"treasure_lost"'s Pastor Fired!!

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Protestant
Oo, aren't you technical. I'm using the standard definition of Protestant, not a varied interdenominational use of it: I'm using it to mean a non-Catholic.

I know some denoms say the Protestants were just the Reformers, but I'm pretty sure non-Catholics took a "protesting" stance against the heresy of pagan Rome before then.
At the end of the day it's an identifier.
 

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
121
Points
63
Oo, aren't you technical. I'm using the standard definition of Protestant, not a varied interdenominational use of it: I'm using it to mean a non-Catholic.

I know some denoms say the Protestants were just the Reformers, but I'm pretty sure non-Catholics took a "protesting" stance against the heresy of pagan Rome before then.
At the end of the day it's an identifier.
Well, most fundamentalist churches will explain they have never been part of the Catholic church and are not part of a denomination, so they were never connected to the Catholic church in that way. They consider themselves like other independent churches through the ages that were never taken over by Catholic church. In most fundy churches they will quickly correct you if you try to label them as a protestant.
 

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
13,043
Reaction score
113
Points
63
Says the guy with the crazy clown avatar. I think I was on a Nintendo forum 15 years ago where kids used the same avatar.
I don't get your point. I'm not a Catholic nor am I a Protestant.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
I don't get your point. I'm not a Catholic nor am I a Protestant.
You're just a clown who goes with the herd, even if they crap on you, your Bible, and your doctrine.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
It's clear enough that Hort has difficulty with the ransom-to-Satan theory of the atonement; to be fair, he has difficulty with the ransom being paid to the Father as well. The reason is that he has a problem with the concept of a ransom
Wrong. Your disinfo posts in this thread are staggeringly elementary.

Hort did not say he "has difficulty with the ransom-to-Satan theory" and he did not say he "has difficulty with the ransom being paid to the Father", he said this, in context:

"I confess I have no repugnance [no negative bent, meaning no difficulty considering believing] to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it [RANSOM STOPPED HERE TO FORMULATE HIS DOWNPLAYING OF THIS QUOTE, READ THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE]. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father."


(the original quote I just commented in the brackets of above, in case Ransom accuses everyone who doesn't agree with the LBCF of "doctoring quotes" again: "I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father.")

There goes another one of your disinfo attempts. Now let's take down more.

The reason is that he has a problem with the concept of a ransom, and he concludes that the term is being used figuratively. (Because no wealth or goods literally changes hands, perhaps; he doesn't really articulate where the difficulty lies.)
What kind of incredible baloney is this?

First of all, that is not the context he set before he made the statement about the ransom being paid to Satan (even though him calling the ransom "figurative" is yet another heresy, and he did not mean it in the sense of "it was figurative meaning God didn't literally pay in cash", you incredibly stupid expositor of writing. A 5 year old could see that's not what he meant.).

Hort did not say that is the reason he has a problem with the ransom being paid to the Father. If you back up and actually read the chapter, the context is this:

Hort was explaining how he was struggling to understanding the substitutionary atonement from the perspective of judicial vs. moral justice, and whether or not the atonement additionally abolishes suffering for the saved individual after they are saved. On this he said he couldn't make up his mind: he didn't even know if after someone came to Christ, they would still experience suffering or if the atonement should have abolished this for them as well.


Then he goes into further heresy by questioning the atonement: "Perhaps we may be too hasty in assuming an absolute necessity of absolutely proportional suffering." (He wasn't convinced that the atonement was absolutely proportionate since believers still experience suffering).

THEN he immediately considers that the ransom was paid to Satan, and that he can see NO OTHER POSSIBLE form in which this ransom is at all tenable, and that ANYTHING is better than a ransom paid to the Father.



And here's another crazy thing Hort said that Ransom actually tried to defend in his blatant disinfo campaign:

"...the testimony of the Bible is only inferential, and serious difficulties beset both the view which chiefly found favour with the Fathers, that the ransom was paid to the evil one, and still more the doctrine widely spread in the middle ages and in modern times, that it was paid to the Father."


That the early church fathers largely believed in the ransom-to-Satan theory, and the medieval church in the ransom-to-the-Father theory, is simply a fact of history.
Look at both of these heretics Ransom and his idol Hort, defending probably one of the greatest heresies in the history of the church. First of all, it is a lie to say "they largely believed that theory, and that is a fact". They did not largely believe that theory, it was a heresy introduced and contemplated by a few of them. And Hort trying to reconsider a heresy from the time of the "medieval church" is lunacy. Have you even read about the Dark Ages and the attempted (and largely successful) destruction of Biblical truth during that time?

If you didn't know, most of the church "fathers" introduced heresy after heresy
which is one reason why many of them are still held in high regard by the Catholic church today.

Not only did these church "fathers" disagree with each other on numerous doctrines, the one in question is one of the more sinister doctrines they thought up. And Hort tried to revive the idea in his writings, just like he and his buddy Westcott revived the corrupt manuscripts that Erasmus rejected. Don't forget that these men hung out with Satanists and tried to communicate with demons. Only an idiot would even try defending them.


In the same place, he also writes:

These passages together represent the blood of the Lamb as the ransom paid for the release of men of every nation from the bondage of the earth, and from the bondage of men (answering to what is elsewhere called "the world"), and from the bondage of their sins: and they in turn are represented as reflecting the character of the Lamb, they are undefiled and without blemish. (Ibid., 79)

And that, if read without KJV-only prejudice, can easily be taken as an orthodox affirmation of substitutionary atonement.
You mean: "If you read that and pretend that he didn't ALSO say that it was not a ransom paid to the Father, but most plausibly (he could "see no other" option) to Satan, then it's fine and dandy!"

Why is it that heretics hinge upon ignoring half of the information at hand. They only seeing the parts they want to see, treating research like their personal salad bar, as if that makes the original context go away. What a RIDICULOUS amateur this "Ransom" shill is.

Satan works like rat poison: he feeds you 99.8% truth and 0.2% lies to kill you. Westcott and Hort could fool no one by writing from the standpoint of pure heretics or demonists, they had to appeal to the Christian audience while slipping heresy in. Duh. DUH. I'd say ignoring that HUGE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM for another part of his writing that doesn't change the initial fact at all is what's ACTUALLY prejudice.

And you don't even have to be KJVO to see this. Or even a Christian. You can be a 5 year old who simply knows how to read and see it. Stop trying to link everything to "KJVO" you obvious disinfo agent. Seeing the heresy in Westcott and Hort has NOTHING to do with the KJV. ANYONE can see this.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Hitherto the coexistence of several types of apostolic doctrine in the first age and of various parties in Christendom for several generations afterwards, has been quoted to prove that our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise. But while I acknowledge most willingly the great merit of the Tübingen School in pointing out with marked distinctness the characteristics of the different books of the New Testament, and their connexion with special sides of the Christian Doctrine and with various eras of the Christian Church, it seems to me almost inexplicable that they should not have found in those writings the explanation instead of the result of those divisions which are traceable up to the Apostolic times. (B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament [London: Macmillan, 1875]., vii-viii.)

So this one's easy to refute. "Our Bible as well as our faith is a mere compromise" is not Westcott's view. It's the view of his theological opponents.
Wrong.

That is not why that quote is often quoted. It is quoted because in spite of him acknowledging that accusation, he then doesn't deny it because he indeed does favor the Apostolic doctrine of the Catholic church and allowed that to influence the New Versions, essentially saying he is OK with said compromise, verifying that in the Tubingen School's definition of compromise, he DID compromise, affirming their statement, however in his own eyes, what he's doing is trying to now argue that the Catholic doctrine is not compromise at all. This heretic was against what Erasmus and the other brave men did when they stood up to the Catholic church to retain the Majority Text readings.

Notice how Ransom left out the entire first part of the passage to fabricate HIS OWN context,
when as usual, my original post gave the TRUE context of EVERY quote, while his are ALL disinfo twistings and half-truths:

"And thus reserving for another occasion the inquiry into their mutual relations and essential unity, I have endeavoured to connect the history of the New Testament Canon with the growth and consolidation of the Catholic Church, and to point out the relation existing between the amount of evidence for the authenticity of its component parts, and the whole mass of Christian literature. However imperfectly this design has been carried out, I cannot but hope that such a method of inquiry will convey both the truest notion of the connexion of the written Word with the living body of Christ, and the surest conviction of its divine authority. Hitherto [Here begins Ransom's quoting of the passage, conveniently leaving out this context about the fact that he was accused of compromising with the Catholic church and bringing that doctrine into the Bible, which he then doesn't deny. That's why people quote that quote. Because he essentially affirmed it.]"


Where do you do all your research, Ransom?
wescotthort.com?
This AMATEUR site put together in defense of these heretics?
http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes_scripture.html

That's like me going to CNN to try and prove CNN right. You "research" like a little kid.

"Herp herp, this one's easy to refute" -Lazy fake scholar Ransom
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
"I reject the word infallibility of the Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." Just the shoddy grammar of that phrase should make you question its veracity.
Ohhh, it's "veracity", huh. Yeah. Let's see about this one now.

It's another doctored quotation: part of the sentence has been removed and the punctuation altered, so as to distort its meaning.
"doctored to 'distort' it's meaning," this little lying disinfo agent claims.

Here is the full quote:

"All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth — I reject the word infallibility — of Holy Scripture overwhelming. Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve, and which I never hope to solve."

As anyone who can read can see,
the context is Westcott claiming that while he does believe absolute truth can be found in the scriptures (YET the nature of such “absolute truth” he claims eludes him, as he finds "difficulties" he believes he will "never hope to solve", ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth with "fresh doubts", perhaps from his days of trying to interact with demons in the Ghostlie Guild and the Society for Psychical Research. Suddenly this "absolute truth" he's trying to defend doesn't sound so absolute anymore, neither does the shaky, confused "confidence" of the man paradoxically defending it), he nevertheless "rejects" that “infallible” was an accurate description of the Holy Scriptures.


ALSO, if you read Westcott and Hort's writings, there are many errors in grammar as well as outdated uses of words. In one place, if I recall correctly, one of them uses the word "connexion" instead of "connection", something to that effect where an "x" was used instead of "ct". So when people are updating the word "overwhelming" to "overwhelmingly", they are retaining the context so that the sentence actually makes sense to readers today.

THE USE OF THE WORD "OVERWHELMING" IN THIS SENTENCE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE:

"I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth — I reject the word infallibility — of Holy Scripture overwhelming."


TRY SUBMITTING AND ENGLISH ESSAY TODAY WITH THAT SENTENCE AND YOU'LL GET DOCKED, SON.


So now we see the absolute dishonesty, twisting, and smear campaigning this little psyop keyboard "warrior" attempted (and now failed: don't mess with the big dogs, kid): he actually had the gall to claim that updating the grammar of a word to help readers TODAY actually understand it "was DOCTORING the quote intentionally to DISTORT it's meaning".

This guy is a nutjob! Only someone who literally has no argument nitpicks and lies at this microscopic of a level.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Then, it appears as though the quote doctor has realized how ungrammatical his doctoring is
We can all see you now need to go back to elementary school and take your first English class over again.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Here's what Hort had to say about the topic of infallibility, in an earlier letter to Lightfoot:

If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels. I am most anxious to find the N.T. infallible, and have a strong sense of the Divine purpose guiding all its parts; but I cannot see how the exact limits of such guidance can be ascertained
UHHHH.

If you read that quote, he clearly says he doubts the infallibility of scripture. Do you know how to read?

Hort goes on in the quote YOU decided to defend like an idiot:


"I fully believe that this is true of a large proportion of what the rasher critics peremptorily pronounce to be errors; [he FULLY believes that A LARGE PORTION of what THE RASHER CRITICS pronounce as scriptural ERRORS until HE came along and MAGICALLY fixed them with his "Criticism" and his "Critical Text", I wonder if the demons he tried to summon gave him this idea] and I think it possible [so the first point he FULLY believed, now he's talking about something being POSSIBLE, let's see what it is] that it may be true of all [SO NOW HE'S SAYING THAT ALL OF WHAT THE RASHER CRITICS PRONOUNCED AS ERRORS COULD POSSIBLY BE TRUE], but, as far as my present knowledge goes, hardly probable."


I do most fully recognize the special "Providence" which controuled [sic] the formation of the canonical books: my only difficulty is to understand how you can have had any doubts about the matter, considering how often we have talked over subjects in which such a belief was implied if not expressed....But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing.
Again, can you read? He clearly stated he does not go so far as to believe in infallibility of canonical writing.

"Providence", by comparison, he says he does believe,
which essentially concludes "Since God is in control he generally had his providential hand over the events forming the canonical scriptures, he just didn't inspire it."

He affirms the concept of infallibility
Well now. What a little lying weasel we can all now see you are.

He did not believe in the infallibility of the canonical scriptures. That's what he said. Stop trying to overcomplicate and lie, you evil Satanic prick.

Again, note:

  • Hort was definitely more theologically liberal
Look at this insane disinfo agent ACTUALLY defending these evil men. "He was just 'theologically liberal', guys. Everyone in Europe tried to summon demons! It was the popular thing with EVERYBODY! Christians too!"

Westcott and Hort were heretics and they butchered God's holy words for an entire generation across the world. I would not be surprised if anyone who ever defended them KNOWING THIS will receive nothing but the heaviest hand of chastisement from God. Perhaps yours is a strong delusion that you actually believe your own BS while EVERYONE else can see you're a proud, empty-headed fool.


So Westcott believed:
  • The Bible was "absolute truth"--in other words, it was inerrant and infallible, even if he didn't like that latter word.
Well, I already demolished this imaginary interpretation in the posts above.

Your statement doesn't even make sense. "He didn't like the word infallible, but he believed it was infallible, he just didn't like to use that word, man! Yeah! Yeah!"

Just like Ransom doesn't like the word "Ruckman", so when he uses it in a sentence like this: "I reject Ruckman overwhelming." He just means he doesn't like the word Ruckman, not Ruckman himself! Brilliant! Also notice his IMPECCABLE GRAMMAR with the word "overwhelming". It's not "overwhelmingLY", it's "overwhelming"! Don't "doctor" my quote, man! CORRECTING SPELLING DISTORTS THE CONTEXT.

You're an idiot.


Doesn't really sound like they disagreed with Christians about the authority and infallibility of the Scriptures, does it? Nope. KJV-onlyists are liars.
WAIT, WHO'S LYING AGAIN?

"Doesn't really sound like they disagreed with Christians about the authority and infallibility (and of course here he redirects HIS lie to the KJVO crowd when KJVO has NOTHING to do with the subject of the CORRUPTION of Westcott & Hort, but he needs a SCAPEGOAT to SHIFT the LIES onto, much like sinners CRUCIFIED CHRIST as the scapegoat for all THEIR lies)"

That statement literally just lied about everything. WHAT A LITTLE INSANE JOKER YOU ARE. SOMEONE NEEDS TO LOCK YOU UP IN AN ARKHAM ASYLUM.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
CARM forums
You WOULD be associated in some way with CARM.

UGC has debated and exposed the "president" of CARM, and we will debate that CONSCIOUSLY DECEPTIVE HERETIC again ANY day.

I guarantee you he will always be on the run from us, though.


That passive-aggressive little Oompa Loompa of a Slickster.
 

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
121
Points
63
By the way, despite this ridiculous smear campaign against KJVO folks, calling them a "cult" while defending the literal cult that Westcott & Hort were a part of when they attempted to summon demons ("everyone in Europe was doing it, man!" -Ransom),


NO ONE HERE, especially Ransom, has addressed how W/H's Critical Text and subsequent New Versions ended up changing the text in 8,000 places:

or how if you add up the total number of words removed in the New Versions, it equates to removing the entire books of 1 Peter and 2 Peter from the Bible.

Since you didn't watch the video, here's a partial list of just some of the verses/half-verses that have been removed from the Majority Text (not just the KJV, the MAJORITY TEXT used by the Geneva Bible, etc.) in the New Versions:


Removed from the 4 Gospels:

View attachment 1470
View attachment 1469

View attachment 1463 View attachment 1466

Removed from Acts:
View attachment 1475

Removed from the first Pauline Epistle, Romans:
View attachment 1471

And the partial list of others removed from the Majority Text in the New Versions New Testament:
View attachment 1472

Keep in mind, folks. These disinfo agents always want to red herring you into thinking we're arguing "from the KJV first", and that's what makes KJV users "a cult".
No we're not.
We're arguing from the MAJORITY TEXT (which includes the Geneva Bible and others) vs. CRITICAL TEXT position. The KJVO position, while a BYPRODUCT of this research, is in no way the STARTING POINT. That's how you know they're lying when they keep trying to push that false narrative to pigeon-hole and SCARE everyone from identifying THE CORRUPTION in the CRITICAL TEXT.

The focus is on the CRITICAL TEXT and the Manuscripts Codex B, Aleph, and Bezae, which Dean of Chichester John Burgon CLEARLY STATED you cannot go with BOTH the Majority Text and the Critical Text, it's ONE OR THE OTHER, BECAUSE THEY ARE CONTRADICTORY MANUSCRIPTS WITH AN ESSENTIAL 1% ALIGNMENT AND 99% DISAGREEMENT.

It's simple. Liars will always overcomplicate the obvious.
So grabbing two verses at random. Here is Luke 9:55:

NASB: But He turned and rebuked them, [[fn]and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of;

KJV: But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.


You may not like bracket but the two verses are essentially the same.

Luke 19:45:

NASB: Jesus entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling,

KJV: And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;


While the buyers are left off the NASB version (because the manuscripts support it) it does little to change the idea that these sellers had made turned the House of God into a den of thieves.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
There's a world of difference between "Evangelicals seem to me perverted," and "The positive doctrines of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue." Hort isn't arguing against the Evangelical
Yeah, no. No, there's not.

There is no "WORLD OF DIFFERENCE" between those two quotes. If one identifies as an Evangelical, they are identifying with its doctrines, hence Evangelical. You don't call an asian man or a hispanic man "Evangelical" because of their ethnicity, you'd only call them "Evangelical" BECAUSE THEY IDENTIFY WITH EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE.

Could the quote have included the first half of the sentence to be more accurate? Sure. But did it "distort" the context and MORPH the entire interpretation of the quote into something else? NO. NO IT DIDN'T.


"Hort isn't arguing against the Evangelical" Do you seriously get paid in some way from a New Version?

Is this James White or some other goon hiding and cowering behind his keyboard? What's with this desperate desire to convince Evangelicals that these heretics who first sold them the New Versions lie were actually NOT against Evangelicalism? "Noooo, keep buying the New Versions, guys! They didn't mean it like that!" What a little WEASEL.

this doctored quotation has the same mangled first sentence
LOOOOOOOL

although "perverted"--by which he probably means something like "overly dogmatic" or "emphasized out of balance."
YEAH. YEAH. HE "PROBABLY" MEANS THAT, MAN.

UHHH. LAST I CHECKED, THE WORD "PERVERTED" STILL MEANT "PERVERTED". IT DIDN'T "PROBABLY" MEAN WHATEVER THE READER WANTS IT TO MEAN.

Unless you have an agenda to save face for these idols of yours so you can SAVE FACE and keep rolling in the dough.

THEN IT ALWAYS MEANS THE KINDEST, MOST MISINTERPRETED, LIGHTEST THING POSSIBLE.


(He's certainly not arguing they're wrong if he's denying they're untrue!)
Did you mean to write "He's certainly not arguing they're wrong if he's saying they're true"? (Which is what you just said, except that's the OPPOSITE of what the quote said)

What kind of disinfo agent tactic is this, writing in these double-negatives like some kind of a fine print on a used car salesman receipt.

"He's certainly not arguing they're WRONG if he's DENYING they're UNTRUE!"

Well then. Ransom, I'm certainly not arguing you have a DEMON speaking through you if I'm DENYING this is UNTRUE.

MAKES SENSE, RIGHT.


So when Hort said he differed with them on the authority of the Bible, he was saying he took the more conservative position than them.
What an insane self-contradicting liar. YOU JUST SAID HORT WAS MORE LIBERAL IN HIS THEOLOGY THAN MOST.

Have you even read any of their books without the sole intention of finding out ways to lie about what they said to "soften" and "palatize" it so you could keep selling your New Versions?

They AND their New Versions were accused of bringing in heresy such as traditions from Apostolic Catholicism. They DEFENDED bringing Catholicism back into the text, and constantly doubted the Inspiration of the canonical scriptures. You're saying this means they were saying they were taking a more "conservative" position than Evangelicals when they said they differed with them on the authority of the Bible?

I have family members who are Catholic and guess what? They doubt the inspiration of scripture too in the terms Christians define inspiration, regardless of whatever the "official position" of the Catholic church is! Most Catholics I know say, "yes, God's providence was upon the scriptures, but at the end of the day they were written by fallible men."



I have no doubt in my mind that Ransom has spent years of his life like Gollum from Lord of the Rings, hiding in a cave, carefully staring at his New Version that is no doubt making him rich, "MY PRECIOUS", carefully planning his defense of that annoying achilles heel that could take down his whole operation: THE DREADED WESTCOTT & HORT. "THESE MEN," he thought, "I MUST BECOME NOTHING LESS THAN A LAWYER TO DEFEND THEIR OUTRAGEOUS HERESIES".


And so he set out on a years long journey, carefully thinking of every way he could view their words from the most positive perspective possible to make them seem like THEY WEREN'T SAYING WHAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY SAYING.

Then God sent UGC in to remind him: YOU REAP IN DUE SEASON, LIAR.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
@tmjbog Shut up. Go back to Buddhism or whatever your 5th religion was.

"For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers...
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."

"Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee."
You're so wise, right? Prove it.
 

treasure_unseen

Active member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
766
Reaction score
43
Points
28
You're just a clown who goes with the herd, even if they crap on you, your Bible, and your doctrine.
You'll notice how he "eats his own" like a good false prophet and swindler.

It really is "all about him"....
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
If any of the notable personalities that founded the Ghostlie Guild (which included, supposedly, two future Bishops of Durham and one future Archbishop of Canterbury amongst their number) had moved on to the SPR, you would expect the Wikipedians to take notice, wouldn't you?

In reality, the only connection between the Ghostlie Guild and the Society for Psychical Research is that they were but two of many scholarly societies
Oh really?

So first, Ransom literally called these Satanic societies who were openly engaging in demonic activity and had close relations with one of the most wicked and deceptive organizations in the world: Theosophy, which stated its goal is to bring Lucifer worship into the Church and that the New Versions were rendered more in line with Theosophy, Ransom called them "Scholarly Societies".

Remember that Ransom also defended the idea that Jesus is Lucifer because "Lucifer means Morning Star" (no it doesn't). This man is an undercover Satanist, whether he knows it or not, he's literally fighting for the devil at this point. And what has he been against this whole time? Not Covenant Theology, not Calvinism: Dispensationalism and KJVO. That shows you where the real Christian power is and how it irritates the demons so.


SECOND, "In reality, the only connection between the Ghostlie Guild and the Society for Psychical Research is... [they were] SCHOLARLY societies"


Oh really?

"Rosemary’s baby, the S.P.R. [Society for Psychical Research], concurs in its official history, the S.P.R.: An Outline of Its History, by W.H. Salter. It refers to the transmutation of ‘Westcott, Hort, Lightfoot and Benson’s’ ‘Ghostly Guild’ into the S.P.R., calling the Ghostly Guild ‘the parent society,’ ‘a society from which our own can claim direct descent’ and ‘the forerunner of so unorthodox a subject as ours.’ They list their interests as ‘telepathy, pure clairvoyance, communication from “some spirit” in or out of the body… the nature and extend of any influence which may be exerted by one mind upon another… disturbances in houses reputed to be haunted… physical phenomena commonly called spiritualistic.’"

Yeah. Wikipedia was your problem here. Just like you probably went to the sham site "westcotthort.com" for your "this one is easy to refute", right.


Here's the most sinister of all Ransom's lies, disinfo, twisting, scapegoating everything on KJV readers, and downplaying:

UGC said:
"who interviewed the founder of the Satanic religion of Theosophy, Helena P. Blavatsky (Sublime Elect Scotch Lady, Masonic Patent issued by John Yarker), and were favorably impressed with her."

Ransom responded:

Yeah, who cares.
YEAH, WHO CARES? THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IS ONE OF THE MOST DECEPTIVE, SATANIC, WICKED SOCIETIES IN THE WORLD.

THEY ARE LITERALLY INFILTRATING CHURCHES AND PREPARING THE WORLD TO WORSHIP THE ANTI-CHRIST.

OH WAIT, I FORGOT, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE ANTI-CHRIST EITHER.

THIS MAN IS A SATANIST AND HE IS OF THE DEVIL. PRAY CHURCH, PRAY. NOW.


TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE END TIMES DECEPTION OF THEOSOPHY, WATCH THIS DOCUMENTARY BY FACELIKETHESUN:

 

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
121
Points
63
Oh really?

So first, Ransom literally called these Satanic societies who were openly engaging in demonic activity and had close relations with one of the most wicked and deceptive organizations in the world: Theosophy, which stated its goal is to bring Lucifer worship into the Church and that the New Versions were rendered more in line with Theosophy, Ransom called them "Scholarly Societies".

Remember that Ransom also defended the idea that Jesus is Lucifer because "Lucifer means Morning Star" (no it doesn't). This man is an undercover Satanist, whether he knows it or not, he's literally fighting for the devil at this point. And what has he been against this whole time? Not Covenant Theology, not Calvinism: Dispensationalism and KJVO. That shows you where the real Christian power is and how it irritates the demons so.


SECOND, "In reality, the only connection between the Ghostlie Guild and the Society for Psychical Research is... [they were] SCHOLARLY societies"


Oh really?

"Rosemary’s baby, the S.P.R. [Society for Psychical Research], concurs in its official history, the S.P.R.: An Outline of Its History, by W.H. Salter. It refers to the transmutation of ‘Westcott, Hort, Lightfoot and Benson’s’ ‘Ghostly Guild’ into the S.P.R., calling the Ghostly Guild ‘the parent society,’ ‘a society from which our own can claim direct descent’ and ‘the forerunner of so unorthodox a subject as ours.’ They list their interests as ‘telepathy, pure clairvoyance, communication from “some spirit” in or out of the body… the nature and extend of any influence which may be exerted by one mind upon another… disturbances in houses reputed to be haunted… physical phenomena commonly called spiritualistic.’"


Yeah. Wikipedia was your problem here. Just like you probably went to the sham site "westcotthort.com" for your "this one is easy to refute", right.


Here's the most sinister of all Ransom's lies, disinfo, twisting, scapegoating everything on KJV readers, and downplaying:

UGC said:
"who interviewed the founder of the Satanic religion of Theosophy, Helena P. Blavatsky (Sublime Elect Scotch Lady, Masonic Patent issued by John Yarker), and were favorably impressed with her."

Ransom responded:

YEAH, WHO CARES? THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY IS ONE OF THE MOST DECEPTIVE, SATANIC, WICKED SOCIETIES IN THE WORLD.

THEY ARE LITERALLY INFILTRATING CHURCHES AND PREPARING THE WORLD TO WORSHIP THE ANTI-CHRIST.

OH WAIT, I FORGOT, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE ANTI-CHRIST EITHER.

THIS MAN IS A SATANIST AND HE IS OF THE DEVIL. PRAY CHURCH, PRAY. NOW.


TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE END TIMES DECEPTION OF THEOSOPHY, WATCH THIS DOCUMENTARY BY FACELIKETHESUN:

Lots and lots of speculation. Bring the ship back to the realm of reality.
 

UGC

FagBoyCigar
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
34
Points
48
You'll notice how he "eats his own"
You are not my own.

You attack God's word, you attack God's people, and you are not neutral and not looking to get along with ANY Christian or learn ANYTHING new.

For months you have been on a relentless smear campaign against Dispensationalism and KJVO groups, showing no love whatsoever, but accusing any who stand up to you of showing you no love.

You are not only of your father the Devil, you are active soldiers of the devil.

God has his own champions. Might want to go read up on men like Samson. Elijah. Joshua.

Don't even try that "be a nice guy" stuff on me. You are not my brothers and you are not lost souls even remotely open OR neutral OR tolerant of Christianity. You are literal active warriors fighting for Satan. And you're going down.
 

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
121
Points
63
You are not my own.

You attack God's word, you attack God's people, and you are not neutral and not looking to be saved or learn ANYTHING new.

For months you have been on a relentless smear campaign against Dispensationalism and KJVO groups, showing no love whatsoever, but accusing any who stand up to you of showing you no love.

You are not only of your father the Devil, you are active soldiers of the devil.

God has his own champions. Might want to go read up on men like Samson. Elijah. Joshua.

Don't even try that "be a nice guy" stuff on me. You are not my brothers and you are not lost souls even remotely open OR neutral OR tolerant of Christianity. You are literal active warriors fighting for Satan. And you're going down.
Well certainly not open to your little cult of Ruckmanism-to get those followers you will need to get a little charisma and and find a group willing to let you do their thinking for them. Plus it would help if you didn't call them Protestants, that will turn away most of your target audience.
 

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,043
Reaction score
121
Points
63
You are not my own.

You attack God's word, you attack God's people, and you are not neutral and not looking to get along with ANY Christian or learn ANYTHING new.

For months you have been on a relentless smear campaign against Dispensationalism and KJVO groups, showing no love whatsoever, but accusing any who stand up to you of showing you no love.

You are not only of your father the Devil, you are active soldiers of the devil.

God has his own champions. Might want to go read up on men like Samson. Elijah. Joshua.

Don't even try that "be a nice guy" stuff on me. You are not my brothers and you are not lost souls even remotely open OR neutral OR tolerant of Christianity. You are literal active warriors fighting for Satan. And you're going down.
You kind of missed the point I don't think Treasure had any interest in being counted among the likes of UGC. He was referring to the way you trash Twisted, who probably agrees with you on about 95% of the issues.
 
Top