickedness of them that hate Him down for four generations, but mercy for thousands of generations for them that hate him.

Then we can read Ezekiel and see how they who are under the guilt of the fathers' sins can repent and be free from it. God can deliver people from the effects of past sin through individual repentance. This may be the principle partly found in the 'generational curse' teaching, but if no one spoke a curse, then there is no curse. If God did not curse, why call it a curse. Is that statement in Exodus 20 a 'curse'? That seems to be a stretch of the meaning of the word....maybe.

As far as the honorific titles are concerned, I don't like people being called 'apostle' or 'pastor' in front of their name. It reminds me of the rabbi and Father stuff in Matthew 23. All ye are brethren. We might have different gifts and roles. I see apostles as those who are 'sent out'-- since that is what the word means. We can look at the examples in scripture-- Jesus calls the 12 'apostles' in connection with their being sent out to heal, cast out demons, raise the dead, and preach 'Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Then they are apostles after that. Paul and Barnabas start getting called 'apostles' after the Spirit speaks to the prophets and teachers in Antioch to separate them for ministry, and the Spirit sends them out. Then Acts first calls them 'apostles' in Acts 14:4 then again in verse 14.

Then in I Thessalonians 1, we see Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy authored the epistle, and in 2:6-7, we see 'apostles of Christ' used to describe them. Timothy had a gift in him with the laying on of the apostles hands, and a gift in him given through prophecy accompanied by the laying on of hands of the apostles. Compare Timothy having a gift through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders to Barnabas and Saul (Paul) having hands laid on them to separate them to ministry and being sent out by the Spirit after the Spirit spoke to the prophets and teachers in Antioch. Silvanus/Silas was a prophet the apostles in Acts 15 sent with a letter. He and Paul later travelled together. There is no story about his becoming an apostle.

The Bible is not explicit about whether a Christian can be demonized. Demon-possessed is KJV language that is misleading. 'Demonized' comes from more literally interpreting the Greek. I prefer that term.

Someone can say the Holy Spirit cannot live in the same vessel as a demon. We could also say the Holy Spirit cannot live in a vessel that lies, or cheats on taxes, or looks lustfully at a woman in a bikini, or that gets excessively angry without a cause, or in someone who gossips. If someone with the Holy Spirit can have sin, are demons really worse than sin? I would say keep an open mind?

Ananias was a part of the Christian community. Wasn't he a Christian? Satan filled his heart, according to Peter. So how did Satan do that? Did he dump a bunch of stuff into Ananias heart, or did he get into Ananias heart. It seems ambiguous. Either way, it wasn't good. Satan entered into Judas.

The problem is if you insist a Christian cannot be demonized then what happens when you do a deliverance session and the person is confessing faith in Jesus, and the person can hardly say 'Jesus' because of the demon bothering him. What happens when someone confesses faith, is baptized, etc., but then you see them in an exorcism saying, "No. She is mine." when someone casts the demon out?
So what do you say then. "You aren't saved. Your baptism wasn't legitimate. Your Christian walk has all been false. You say you believe Jesus rose from the dead, but I say you don't." Do you judge their salvation like that?

I can tell you, real life doesn't really seem to work like this 'No Christian can have a demon." Just saying.

I don't think Christians walking with Christ should have fear of getting demonized. We just walk holy. But if someone gets into the occult or idolatry especially-- stuff really associated with demons, or falls into some kind of sin. Ananias was brazen enough to lie about giving all the money from that land. We can guess he and his wife may have wanted praise of men, might have been covetous, might have wanted a name-change and recognition like Barnabas or whatever. It doesn't say he was demonized-- unless that is what Satan filled his heart meant.

I just saw that opening video and haven't seen the rest, but if God wanted to choose one person through which He would bring a national revival, that is clearly His right. We can think about Wesley and Whitfield types for the UK and the colonies. Supposedly Fredrick the Wise had the dream about the monk and his pen before the Martin Luther controversy, and there was that John Huss prediction about what they did to this goose (huss) and the swan that would arise in a hundred years... or whatever it was. There are key people that the Lord may be using in the history of revival and religion. If they get a prophecy, it might sound really big.

I haven't seen the prophecy, so I don't know. But I say God may do as He pleases.

you haven't watched the 2nd video nor do you know too much about this person; you don't know

your words

I don't see a national revival in the future here and I am not a prophet...just perhaps someone hanging over the edge and observing with some experience and a touch of discernment

I wouldn't ever give an opinion without researching first. just sayin

ps....we do as we please....God does as He says.

this ^^^ I agree with

I think the unpardonable passage is there so people will read it and be careful. Why couldn't someone profess their faith in Jesus, get baptized, follow Jesus, then lose faith or go into sin and then say something bad about the Holy Spirit? If it is not possible, then being careful not to won't cost you anything. But if it is, it is good to be careful.

I was responding to the idea of whether God could choose one person through which a revival would flow. If you look at history as a path dependent thing and if it had been set in stone that Luther or Wesley or whoever would be the person through which revival would come. We do not know the Almighty's plans, but He can reveal whatever secrets He chooses. I was clear that I had limited knowledge of these individuals.

I heard a second-hand prophetic word, I think, (I think he said so-and-so said it) the other day at a new Bible study I visited that said that the cup for America is full. (In Abraham's time, the cup of the Amorites was not full, but they were conquered in the time of Moses.) I had just met the man who said that, but I have been praying if that is the case that God will send revival or let some stuff be splashed out of the cup instead of sending whatever other judgment. Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind. I think there are probably at least thousands of righteous-- imputed, in the US.

I'll resist the urge to unprofitably use my time to look through your past posts to see if you have before, or to keep an eye on you to see if you do. But I think I was clear that I was addressing an idea, not people I needed to research.

Do people in the 'New Apostolic Reformation' believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead? Do they believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Do they believe in repentance and remission of sins through the name of Jesus?

If so, why would you think they are all wolves instead of lambs? If you repent from your sins and your dead works and believe these things then have some error in your theology and then you learn it was wrong, don't you think of yourself as a lamb with some wrong theology? Why would these people you think are in error have to all be wolves? Is not believing in NAR doctrine an additional requirement for salvation?

What constitutes 'NAR' is up for debate. There are people I do not consider NAR who others claim are because they believe in healing through the laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, or other Biblical gifts of the Spirit. Michael Brown had an article on this. Do New Apostolic Reformation people know that they are NAR? I think of NAR as having to do with one of Wagner's organizations and some spin offs, the people who think they have a set number of 'apostles'-- probably most of whom don't really do apostolic work from my understanding of it based on what I see in scripture. But some may actually be involved in that. I think I know some. There are Christians who believe in the ongoing work of the ministry of apostleship or its function in church planting, missionary work, etc. like Watchman Nee and movements he was in, the Assemblies of God, some IMB Baptists even, maybe missions focused conservative Baptists, even a Plymouth Brethren man I met, the house church movement, etc. This is a more tight-to-scripture approach, and no doubt you can find some Charismatics who see this in scripture, and if they say it, they probably get accused of being NAR if they are high profile.

I have concerns about the NAR. There is a kind of fuzzy, maybe not usually explicitly taught post-millennial ideology that some of the leaders have, but I don't think that sends them to Hell. There is this fuzzy idea of apostles as either heads of movements or organizations or as 'movers and shakers', or just 'he's so anointed that he's an apostle' that I don't think aligns with what apostles are in the Bible looking at passages such as Matthew 10 and Acts 13-14. Does a wrong idea of apostleship mean they aren't saved? Is the Gospel not good enough if they have the wrong idea of apostleship?

Some in the NAR do promote a really fuzzy, soft attitude toward the sin of false prophesy. I find that very alarming. Maybe there is some wolf stuff going on. I don't have specifics in mind.

No women apostles in the NT! NONE!

I saw one of the videos. I liked this YouTube comment.

>>>First of all, Christians can be too extreme in one area or another and the grace of God can still work through their lives. For example, this woman just really, really defers to the preacher there. I think a little about Paul's words to Philemon. His soul was saved through Paul, so he should grant Paul his request about Onesimus. If the man won her to Christ, I understand some of her words, but some of it is way over the top in my humble opinion. Stars in her eyes about this preacher it seems. It was her opinion that he held the keys to America. She has a high opinion of him. Maybe he does operate a lot in power gifts and other ministries and she was amazed by it. I think more along the lines of 'all ye are brethren.' <<<

>>>It is not a sin to ride a helicopter, as far as I know. I would feel it is inappropriate if I were going to preach somewhere to line up a red carpet for myself to walk on. But if I were a guest and the people had the attitude, "He is preaching the word of God. Let us honor the Lord by showing him honor"-- what should I do? Shouldn't I let them honor the Lord? If they aren't going to extremes or worshipping me, if they are putting me at the chief seat at the feast and I did not take the place themselves, and they do it out of honor to God, shouldn't I accept? I never had red carpet, but I did sense the attitude of serving the servant of the Lord from a Javanese and Papuan married couple host when I preached to a mining camp where I could just feel that they were doing their best. And on the giving end, it is good to do that. Someone is on a trip to serve God, let us serve God by serving him. <<<

>>>And what was the gold crown about? If someone wants to go around in a gold crown to say I am above everyone else in the church, that would seem strange to me. Personally, I would not want to do it. If it is the custom, or just a one-off idea, to wear a gold crown or a tiara to your birthday party or some special event-- a super fancy Burger King hat, is that a sin? I would not accuse. <<<

>>>Where did African Christians get this idea of the exalted man of God? Isn't there a lot of that in Europe and the US. The Roman Catholics certainly have a hierarchy and they consider the pope holy. I heard a man who'd been in Baptist churches make a joke that the difference between Roman Catholics and Baptists is that Roman Catholics had one pope and Baptists have one in every church. It was an exaggeration, but there are some preachers in all kinds of denominations who have the idea of the big I and the little you. But you know what? Some people still get saved in these churches? Someone can have an out of balance view of how great the 'man of God' should be treated and God can still give them gifts, use them in ministry. I don't know this man's ministry, or the woman's, but I know God can use all kinds of people. <<<

>>>About casting out demons with a foot, I am guessing he makes much of 'And the God of peace shall crush Satan under your feet shortly." I am from America where I heard about self-esteem and respecting people. I don't think I would command a demon to say through a person that it was stupid. Also, if it is a doxia that is in someone, I would not want to speak evil of dignities. I would think of public exorcism as an opportunity to declare the Gospel, and an opportunity to declare Christ's authority, in addition to casting out a demon. I am not an expert in the area, and have just a little experience with demons manifesting in situations I was in. <<<

>>>One of the comments from the narrator was very odd to me-- "when you are doing deliverance, the demon will not do the funny face that this woman thinks. " My question is, how do you know? Demons are intelligent beings. You can make funny faces or shocked faces. Why can't they? Why can't they do so through people? I cannot see anything in the Bible that says there is a limited type of faces that demons can make. <<<

>>>People can pretend to be demon possessed-- but wouldn't that be worse than playing a terrible villian on TV if they were just doing it for attention?<<<

it depends on which translation you read because Janice was one Paul said

Please stop trying to rewrite our Bible. Only Satan's children do that.

come DUck why you got to say such things.


“Greet Andronicus and Junia … who are outstanding among the apostles” (Romans 16:7)


if you disagree with the word of God as the KJV and others say this then disagree but apostle means "one who is sent."

But you don't make your point heard by suggesting one is of Satan, now grow up ok.