The Ecumenical Movement

Formation of the World Church

The Ecumenical Movement (EM)

The Reformation of the 16th century eventually led to the numerous independent Christian groups we know today: Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Charismatics, Unitarians, Methodists and so on. The Reformers were 'Protestant' in that they 'protested' against and rebelled from the supreme authority of the pope.

An early attempt to reverse this fragmentation was the Evangelical Alliance (EA) founded in England in 1846. Today, the EA vision includes 'Working for a united Church'. And the 1910 World Missionary Conference of major protestant denominations and missionary societies has been described as the formal beginning of the EM. So ecumenism was birthed in an attempt to unify the Protestant churches. The word 'ecumenical' literally means 'the inhabited earth' or 'the whole world', so here we have the birth of a 'world church'.

Today, the EM is led by the World Council of Churches (WCC) and promotes worldwide unity between all the major Christian groups:

"A united church is no optional extra." [Desmond Tutu, WCC, Brazil, 2006]

Although initially involving mainly Protestant and Orthodox churches, the WCC now has Catholic observers and the Catholic Church is a full member of some of its committees. Whilst the EM is not an interfaith initiative, it does promote unity despite significant doctrinal differences, and so a casualty must inevitably be truth! This point is often ignored by the EM as it stresses Jesus' prayer for oneness and unity amongst His followers (Jn 17.20-23). And so the relentless move to unity continues:

Chrislam:

Chrislam is a modern-day attempt to blend the teachings and practices of Christianity and Islam. As of 2014, Christians, Muslims and Jews plan to build a place where they can all worship (initially at least, in separate rooms). They want a building to combine a church, a synagogue and a mosque under one roof. It is called 'House of One'. Where? In Berlin! Moreover, the Vatican actively supports Chrislam.

Roman Catholic Church:

The restoration of unity among all Christians was one of the principal concerns of theSecond Vatican Council (1962-65). The Council's Decree on Ecumenism claimed that Christ founded only one Church, and that division openly contradicts the will of Christ. But the Catholic Church acknowledges that doctrinal and structural differences between Protestants and itself create many obstacles to full ecclesiastical communion. It claims:

"The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. Although the ecumenical movement and the desire for peace with the Catholic Church have not yet taken hold everywhere, it is our hope that ecumenical feeling and mutual esteem may gradually increase among all men. Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethren ..."

Anglican Church:

The Anglican Church claims that "Ecumenism is at the very heart of Anglicanism". Accordingly, an aim of the Anglican Communion is:

"To encourage and guide Anglican participation in the ecumenical movement and the ecumenical organisations, to co-operate with the World Council of Churches and the world confessional bodies on behalf of the Anglican Communion, and to make arrangements for the conduct of pan-Anglican conversations with the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, and other churches." [ACC Constitution 2(f)]

The apostolic constitution, "Anglicanorum coetibus," issued by Pope Benedict in November 2009 allowed Anglicans the option of entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. The Anglican Church saw this as "a positive contribution to a wider dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion".

Baptist Church:

It is claimed that Baptists have never been linked with Protestants and have never been identified with the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, the Baptist approachto ecumenism is rooted in the recognition that it is insufficient for the Baptist Church to be alone, and that "ecumenism is an inescapable reality for all of us". Yet, despite a clear commitment to ecumenism expressed in formal votes, there are also doctrinal problems e.g. the issues of baptism and structural unity. Baptists believe that unity needs to be bottom up!

Methodist Church:

In its Ecumenical Statements, the UK Methodist Church affirms its commitment to work with ecumenical partners wherever possible. Its ecumenical strategy includes:

"A vision of one Church for one World; a desire to share in a common life with all Christian people; and a commitment to seeking the full visible unity of the Church.

However, like the Baptists, it recognises that successful ecumenical working does not ignore the differences between Christians and between Christian denominations.

Orthodox Church:

Eastern Orthodox Christianity (which embraces the Greek Orthodox Church) draws on elements of Greek, Middle-Eastern, Russian and Slav culture. Some challenge Orthodox doctrine, particularly on salvation.

The Orthodox Church stands out from other mainstream churches on EM. Whilst it shares the aim of Christian unity, it is not prepared to compromise its doctrine. For instance, at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop of Athens suggested that the Anglican Communion might take the opportunity "to examine to what degree the Church has remained faithful or has deviated from the Pauline teaching and principles". The Orthodox assert that only they have retained the fullness of the Truth, handed down by Christ to the Apostles, and handed on by them to the Church, down to the present day. In his book "Our Orthodox Christian Faith", Athanasios Frangopoulos says:

"there are not many Churches but one - the Orthodox Catholic Church."

Some go even further and claim that the EM is heresy:

"Modern ecumenism is both a movement and an ecclesiological heresy. It poses a grave threat to the very 'pillar and foundation of the Truth' (1 Timothy 3:15) itself - the Church."

Marks of Apostate Churches

The following video highlights some characteristics of apostate churches, and ecumenism is one of them. Are YOU in one of these churches?

• See Video
  
  

Bloodline of Satan

After my long absence on this blog (except some articles I've re-share to keep you inform) due to my intensive attendance for my artistry; allow me to re-activate this account once again to further educate you on the not so popular knowledge (intentionally hidden by Satanist) for the love of truth. 

   First, let me start in connections to one of my most popular blog....Where are the Nephilim? or about Fallen Angels that cohabit with mankind. Perhaps this topic about Angelic being is becoming my specialty because since childhood I often curious about angels.

   Can we still trace the bloodline of Fallen angels up to this date?

   A lot of researcher on fallen angels thinks that this mixing of human gene and angels started only around the time of Enoch; when the sons of god saw the sons of man as fair and beautiful....

Genesis 6

 1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

   But the Bible say otherwise, the mixing of human and angel's seed started much earlier... in fact from the garden of Eden with the first man and woman. Yes from Eve herself, and in fact her firstborn was a hybrid human-angel being. Cain, the son of Lucifer. There were even some info that Adam too had sexual relation with angel before 

   Let's go back 3 chapters earlier to prove this point.... 

    In Genesis 3:15a He said, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed." 

    How was that? Her Seed and the Serpent Seed.

   

   Enmity means mutual hatred. He is saying there is mutual hatred between the seedline of Satan's and the seed line of Eve's. So clearly there are two seedlines. The serpent seed started with Cain and Adam's seed started with Seth. No matter how they have tried to cover it up in the KJV, the Dead Sea Scrolls and even verses such as Gen. 3:15 make it clear that Satan had his own seedline and it started back with Eve.

    Beguiled used in this text is the same as "seduced." 

   

   You see, after eating the forbidden fruit one of the Knowledge that open Eve's eyes is that of Sexual Knowledge. The Serpent taught Eve some of the major deadly sin in a short span of time: LUST then Gluttony with the promise of becoming like God, someone who can create...well actually to procreate. 

   Furthermore, Scripture says Cain "was of that wicked one" he was a son of Satan's through the seduction of Eve. The term "of" is the same that means offspring. Neither is Cain listed anywhere in the descendants of Adam which strongly indicates Cain was not his son. The official beginning of the wheat and the tares began with Eve. 

   Most church pastors today will pull out Genesis 4:1 which reads, "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord."

   By now, I guess you are aware already that there are many omissions and translation errors throughout the Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that Genesis 4:1 was tampered with. In fact the passage should read:

And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael (Satan), and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like the earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord.

   In Aramaic Targum we can read in Gen. 3:6 something very unique since it had given the Serpent its exact name. 

“ And the woman saw Sammael, the angel of death, and she was afraid

and knew that the tree was good for food, and that it was a remedy for the

enlightenment of the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise.

She took of its fruit and ate and also gave (it) to her husband and he ate.”

  And of course, your pastors and priest will not easily accept this fact but on Genesis 4:1 we can read on ancient scroll:

Genesis 4:1: “ And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the Angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those on high and not like those below. And she said: ‘ I have got a man from the angel of the LORD ’ .”

   This rendition of Genesis 4:1 is interesting, for it speaks of the “ angel of death ” plus “ like those on high ” and “ like those below.” This seems to accord with John 8:23, where Jesus told the Canaanite woman--variety of “ Jewish people: “ ... Ye are from beneath; and I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.”

   Satan too was on high until his fall, when he fell like lightning; Luke 10:18.

   The Palestinian Targum to Genesis 4:1: “ And Adam knew his wife Eve, who

had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have

acquired a man, the angel of the Lord ...”

   In another Rabbinic work: Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 21: “ And she saw that his

likeness was not of earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord.”

Are We in Biblical Context Here?

   Well, of course, anything that comes from the LORD must be confirmed elsewhere in the Bible. We can not just rely on a single sentence or phrase to prove our point. 

   Christians know that anything of the Lord is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible. IF Cain was indeed Satan's son, we wouldn't have to count on just one passage to prove it.

   In fact there are many: I John 3:12 "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his (half) brother.." Here the word "of" in Greek is #1537 in the Strong's Concordance. When used implying a person, it means "a son of or offspring."

   Now compare this with other translations:

   The New Testament in Modern English: "We are none of us to have the spirit of Cain, who was a son of the devil.."

    Living Bible: "We are not to be like Cain, who belonged to Satan.."

    New English Bible: "..unlike Cain who was a child of the evil one.."

    New Century Bible: "Do not be like Cain who belonged to the Evil One."

    New Jerusalem Bible: "..not to be like Cain, who was from the Evil One.."

   Therefore, it make more sense now what we can read on Revelation 2:9 and 3:9: “ ... and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [Judah], and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan ... Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews [Judah], and are not, but do lie ... ”?

   Again; not only did Yahshua the Messiah accuse the scribe and Pharisee “ Jews ” of lying about their bloodline, but He also told them in plain, unadulterated language they were not of his sheepfold...
   John 10:26-27: “ 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me.”

   In John 8:44 Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees and proclaimed, 'Ye are of your father the devil.." The term "of" meaning generation, offspring. They were of the physical seed of their father the devil.

Symbol of The Tree

    Trees are often used as metaphors in regards to people. Jesus was the "tree of life."

We also find:

Mat 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit.

John 8:44 “ The devil is the father you are sprung from, and you want to carry out your father’s wishes. He was a murderer from the first, and he has nothing to do with truth, for there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in his true character, for he is a liar and the father of them.”

Additional Reading....

The Grail Bloodline and the Descendants of Cain
by Boyd Rice

Oct 20, 2004

Conventional wisdom has it that the Grail bloodline is sacred because it came from Christ, a man still considered by much of the world to be the true son of God. And yet the dynasty of kings who descended from this bloodline were known as sorcerer-kings, some of whom hinted or even stated outright that they were in fact descendants of Lucifer. A number of authors claim this thesis is true, but they are predominantly hardcore Christian conspiracy theorists, and stop well short of explaining why they believe this, or of giving any tangible details to substantiate their claims. Says one: “In typical Gnostic fashion, descendants of the Merovingians claim to have the blood of both Christ and Satan in their veins.” Given the fact that this theme (or a variation of it) recurs with some regularity, and given that it would appear to be consistent with the sort of dual vibe which permeates the saga of this bloodline, I began to wonder if there might not be some traditions from which such a notion could have arisen. At length, several were discovered.

Firstly, let’s remember that this bloodline descended from a figure who equates with the Biblical Cain. In certain rabbinic lore, we come across the very interesting notion that Cain was not the son of Adam, but of Samael. It was thought that when Samael appeared to Eve as a serpent, he seduced her. The fruit of that union was Cain. Now Samael was a fallen angel, essentially the Judaic Lucifer. If the Merovingians knew of this version of the story (which they no doubt did), and believed it, it could be the basis of their alleged assertion that they possessed the blood of both Christ and Lucifer.

An alternate version of the Cain saga, equally Luciferian in its connotations, says that he was the son of Adam’s first wife, Lilith. She had been the consort of God before coming to Earth as a fallen angel. The full details of her story are probably too well-known to bear repeating here, but it’s interesting that of the two alternate traditions concerning Cain’s parentage, both involve the Luciferian Nephilim bloodline. Also of interest is the fact that the lily is known to have taken its name from “Lilith”, and the heraldic device emblematic of this bloodline is the fleur-de-lys (widely accepted as symbolic of the lily.) Could not this symbol, viewed within this context, in fact be the “Flower of Lilith”?

The Lilith/Samael connection is also pertinent in regard to the Grail saga insofar as the two have a son of their own who seems to play a recurring role in the whole mythos: Asmodeus. Not only is Asmodeus the dominant image (shown mirroring Christ) in Rennes-le-Chateau, he is said to have played the central role in building the Temple of Solomon, the edifice from which the Knights Templar took their name. The recurrence of this strange figure in Grail lore has long perplexed observers, yet it would appear that both he and the descendants of Cain may in fact have shared a kindred ancestry. It is even said in some traditions that it was Asmodeus whom Moses called upon to part the Red Sea, and not God. Though portrayed as a demon or devil figure, his name reveals that he may not always have been viewed as such, for Asmodeus translates simply to the Lord God (Ashma = Lord, and Deus = God).

Another possible genesis of the idea of a Luciferian bloodline may have come from the Elohim, who in the Bible say: “Let us make man in our image.” Elohim is generally thought to be a plural of God, or to be “the gods.” But it is also widely believed to denote the Nephilim, the fallen angels known as the Watchers in The Book of Enoch. It is believed that the word “Elohim” comes from the much more ancient Babylonian word “Ellu”, which means “Shining Ones.” This phrase has a distinctively Luciferian connotation, because the name “Lucifer” literally means “light bearer.” And the descendants of Cain, who were the deified kings of Sumeria, bore the title of “Ari”, a term which also meant “Shining Ones.” The Sumerian pictogram for “Ari” is an inverted pentagram, a symbol long associated with Lucifer. And the phrase “Shining Ones” would be a very apt description for the descendants of Enoch’s fallen angels, who were said to have hair white as snow, pale eyes, and pale skin which seemed literally to glow and fill the room with light.

The Sumerian Ari are almost always depicted as wearing crowns bearing horns, and some of their descendants were said actually to have had horns. For instance, the most famous statue of Moses (that of Michelangelo) depicts him with horns atop his forehead, not wholly inappropriate for someone who may be a blood relation of Asmodeus. Theologians protest that they are not horns, merely rays of light. But even rays of light suggest a Luciferian subtext. Alexander the Great declared himself the son of God, and he too was said to have horns. In fact, to this very day, if you talk to people on the streets of Iran (who remember his invasion as though it happened last week), they will tell you in all solemnity that it’s a historical fact that Alexander had horns, which he wore his hair long to cover up.

In closing, we note the fact that Cain seems to have engendered his own tradition, as evidenced in a strange Gnostic sect called the Cainites. Like the Carpocrateans, the Cainites believed that no one could be saved except by “making the journey through everything.” Epiphanius describes them as a group “consecrating... lustful or illegal acts to various heavenly beings” as a sort of sacrament. Interestingly, many scholars compare them to... Satanists.

The extent to which the Merovingians knew of these alternate traditions is uncertain. Whether or not they believed in them is more uncertain still, yet it remains likely that they both knew about these traditions and took them quite seriously. To this very day, the coat of arms of the capital of the Merovingian empire, Stenay, bears an image of the Devil. And the original name of Stenay was “Satanicum.”