The Language of the Harlot

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.

Why does any office that it doles out to somebody who wants to be important come with greater and greater commitment to the institution? Like the proverbial tar baby, you cannot escape it. If it gives you something, and you accept it, the price of that is your undying loyalty. So much so, that if even members of your own family disagree with you, and disagree with this entity, you are taught that your duty is to cut them off—have nothing to do with them for merely asking for discussion. It is why you are routinely coached to keep your eye on whoever questions the blatant attempts at hegemony that the harlot church makes to dominate people and their groups. The use of the kings and their penal systems, their judicial systems, to charge, to try, to convict, to sentence, and to punish, up to and including the punishment of death, people who are searching for God in the labyrinthine folds of church doctrine, church polity.

Why is it that the people are always made to feel, when they ask legitimate questions, that they are being heretical, they are being rebellious, they are being non-conformists, they do not belong, they are to be excluded, and so on? Why is that so? Does any of this mesh with the spirit of a father raising sons to maturity, where it is a given that you explain the mysteries to your children as early as they can hear them, and you keep explaining the mysteries as they grow up, so that they grow from ignorance and failure to understand, to fully understanding, and then beyond that to employ and to practice the truths they have learned?

All these great sounding words are a pretense to appear like you are learned, like you know. I am not against education, but I am against the pretense and the pretended use of education to gain an advantage over people. Much of what I do is to de-mythologize Scripture, to reveal Scripture, because the intent of God is to be known, and to be known as He is. If you can believe Christ, this is what He said: “I have come,” Christ said, “to show you the Father” (John 14:9-11). How is He going to show us the Father, do you think? He is going to reveal the Father plainly.

Look at some of the ways He revealed certain things. He revealed His body and His blood sacrificially. How? By taking elements on a table, common to a Middle Eastern table in His day, bread and wine. He could have re-introduced manna. That would have been a little more consistent with a body from heaven. No, but He took leftovers on a table. Why? Because He does not wish to establish any barrier to our understanding of Him. And more to the point, He has no desire to create enmity between God and man, in man’s understanding of God. That is why.

That is why, when He was resurrected from the dead, He said, “Touch Me. Handle Me.” Because He came to show us the Father, not to recreate these mythological barriers that we inevitably have no choice but to be lost in if we intend to pursue God. And it's not that the understanding is ordinary, but you have a spirit. And the Holy Spirit has been given to dwell in you, to testify together, to verify the truth when you hear it. So, whereas we do not dumb things down so as to be inaccurate, we do not inflate things so as to be obscure.

Grace to You

For many years, the RomanCC was very determined to keep the common people in the dumb about the Word of God. This was the means by which they, the "church", maintained their power and wealth.

Definitely not. His primary audience was the common people. It was the scholars of the day who refused to hear and understand.

Meh... English borrows a lot from latin, and so do other languages, especially in sciences. It's true that we probably don't have the real sounds of the Latin words down... but I usually don't like when people call Latin a "dead language" because they are usually trying to discourage people from learning Latin in favor of some language they are even more likely to never use, besides the class they are learning it in.

Of all the things the RCC does... "they make people learn strange words" is far overshadowed by the complaints of actual abuse and atrocity.

No doubt. The RCC is culpable of much worse. But, I argue, believing God should be out of reach of the common man is, at its core, satanic.

Oh, yeah; for sure.

Jesus did obscure stuff sometimes; and not every teaching comes with instant clarity; but I don't believe he ever led people on, down into more and more obscurity. It was (and is, I suppose) progressive revelation, not progressive confusion. If the gospel is hidden, it's to non-believers right? So, if somebody is asking, and asking, and the 'clergy' just continues to use vocabulary as a smokescreen- yeah, something is wrong.

I never heard that explanation behind the cathedral architecture and stained glass either... but it seems plausible. I kind of like stained-glass and cathedral architecture. It wouldn't win me over to a church, (or even be a factor in going to one) but I suppose that to some people it might give off an "aura of legitimacy"; but a real church is supposed to feed those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.

Church opulence initially arose out of repurposing temples originally dedicated to the pagan gods to make them more “Christian”. Statues, frescos, jewel inlays, artifacts, expensive robes, gold, etc. were used in polytheistic Rome as advantages in the “beauty pageant” that was the temples of the pantheon: if the priests could get you to stop in you were more likely to give an offering.