The fact anyone could call themselves Christian and ally with Talmudic Zionists just proves a lack of understanding of both the Talmud and of Christianity.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
4 comments:
9
15 hours ago
9 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+9Score on mirror
)
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
a lot of subversion was done to create this idea of "christian" zionism
I know that luther wrote "the jews and their lies" but I've wondered if he was hired to try to divide christendom to lay the groundwork for something like "christians" accepting zionism,
because it seems the scofield bible eventually got in to prot circles (which Catholicism was immune to; until the subversion of Vatican 2 which was its own separate kind of attack)
my perception is the orthodox have seemed kind of "irrelevant" to the political west so they were ignored more than subverted (?) but there were "suspicious" patriarchs like whoever tried to make deals with the subverted modernist post-Vatican 2 Vatican so enemies / non-Christians probably became orthodox "clergy" and "patriarchs":
> The [Balamand] agreement was endorsed by ["]Pope["] John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in 1995
> The agreement affirms that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are "Sister Churches"
> However, it faced criticism from some Orthodox factions, particularly the Church of Georgia, which rejected the Balamand Agreement as heretical, viewing it as a compromise with ecumenism and the "Branch Theory."
Naturally "traditional Catholics" I think would reject it in a similar way going in the opposite direction as "ecumenical slop"
I get it, "no more brother wars" kind of vibe, not hoping to see "Christians" fighting one another. But, there's still going to be "disagreement" by Catholics that Catholicism is "the one true religion" and that orthodox need to convert, and I'd logically expect a similar opposite attitude from orthodox. We'll only straighten out that conflict through one side admitting the other side's view is correct and "converting" to it. We can work through the disagreements diplomatically, but it still is what it is.
I know that luther wrote "the jews and their lies" but I've wondered if he was hired to try to divide christendom to lay the groundwork for something like "christians" accepting zionism,
because it seems the scofield bible eventually got in to prot circles (which Catholicism was immune to; until the subversion of Vatican 2 which was its own separate kind of attack)
my perception is the orthodox have seemed kind of "irrelevant" to the political west so they were ignored more than subverted (?) but there were "suspicious" patriarchs like whoever tried to make deals with the subverted modernist post-Vatican 2 Vatican so enemies / non-Christians probably became orthodox "clergy" and "patriarchs":
> The [Balamand] agreement was endorsed by ["]Pope["] John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in 1995
> The agreement affirms that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are "Sister Churches"
> However, it faced criticism from some Orthodox factions, particularly the Church of Georgia, which rejected the Balamand Agreement as heretical, viewing it as a compromise with ecumenism and the "Branch Theory."
Naturally "traditional Catholics" I think would reject it in a similar way going in the opposite direction as "ecumenical slop"
I get it, "no more brother wars" kind of vibe, not hoping to see "Christians" fighting one another. But, there's still going to be "disagreement" by Catholics that Catholicism is "the one true religion" and that orthodox need to convert, and I'd logically expect a similar opposite attitude from orthodox. We'll only straighten out that conflict through one side admitting the other side's view is correct and "converting" to it. We can work through the disagreements diplomatically, but it still is what it is.
Toast message