First Ann Coulter Came For The Jews, Now It’s the Catholics’ Turn

American Spectator ^ | 9/24/15 | Aaron Goldstein

[markomalley]

First it was “f---king Jews.” Now Ann Coulter has turned her attention to Catholics.

In response to a tweet from David Limbaugh who spoke in agreement with Catholics who object to Pope Francis’s economic critique, Coulter tweeted, “I’m an American and this is why our founders (not ‘immigrants’!) distrusted Catholics & wouldn’t make them citizens.”

Some might argue that she is merely being sarcastic. Please forgive me if I fail to see the sarcasm of “f---king Jews.” But if her comments about Catholics were an attempt at sarcasm, it might be useful if she attempted to demonstrate a rudimentary knowledge of American history.

[Smokin' Joe]

And unlike the Jews, they can’t blame emigration to Israel for thinning out their conservative ranks.

And also unlike the Jews, they can blame the invasion of Catholics who have been indoctrinated heavily with generations of Socialism and worse in countries where 'dissident' priests are killed for diluting their Conservative ranks. I, too am a Catholic.

[Yosemitest]

I guess your are BLIND TOO !

The first was LIKE A LION, and had EAGLE'S WINGS:
I beheld * till the wings thereof were plucked

Ever hear of the Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete) ?

(1.) The first beast was like a lion, v. 4.
This was the Chaldean monarchy, that was fierce and strong, and made the kings absolute.
This lion had eagle’s wings, with which to fly upon the prey, denoting the wonderful speed that Nebuchadnezzar made in his conquest of kingdoms.
But Daniel soon sees the wings plucked, a full stop put to the career of their victorious arms.
Divers countries that had been tributaries to them revolt from them, and make head against them;
so that this monstrous animal, this winged lion, is made to stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart is given to it.
It has lost the heart of a lion, which it had been famous for (one of our English kings was called Caeur de Lion—Lion-heart ),
has lost its courage and become feeble and faint, dreading every thing and daring nothing;
they are put in fear, and made to know themselves to be but men.
Sometimes the valour of a nation strangely sinks, and it becomes cowardly and effeminate,
so that what was the head of the nations in an age or two becomes the tail.

I considered * the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn,
before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots :
and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
AGAIN I ASK, Ever hear of the Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete) ?

The learned are not agreed concerning this anonymous beast; some make it to be the Roman empire,
which, when it was in its glory, comprehended ten kingdoms, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Britain, Sarmatia, Pannonia, Asia, Greece, and Egypt;
and then the little horn which rose by the fall of three of the other horns (v. 8) they make to be the Turkish empire, which rose in the room of Asia, Greece, and Egypt.
Others make this fourth beast to be the kingdom of Syria, the family of the Seleucidae, which was very cruel and oppressive to the people of the Jews, as we find in Josephus and the history of the Maccabees.
And herein that empire was diverse from those which went before, that none of the preceding powers compelled the Jews to renounce their religion, but the kings of Syria did, and used them barbarously.
Their armies and commanders were the great iron teeth with which they devoured and broke in pieces the people of God, and they trampled upon the residue of them.
The ten horns are then supposed to be ten kings that reigned successively in Syria;
and then the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes, the last of the ten,
who by one means or other undermined three of the kings, and got the government.
He was a man of great ingenuity, and therefore is said
to have eyes like the eyes of a man; and he was very bold and daring, had a mouth speaking great things.
We shall meet with him again in these prophecies.

And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise : and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
So HOW DENSE do YOU have to be ?
Ever hear of the Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible ?

24. ten horns--answering to the ten "toes" ( Daniel 2:41 ).
out of this kingdom--It is out of the fourth kingdom that ten others arise, whatever exterior territory any of them possess ( Revelation 13:1 , 17:12 ).
rise after them--yet contemporaneous with them; the ten are contemporaries.
Antichrist rises after their rise, at first "little" ( Daniel 7:8 );
but after destroying three of the ten, he becomes greater than them all ( Daniel 7:20 Daniel 7:21 ).
The three being gone, he is the eighth (compare Revelation 17:11 ); a distinct head, and yet "of the seven."
As the previous world kingdoms had their representative heads (Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar; Persia, Cyrus; Greece, Alexander), so the fourth kingdom and its Antichrists shall have their evil concentrated in the one final Antichrist.
As Antiochus Epiphanes, the Antichrist of the third kingdom in Daniel 8:23-25 , was the personal enemy of God, so the final Antichrist of the fourth kingdom, his antitype.
The Church has endured a pagan and a papal persecution; there remains for her an infidel persecution, general, purifying, and cementing [CECIL].
He will not merely, as Popery, substitute himself for Christ in Christ's name, but "deny the Father and the Son" ( 1 John 2:22 ).
The persecution is to continue up to Christ's second coming ( Daniel 7:21 Daniel 7:22 ); the horn of blasphemy cannot therefore be past; for now there is almost a general cessation of persecution.

The more you PROVE what you do NOT KNOW,
the more that is revealed AGAINST your FALSE CHURCH !

[vladimir998]

“AGAIN I ASK, Ever hear of the Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete) ?”

Sure have - and I know why it isn’t that worthwhile either. And not a single thing you posted shows “The HERULI Odoacer’s government, A.D. 476-493” is in any verse in the Bible. You’re posting interpretations. Not scripture. All you’re doing is proving I was right all along.

[Rockitz]

My life has been a lot easier since I realized that not everyone is a rocket scientist. Ann probably needs the same revelation.

[Yosemitest]

So basically you BELIEVE that

"If it conflicts with Satan's FALSE CHURCH, it is to be ignored."

[vladimir998]

So basically you BELIEVE that . . . your interpretation of scripture IS the same thing as the inspired Word itself.

And you think it makes sense to rely on people like George Armstrong - who denied the Trinity (1 John 2:22-23 says “Such a person is the antichrist”) - for your interpretation of Scripture to begin with?

[Yosemitest]

Trinity? Ah HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA !
You obviously haven read John chapter 1.z
That old "spirit" as a "THIRD" member is so out of date.
It's simply the POWER through which God the Father and God the Son, does things.

Satan has warped YOU mind, selling you that "Trinity" bull, leading to the closure of the "Family of God" .

[Yosemitest]

"- who denied the Trinity (1 John 2:22-23 says “Such a person is the antichrist”) -"

That's the trouble with Catholics: THEY LOVE TO MISQUOTE THE BIBLE !

Let's take a look at 1 John 2:22-23

" Who is a liar
but he that denieth that Jesus is * the Christ ?
He is antichrist,
that denieth the Father and the Son.
Whosoever denieth the Son,
the same hath not the Father:
(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son
hath the Father also.

So... WHERE is your 'ACCLAIMED PART' about>/b> "denied the Trinity... Such a person is the antichrist" ?
Let's take this Line by Line, so other that aren;t as DENSE as you, might actually LEARN SOMETHING !

By the way, I don't know who George Armstrong is,
but I'm familiar with Herbert W. Armstrong, and Gartner Ted Armstrong,
of whom, both would tell you that they were SIMPLY MEN,
and no more, and no less.

NOW... Did either of them DENY that Jesus is "THE CHRIST" (?), and let me add to that; Did either of them DENY that Jesus WAS GOD ?

OBVIOUSLY NOT !

Both of them CONSTANTLY PROFESSED that

JESUS was ... AND IS ... GOD,
and WAS THE SON OF GOD,
and DIED FOR OUT SINS,
and WAS RESURRECTED,
and IS BY THE HEAVENLY FATHER'S SIDE TO THIS DAY !

But that "Trinity" garbage,

from the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.,
and from Arius, a priest
who believed that Christ was not a God, but a created being;
and from Athanasius, a deacon
who believed that the Father, Son and Spirit are the same being living in a threefold form
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., article "Nicaea, Council of,' p. 641);
Athanasius was an Egyptian from Alexandria and his philosophy was also deeply rooted in Platonism.
"The Alexandrian catechetical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologians of the Greek Church, as its heads,
applied the allegorical method to the explanation of Scripture.
Its thought was influenced by Plato:
its strong point was theological speculation.
Athanasius and the three Cappadocians had been included among its members. .." (Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, by Hubert Jedin, p. 29).
In order to explain the relationship of Christ to God the Father, the church fathers felt that it was necessary to use the philosophy of the day.
They obviously thought that their religion would be more palatable if they made it sound like the pagan philosophy that was extant at the time.

And from several sources:

In Indian religion, e.g.,
we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu;
and the Egyptian religion
with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family,
like the Father, Mother and Son in medieval Christian pictures.
Nor is it only in historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity.
One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate Reality, which was suggested by Plato ..." (Hasting's Bible Dictionary, Vol. 12, p. 458).

Of course, the fact that someone else had a Trinity does not in itself mean that the Christians borrowed it.
McClintock and Strong make the connection a little clearer.
"Toward the end of the 1st century, and during the 2nd, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity.
These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology" (article "Trinity," Vol. 10, p. 553).

In his book, A History of Christian Thought, Arthur Cushman McGiffert points out that the main argument against those who believed
that there was only one God
and that Christ was either an adopted or a created being
was that
their idea did not agree with Platonic philosophy.
Such teachings were "offensive to theologians,
particularly to those who felt the influence of the Platonic philosophy" (ibid., p. 240).

In the latter half of the third century, Paul of Samosata tried to revive the adoptionist idea that
Jesus was a mere man
until the Spirit of God came upon Him at baptism
making him the Anointed One, or Christ.
In his beliefs about the person of Jesus Christ, he "rejected the Platonic realism which underlay most of the Christological speculation of the day" (ibid,, p. 243).

At the end of his chapter on the Trinity, McGiffert concludes:
". ..It has been the boast of orthodox theologians that in the doctrine of the Trinity both religion and philosophy come to highest expression'' (Vol. I, p. 247).

The influence of Platonic philosophy on the Trinity doctrine can hardly be denied.

However, trinitarian ideas go much further back than Plato.
"Though it is usual to speak of the Semitic tribes as monotheistic;
yet it is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads.
This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south.
Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one..
.. The definition of Athanasius [a fourth-century Christian] who lived in Egypt, applied to the trinities of all heathen religions" (Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, by James Bonwick, F.R.G.S., p. 396).

It was Athanasius' formulation for the Trinity which was adopted by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325.
Athanasius was an Egyptian from Alexandria and his philosophy was also deeply rooted in Platonism.
"The Alexandrian catechetical school, which revered Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologians of the Greek Church, as its heads, applied the allegorical method to the explanation of Scripture.
Its thought was influenced by Plato:
its strong point was theological speculation.
Athanasius and the three Cappadocians had been included among its members. .." (Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church, by Hubert Jedin, p. 29).

So you see, the "Trinity" Docrtine is NOT Biblical.
But it IS PAGANISM, pure and simple !

[vladimir998]

And not a single thing you posted shows “The HERULI Odoacer’s government, A.D. 476-493” is in any verse in the Bible. You’re posting interpretations. Not scripture. All you’re doing is proving I was right all along.

[vladimir998]

And not a single thing you posted shows “The HERULI Odoacer’s government, A.D. 476-493” is in any verse in the Bible. You’re posting interpretations. Not scripture. All you’re doing is proving I was right all along.

[IrishBrigade]

She fits in quite well with the anti-Catholic crowd here.

Her statement seems like praise compared to some Catholic commentary on this forum...

[IrishBrigade]

Your problem my man as observed by me just a good old boy southern baptist started 50 years ago with Vatican II

It wasn’t Vat II itself that was so bad (though it was completely unnecessary, convened by a Pope who was elected as a caretaker); rather, the dissidents from the Rhine territory (think Hans Kung) hijacked it and used it for the purpose of infusing the Church with their modernist claptrap...had Roncalli not died in the middle of the council,it would have been interesting to see the results...I doubt that a radically new missal would have been something he’d have wanted his name to bear...

[IrishBrigade]

As for suffering with bland hymns, liberal priests and lame homilies, it’s not much in comparison to Christ’s suffering.

Perhaps, but can we not do better than bland hymns, lefty priests, and wobbly homilies...?

[Yosemitest]

We've been through that and already proven you WRONG on those links.
WHY IS IT ... that you NEVER provide links ... to back up your THEORIES ? ! ?

[Yosemitest]

AGAIN I SAY:

We've been through that and already proven you WRONG on those links.

WHY IS IT ... that you NEVER provide links ... to back up your THEORIES ? ! ?

[vladimir998]

And not a single thing you posted shows “The HERULI Odoacer’s government, A.D. 476-493” is in any verse in the Bible. You’re posting interpretations. Not scripture. All you’re doing is proving I was right all along.

[vladimir998]

And not a single thing you posted shows “The HERULI Odoacer’s government, A.D. 476-493” is in any verse in the Bible. You’re posting interpretations. Not scripture. All you’re doing is proving I was right all along.

[Yosemitest]

Where did you get your ACCLAIMED PhD?
Out of a Cracker Jacks Box ?

[vladimir998]

“Where did you get your ACCLAIMED PhD? Out of a Cracker Jacks Box ?”

At a university where no one was dumb enough to claim that “The HERULI Odoacer’s government, A.D. 476-493” is in any verse in the Bible.

Also, at that university we knew the difference between “claimed” and “acclaimed”. Didn’t they teach you that in public school?