Today I wanted to show you how Catholic interpreters and behind them the daughters of the harlot, or ecumenical pastors, teach contrary to the truth. I am writing here about those who are aware of this, for there are probably some who have uncritically accepted the teaching of their mentors,
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, so either it is valid or we will go against the Spirit of Truth.
The problem is that the word "church" has been unified for two very different concepts. The first is the temple, the house of God, and the second is the congregation, the church.
Let's take a remedial look at the first New Testament use of this universal word in ecumenism today:
" And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Mt 18.
Today the understanding of church is very cold and heartless. When Catholics say "I go to church" they ultimately think they are going to a building. Another equally icy understanding is of the church as INSTITUTION.
To make you aware of the difference in the understanding of this concept I will give examples of expressions mainly in Catholics:
"we're collecting donations to build a church"
The listener here is not thinking of an institution or a group of people, but of a building.
Another use is an example saying:
"I'm going to church to pray"
As an aside, this is a Catholic church in Hanover.
What is the original Greek word for "church"?
“" And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build Church Mine, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 18."
It is "ekklesia" translated as: church, congregation, bunch. Do we see or feel contrast and dissonance? A building is not the same as a congregation. But popular, or Catholic, thinking is different. It has colossal implications. What is a congregation as understood by Jesus?
“ "Where two or three accumulates in My name, there I am in their midst" (Matthew 18:20)"
A congregation of two or three people meeting in the name of Jesus is already an ecclesia. I have been in many hmmm for some churches and for others congregations, ecclesias. In some they numbered 5 - 10 people. That's how many people attended the Church of Praise in Kielce a year ago, when I wanted to go there with my friend. And in the ecumenical church in Kielce, the KCHWE, there are about 100 people. Wasn't the first one an ecclesia (for ecumenists a church)? Isn't a married couple of believers according to Jesus' words, who pray in His name an ecclesia. It is at 100% because it meets the minimum of two persons, especially since the apostle Paul advises that women should be taught by their husbands. This is justified because the husband, not the pastor, is responsible for the family. He is accountable to Christ. Not diminishing the role of pastors, but also not making them the chief authority in Scripture. Scripture is for everyone, though not everyone has the gift of teaching.
In Acts it is written:
“(11) Great fear gripped the whole Church and all who heard of it. "
Is this where God wanted to tell us that fear has taken over the building? Clearly, no.
Fear gripped the ecclesia.
In another example, we have an equally interesting church theme:
“(5) So they guarded Peter in prison, and the church prayed constantly to God for him. 'Acts 12
Did the building or institution pray for Peter?
No, the congregation of believers in Jesus prayed for Peter.
Now let's look at intentional universalism from a different angle:
It was all designed to lock people into buildings and assign them to calculating institutions.
One of the most beautiful moments after I was born again was that feeling when in nature I didn't feel that stiffness praying with my brothers and sisters like people listening to the Sermon on the Mount.
Scripture says:
"'The God who created the world and everything in it, He who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples built by human hands' Acts 17:24.
For centuries, the buildings where people prayed were called temples. Solomon built God a temple, not a church.
The building was referred to as a temple.
But the Catholic translators and the Protestant translators who followed them made a linguistic fraud by changing temple to church, which gave a universalism to both terms. I hope you can follow me and understand what I mean and that I am explaining it clearly.
Let's take a look at Matthew 12:5.
"For you have not read in the law that on the Sabbath and the priests church Sabbath rape, and guiltless are they?"
The correct translation is as follows:
" Or have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbath day the priests violate the in the temple Sabbath rest, and are blameless?"
There is a Greek "hieron" for the temple, and "ecclesia" for the congregation. This is the difference.
Let's look at one more quote.
In the new UBG, it looks like this:
"But how would the Scriptures that say it must happen be fulfilled? (55) At this point Jesus said to the crowds: You went out like a bandit with swords and clubs to seize me. Every day I sat down with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not capture me."
Not in a church, but a temple.
"Know ye not that ye are the church of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? And if anyone violates the church of God, God will condemn him; for the church of God is holy, which you are."- 1 Corinthians 3:16-17.
Church in this case the Greek "naos". No longer an ecclesia.
Here, in turn, the phrase "church" is understood as both a building and a dwelling. Application example:
"Saying, He said, I can destroy the temple of God, and in three days rebuild it." Matthew 26
There is something completely different here from the ecclesia, or even the church as a building. One might even say that it is a particularly sacred place. Why? Because in another passage in Matthew's gospel it says:
"And here is the veil temple It split in half, from top to bottom, the earth shook and the rocks cracked."
This place was already more than a building. do we feel the gradation? The building -> then the veil between the holy place for the high priest and the rest.
Hence in Corinthians it is written:
“Are you the Church of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you? And if anyone violates the church of God, God will condemn him; for the church of God is holy, which you are.""
In whom does the Spirit of God dwell? In the buildings? Not anymore. Now the Spirit of God dwells in Christians who follow Jesus. Not following the institution of Rome or the Protestant church, but following Jesus, because the Spirit of God does not need a building.
Whom did the Lord Jesus tear down and in three days rebuild? The Judaic Church? or Himself as the temple of the Holy Spirit?
Today's understanding of the church is mainly assigned to buildings and institutions. You are outside the institution, then you are not a believer. According to this understanding, for the first three hundred years the Christians of apostolic times and until they were absorbed by the empire of Rome were not the congregation of Jesus. What a hideous scam. The former risked their lives, were in conflict with the Jews and Rome, celebrated the Sabbath and not Sunday, and the latter brought into church pews were to be saved just because they were in a building or institution.
In truth, the purpose of this screwing with people's institutional thinking is ecumenism with Rome, and 95% churches are in such an ecumenism. Even some of the Adventists are. Messianics, on the other hand, are often Zionists which is one thing. Rome and Zionism are two sides of the same coin. Many pastors are Zionists just as many bishops are Jews. The listeners of Radio Maryja are deceived. Besides, in many churches there is a spirit (demon) of religiosity that blocks the truth. Attachment to a building and religion is more important than TRUTH.
In Revelation, John addresses the words of Jesus:
"John to the seven churches which are in Asia:"
It should read:
"John to seven churches, which are in Asia:"
Look, I pasted the first quote from a Catholic website, where that church is capitalized giving the power of the institution in the subconscious.
Why did the Lord Jesus say, where two pray in my name there I AM?
Because true worshippers worship God in Spirit and in truth, not in organization. God knew full well how Satan would respond to the formation of the ecclesia (assembly) of Jesus.
We no longer need buildings, although it is difficult to meet without them. especially in winter. Instead, the temple of God's Spirit is man himself. The filling of the Spirit does not take place in buildings but in our bodies and this is how we can recognize such a man that he is guided by the truth in love towards his neighbour.
In love with people I write the truth about the pagan origin of the holiday called Christmas. They purposely did not give Jesus Christmas in the name because then no one would celebrate. This Christmas is a celebration of the god of this world. In love for you I want you to sanctify yourself because God is holy and has no fellowship with Saturn, Mithras, etc.
In Acts it is written:
"For a certain goldsmith, named Demetrius, who made Diana's temples out of silver, provided the artisans with a considerable income."
Here the translators have already retained the correct translation "temples" not churches. Is this not evidence of manipulation? Once it is a church as it is profitable, and once it is a temple according to need though the original Greek word is the same "naos" used in the sense of the temple of the Spirit as in Corinthians as "The church of God ye are." In reference to a group. If "naos" is a group, then everyone who is in the naos (church) has the Holy Spirit in them, which is not the case. We know from practice that many were destroyed by God because they destroyed their own temples which were their bodies.
The translators in Acts 19 no longer wrote Diana's churches, but temples, because that would sound grotesque and show the convergence of Catholic temples with pagan temples, which in fact they are. Diana is worshipped in both churches. There is only a difference of names and just as in Ephesus they made money from the worship of Diana/Artemis, in Rome they make money from Marian statues.
Sadly, however, the mainline evangelical denominations cooperate with such a church of Artemis.
In summary, there is now one and the same word for three (ecclesia, hieron, naos) different expressions from the Greek - church. Alas, but God did not create the church or any institution. His worshippers worship in Spirit and in Truth, and this is foreign to evangelicals.
The ecclesia is only in Christ, not the denomination. The church is just a meeting place and as life shows there is a lot of visiting in many buildings (churches).
__________________________________
If this blog helps you to understand the world, if you can support me I am giving my account number:
Recipient name: Peter
Title: Selfless donation for the owner of the website detectiveprawdy.pl
Nest bank
71 1870 1045 2078 1028 6259 0001
PAYPAL
Thank you in advance in the name of Jesus Christ .
English 
Polish
A little off topic but I think, it's quite interesting.
1* The New York Times with the death of Bush announced the twilight of the so-called NWO;
2* In Foregin Affairs there is an extremely important article by Richard Hass stating plainly that the idea of the NWO by Bush, Rockefeller, Brzezinski and Kissinger has failed, has not been crowned and is now totally failing. The attempt to keep this creature alive will end in a Third War;
3* Secretary of State Pompeo has publicly said that the Trump administration is working on a new NWO.
Interesting... and where did you get this information?
What Pompeo said is very, very, very important. Namely, he used the statement "building a liberal world order".
Trump's administration will be building a "liberal world order." The whole trick is that this is nothing new, no new plan. Pompeo's words mean only that there is a reshuffling of the deck of cards for a new deal.
In fact, these new architects of the NWO are back to square one. Two models of the NWO emerged after World War II:
- liberal NWO;
- radical NWO.
The supporters of the radical form of the NWO were the Bush family, the Rotshilds, the Rockefellers, Brzezinski, Kissinger. In this model, institutions were set up such as a world bank, an international monetary fund, the UN and an armed arm in the form of NATO, later also the EU. In this model, the armed dictatorship of the world government under the leadership of America was to reign and the constituent states were to give up their sovereignty. In the first article we have a kind of mourning for Bush and the question of whether there is still a point in engaging in this kind of NWO (radical) model, because in the second article Haass has clearly shown that this model is bankrupt, has not worked and its continuation will only lead to the outbreak of the Third War.
An example of a failed operation of the old NWO is the failure to create an American Union with a common currency, the Amero.
The game options have been changed and officially Pompeo has announced (third article) that the Trump administration is returning to the original idea of a "liberal NWO" in which the central role will be played by the UN in which nations will relinquish only a portion of their sovereignty precisely to the UN, which was supposed to manage this whole stall.
That is, if you can't do something with tanks then you have to do it with trickery.
There is one more curiosity connected with the liberal NWO. According to the original plans, the UN headquarters was to be moved to... Jerusalem and Jerusalem itself was to become the unwritten capital of the world.
Some other interesting words were said there. Pompeo called on international institutions to stop financing China's development. Why? Because now it is a game whether the new liberal NWO will be Chinese or American.
Anyway according to this liberal NOW model. China-Russia-India will rule Asia, America will stay with its spheres of influence, EU will rule Europe, Arabs will gather around Saudi Arabia-Israel leadership (before that they have to eliminate Syria and Iran). As for Africa it is hard to say how it will be divided. The UN is supposed to be in control of all this.
To conclude. If anyone watched the three-part film "Left Behind" it was shown perfectly there. There was shown perfectly the model of the liberal NWO headed by the UN and from which ultimately emerges no one else but the world leader or the antichrist.
ok. thanks
Loose thoughts:
I'm not familiar with these points, but I can agree that the kind of NWO the globalists wanted to implement is unlikely to work out for them anymore, unless they abolish the US.
Trump has declared war on the Rothschilds and Rockefellers (example France, yellow shirts - Macron a former Rothschild employee).
On the other hand, I increasingly associate the US + coalition with the last Beast, and the Rothschilds with such a Harlot. Only as admin mentioned, USA (or Israel) would have to suffer a mortal wound and miraculously come to life. But if it received such a wound then maybe Babylon would fall (?) Financially, if the US falls then the whole world falls. And it would line up nicely with the Bible 🙂 .
Mr. Dr. Bartosiak of geopolitics says that if the US and China don't get along, or rather don't get along, the world will boil over after Christmas or after March 2019.
Thank you very much for the article, just two days ago I was considering this passage of Scripture Ew.Matthew, and about the Church, not everything I understand at once, and here the article about it. Thank you very much, you have explained a lot to me. Lord Jesus said to Peter that he will receive the keys of the kingdom and whatever he binds on earth will also be bound in heaven and whatever he loose on earth will also be loosed in heaven, how do you understand this passage? I would be very grateful if you could find the time to explain a little. kind regards Elisabeth
ok, I will reply in a separate post.
Ok,thank you very much and support with prayers.
thanks a lot. It's a valuable thing 🙂 .
I'm off topic as usual, but I'm getting there.
As of September 28 this year, I have decided to study 1 verse a day.
Verse for today;
Ps 64:11: "The righteous shall rejoice in the Lord And shall seek refuge in him; And all the righteous of heart shall boast."
But further this thought came to me. Where in the New Testament did the Gentiles celebrate praying on the Sabbath?
And immediately it came to me;
Acts 16:13: "And on the sabbath day we went out of the gate to the river, where we thought prayer was being held, and sat down and talked with the women who had come together."
super resolution.
It is a wonderful thing to be able to tell God what troubles you, what rejoices, what I am grateful for and I say it to my God, not the priest 🙂 In church, as I remember, there was always one minute for the confession of sins and that was it... the whole relationship with God was one minute because it was a waste of time, or the person would say too much
Thank You Lord for opening our hearts to Your truth and pouring love into our hearts!
Make us, Father, what you want us to be!
This issue is very interesting, thank you for explaining it!!! 🙂