How religious narcissism has influenced history . . . and historical records

[comfy]

I have done some reading in the writing called "The First Epistle of Clement". It looks like we have full translations of this letter, on the Net. This letter, apparently to me, was written from Rome to Corinth, in order to encourage the Christians in Corinth not to go along with certain wrong leaders who were trying to take power over the church at Corinth. In my sharing, here, I am using quotes from the Roberts-Donaldson translation of this letter. Whoever wrote this message speaks of  "that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorant to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy" (in 1 Clement, chapter one).

But this letter talks about how the Corinthian Christians must *not* go along with whoever were those wrong leaders And there is a description of who *was* qualified to be followed as a leader, and this descriptiion does *not* fit with how a "number" of religious leaders in past history might be described.

Whoever really wrote this letter is very clear about who is to be followed:

"Let us cleave, therefore, to those who cultivate peace with godliness,
and not to those who hypocritically profess to desire it." (in Clement, chapter fifteen)

In chapter 42, we have how the apostles "appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe." It is clear to me, that even now we have  a number of religious groups who do not prove people by the Spirit in order to make sure God wants these people to be pastors. I'm sure the Holy Spirit did not lead anyone to appoint predators and con artists; the Holy Spirit gives us the ability to tell the difference between who is a minister of God's love and who is a Satanic person. So, also, with the Holy Spirit, we can make sure about who to marry, with the helping Holy Spirit discernment of a qualified pastor, I would consider and offer to You, LORD, to prove

In chapter 44: "We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry."

It looks to me like "the whole Church" was in on being able to tell the difference between who belonged in ministry and who did not!!! In God's love (Philippians 1:9), we have the ability to tell the difference, about who God knows we need to trust.

Through this, I can see that in history there have been religious narcissists who have used deceit and violence and torture and killing in order to get and keep power with religious reputation. And these were *not* of the "Apostollic Succession", according to the standards of whoever really wrote this letter of "Clement". In history, there are ones, both Protestant and Catholic, to my knowledge, who have *not* "blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit". So, they were not qualified to be even
*considered* for ordination, also according to the standards commanded through Paul, in 1 Timothy 3:1-10 and in Titus 1:1-9.

But narcissists can have a way of piggy-backing on the status and reputation of those who are rightly honored So, I can see that the ones who used violence and force and deceit were not God's Christian leaders. But the really obedient example leaders (1 Peter 5:3) might not have been publicly known in historical records, because the self-exalting show-and-tell leaders could have arranged to suppress reports about our leaders who were approved by God . . . while our honest and honorable ones did not even bother to try to get worldly recognition, but stayed quietly and humbly busy enjoying and obeying God in His peace (Colossians 3:15)

[Ryan2010]

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ, therefore, is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both of these orderly arrangements, then, are by God's will. Through countryside and city they preached; and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the Bishops and Deacons of future believers." - 1 Clement 42:1-4


"Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of Bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." - 1 Clement  44:1-2


That's pretty much Apostolic Succession.  I am not sure what you meant by the lack of Apostolic Succession in the letter or maybe I read you wrong.  

Most Churches have a kind of "list" of who succeeded who but they can sometimes (cough) be problematic.  Regardless, it's interesting stuff.  





Here's the list of (Orthodox) Primates for Antioch.


1 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch.

2 53 The Episcopacy of Eudoius in Antioch.

3 68 The Episcopacy of St. Ignatius (d. 107) in Antioch.

4 100 The Episcopacy of Heros in Antioch.

5 127 The Episcopacy of Cornelius in Antioch.

6 151 The Episcopacy of Heros II in Antioch.

7 169 The Episcopacy of Theophilus (d. 181/182) in Antioch.

8 188 The Episcopacy of Maximianus (d. 190/191) in Antioch.

9 191-212 The Episcopacy of Serapion in Antioch.

10 212-218 The Episcopacy of Aslipiades in Antioch.

11 218-231 The Episcopacy of Philetus in Antioch.

12 232 The Episcopacy of Zebinus (a.k.a. Zenobius) in Antioch.

13 240 The Episcopacy of St. Babylas in Antioch.

14 253 The Episcopacy of Fabius in Antioch.

15 256 The Episcopacy of Demetrian in Antioch.

16 263 The Episcopacy of Amphilochius in Antioch.

17 267 The Episcopacy of Paul of Samosata in Antioch.

18 270 The Episcopacy of Dmonus in Antioch.

19 273 The Episcopacy of Timaeus in Antioch.

20 277 The Episcopacy of Cyril in Antioch.

21 299 The Episcopacy of Tyrannion in Antioch.

22 308 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.

23 314 The Episcopacy of Philogonius in Antioch.

24 324 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

25 325 The Episcopacy of Eustathius in Antioch.

26 332 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

27 332 The Episcopacy of Eulalius (5 months) in Antioch.

28 333 The Episcopacy of Euphronius in Antioch.

29 334 The Episcopacy of Placentius in Antioch.

30 341 The Episcopacy of Stephanus in Antioch.

31 345 The Episcopacy of Leontius in Antioch.

32 350 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.

33 354 The Episcopacy of Meletius in Antioch.

34 354 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.

35 357 The Episcopacy of Annias (a.k.a. Ammianus) in Antioch.

36 360 The Episcopacy of Eudozius in Antioch.

37 370 The Episcopacy of Dorotheus in Antioch.

38 371 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

39 376 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.

40 384 The Episcopacy of Flavian in Antioch.

41 404 The Episcopacy of Porphyrius in Antioch.

42 408 The Episcopacy of Alexander in Antioch.

43 418 The Episcopacy of Theodotus in Antioch.

44 427 The Episcopacy of John in Antioch.

45 443 The Episcopacy of Domnus II in Antioch.

46 450 The Episcopacy of Maximus in Antioch.

See elevated to dignity of a Patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon in 451

47 459 The Patriarchate of Basil in Antioch.

48 459 The Patriarchate of Acacius in Antioch.

49 461 The Patriarchate of Martyrius in Antioch.

50 465 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch.

51 466 The Patriarchate of Julian in Antioch.

52 474 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch.

53 475 The Patriarchate of John II in Antioch.

54 490 The Patriarchate of Stephen II in Antioch.

55 493 The Patriarchate of Stephen III in Antioch.

56 495 The Patriarchate of Callandion in Antioch.

57 495 The Patriarchate of John Codonatus in Antioch.

58 497 The Patriarchate of Palladius in Antioch.

59 505 The Patriarchate of Flavian II in Antioch.

60 513 The Patriarchate of Severus in Antioch.

61 518 The Patriarchate of Paul II in Antioch.

62 521 The Patriarchate of Euphrasius in Antioch.

63 526 The Patriarchate of Ephraim in Antioch.

64 546 The Patriarchate of Domnus III in Antioch.

65 561 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch.

66 571 The Patriarchate of Gregory in Antioch.

67 594 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch.

68 599 The Patriarchate of Anastasius II in Antioch.

69 610 The Patriarchate of Gregory II, in Antioch.

70 620 The Patriarchate of Anastasius III in Antioch.

71 628 The Patriarchate of Macedonius in Antioch.

72 640 The Patriarchate of George in Antioch.

73 656 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch.

74 681 The Patriarchate of Theophanes in Antioch.

75 687 The Patriarchate of Sebastian in Antioch.

76 690 The Patriarchate of George II in Antioch.

77 695 The Patriarchate of Alexander in Antioch.

78 742 The Patriarchate of Stephen IV in Antioch.

79 748 The Patriarchate of Theophylact in Antioch.

80 767 The Patriarchate of Theodore in Antioch.

81 797 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch.

82 810 The Patriarchate of Job in Antioch.

83 826 The Patriarchate of Nicholas in Antioch.

84 834 The Patriarchate of Simeon in Antioch.

85 840 The Patriarchate of Elias in Antioch.

86 852 The Patriarchate of Theodosius in Antioch.

87 860 The Patriarchate of Nicholas II in Antioch.

88 879 The Patriarchate of Michael in Antioch.

89 890 The Patriarchate of Zacharias in Antioch.

90 902 The Patriarchate of George III in Antioch.

91 917 The Patriarchate of Job II in Antioch.

92 939 The Patriarchate of Eustratius in Antioch.

93 960 The Patriarchate of Christopher in Antioch.

94 966 The Patriarchate of Theodorus II in Antioch.

95 977 The Patriarchate of Agapius in Antioch.

96 995 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch.

97 1000 The Patriarchate of Nicholas III in Antioch.

98 1003 The Patriarchate of Elias II in Antioch.

99 1010 The Patriarchate of George Lascaris in Antioch.

100 1015 The Patriarchate of Macarius the Virtuous in Antioch.

101 1023 The Patriarchate of Eleutherius in Antioch.

102 1028 The Patriarchate of Peter III in Antioch.

103 1051 The Patriarchate of John VI in Antioch.

104 1062 The Patriarchate of Aemilian in Antioch.

105 1075 The Patriarchate of Theodosius II in Antioch.

106 1084 The Patriarchate of Nicephorus in Antioch.

107 1090 The Patriarchate of John VII in Antioch.

108 1155 The Patriarchate of John IX in Antioch.

109 1159 The Patriarchate of Euthymius in Antioch.

110 1164 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch.

111 1166 The Patriarchate of Athanasius in Antioch.

112 1180 The Patriarchate of Theodosius III in Antioch.

113 1182 The Patriarchate of Elias III in Antioch.

114 1184 The Patriarchate of Christopher II in Antioch.

115 1185 The Patriarchate of Theodore IV (Balsamon) in exile in Constantinople.

116 1199 The Patriarchate of Joachim in exile in Constantinople.

117 1219 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus in exile in Constantinople.

118 1245 The Patriarchate of Simeon II in exile in Constantinople.

119 1268 The Patriarchate of Euthymius II in exile in Constantinople.

120 1269 The Patriarchate of Theodosius IV in Antioch.

121 1276 The Patriarchate of Theodosius V in Antioch.

122 1285 The Patriarchate of Arsenius in Antioch.

123 1293 The Patriarchate of Dionysius in Antioch.

124 1308 The Patriarchate of Mark in Antioch.

Patriarchal See transferred to Damascus in 1342

125 1342 The Patriarchate of Ignatius II in Damascus.

127 1386 The Patriarchate of Pachomius in Damascus.

128 1393 The Patriarchate of Nilus in Damascus.

129 1401 The Patriarchate of Michael III in Damascus.

130 1410 The Patriarchate of Pachomius II in Damascus.

131 1411 The Patriarchate of Joachim II in Damascus.

132 1426 The Patriarchate of Mark III in Damascus.

133 1436 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus II in Damascus.

134 1454 The Patriarchate of Michael IV in Damascus.

135 1476 The Patriarchate of Mark IV in Damascus.

136 1476 The Patriarchate of Joachim III in Damascus.

137 1483 The Patriarchate of Gregory III in Damascus.

139 1497-1523 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus III in Damascus.

140 1523-1541 The Patriarchate of Michael V in Damascus.

141 1541-1543 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus IV in Damascus.

142 1543-1576 The Patriarchate of Joachim IV (Ibn Juma) in Damascus.

143 1577-1581 The Patriarchate of Michael VI (Sabbagh) in Damascus.

144 1581-1592 The Patriarchate of Joachim V in Damascus.

145 1593-1604 The Patriarchate of Joachim VI in Damascus.

146 1604-1611 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus V in Damascus.

147 1611-1619 The Patriarchate of Athanasius III (Dabbas) in Damascus.

148 1619-1631 The Patriarchate of Ignatius III (Attiyah) in Damascus.

149 1635-1636 The Patriarchate of Euthymius III in Damascus.

150 1636-1648 The Patriarchate of Euthymius IV in Damascus.

151 1648-1672 The Patriarchate of Michael III (Zaim) in Damascus.

152 1674-1684 The Patriarchate of Neophytos I in Damascus.

153 1686-1694 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.

154 1694-1720 The Patriarchate of Cyril III (Zaim) in Damascus.

155 1720-1724 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.

Separation of the group pledging loyalty to the Pope of Rome.  Today, this group carries the name "Melkite".  However, the term "Melkite" historically applied to the Orthodox Christians of Antioch who remain faithful to the Orthodox Church to the present day.

The Greek Patriarchs

156 1724-1766 The Patriarchate of Sylvester I in Damascus.

157 1766-1767 The Patriarchate of Philemon I in Damascus.

158 1767-1791 The Patriarchate of Daniel I in Damascus.

159 1792-1813 The Patriarchate of Euthymius I in Damascus.

160 1813-1823 The Patriarchate of Seraphim I in Damascus.

161 1843-1859 The Patriarchate of Methodius I in Damascus.

162 1850-1885 The Patriarchate of Hierotheos I in Damascus.

163 1885-1891 The Patriarchate of Gerasimos I in Damascus.

164 1892-1898 The Patriarchate of Spyridon I in Damascus.

Restoration of the Arab Patriarchs

165 1899-1906 The Patriarchate of Meletius II (Doumani) in Damascus.

166 1906-1928 The Patriarchate of Gregory IV(Haddad) in Damascus.

167 1928-1958 The Patriarchate of Alexander III (Tahan) in Damascus.

168 1958-1970 The Patriarchate of Theodosius VI (Abourjaily) in Damascus.

169 1970-1979 The Patriarchate of Elias IV (Muawad) in Damascus.

170 1979- The Patriarchate of Ignatius IV (Hazim, 1921- ) in Damascus.

[comfy]

I am not sure what you meant by the lack of Apostolic Succession in the letter or maybe I read you wrong.

I meant that the wrong religious leaders in past history are not approved, and therefore they are not in the apostolic succession, according to the standards I have seen in the epistle of Clement, and 1 Timothy 3:1-10, and Titus 1:1-9. I find that the apostolic succession is obedient and has correction. Colossians 3:15 shows how God wants us to obey Him by submitting to how He rules us in His peace in our hearts. And Galatians 2:11-13 is an example of how in the apostolic succession there has been effective correction, versus some renegade overthrower going on and on, with his group not having effective people in authority to stop him or remove him. The religious leaders who continued in violent and dominating power were examples, I would say, of ones who were not Jesus Christ's leaders; so they were not in His succession.  

Most Churches have a kind of "list" of who succeeded who but they can sometimes (cough) be problematic.  Regardless, it's interesting stuff.  

Ones can be *allergic* to problematic leaders and *sneeze* them away, I have seen.

Here's the list of (Orthodox) Primates for Antioch.

I am not very informed on religious history, and figured you might have noticed. So, when I first read "Primates", here, I thought you maybe were being so considerate of how I might be ignorant and uninformed, and so you were making sure I know you have primates leading, instead of four-legged creatures Yes, I can be a bit challenged about what is going on in other people's religious developments.

1 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch. (St. Paul too but I'm not sure what's going on here as he doesn't seem to be listed for some reason.

I'd say Galatians 2:8 shows that Paul was specialized for ministering to the Gentiles, while Peter was specializing in ministering to the Jews. But Peter was clearly used to lead the church, as we see when he was used to start resolving the issue of Acts 15. And Peter was used to first minister the Holy Spirit to Gentiles, at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10), even though Paul was called specifically to reach the Gentiles (Acts 26:15-18). However, Paul with his gift of apostleship was present in the church, while Peter was used to go to the Gentiles at Cornelius' house. Paul got saved (Acts 9), and then was when Peter was directed to visit Cornelius; so I can see that by *faith* Paul's gift of apostleship to the Gentiles was needed in the church, in order for Peter to be able to function with the Gentiles, because we Christians are all "members of one another" (Romans 12:5, Ephesians 4:25), needing all that we each have to offer. And did Peter go to ordain Paul? Uh-uh . . . God used Ananias (Acts 9:10-19). And Paul did not meet with Peter until "three years" later, it appears (Galatians 1:16-18). So, I can see the church function of authorities who have the rule (Hebrews 13:7) involves action by faith and not by sight, as well as direct hands-on ministering and appointing. Ananias was a "disciple" (Acts 9:10), not a bishop or deacon, that it says, anyway.

[Ryan2010]

I meant that the wrong religious leaders in past history are not approved, and therefore they are not in the apostolic succession, according to the standards I have seen in the epistle of Clement, and 1 Timothy 3:1-10, and Titus 1:1-9. I find that the apostolic succession is obedient and has correction.

Well sure.  This is what trips us up I think.  People think that just because you are a Bishop that you can just teach or do as you like but the office comes with a function and purpose.  If those functions and purposes go beyond that of God's will or winds up stooping below the virtues necessary then that apostolicity is no longer present and that Bishop can be deposed.  More than this, any thing he may have taught or done in the authority of his office is then anathematized. 

We see this all over history.  It's often quite a painful process.  Some of the worst heresies occurred within the very structures of The Church.  It's not to say that they were ever part of The Church but as the saying a "wolf in sheep's clothing" goes it's true.

If you look at the Arius or Netorius dispute you can see this difficulty.  The Bishops basically convene and battle it out over the teaching or practice in question and after much prayer, sweat and even more often blood, they come to a decision that seems right both to them and the Holy Spirit, just as we read in Acts. 

Some of our "champions" in Christ were actually cast out and went into exile standing up a vast majority but over time through history Christ is conqueror and winds up showing who in the scuffle is approved.  Some of the champions wind up shedding blood in their struggle against sin.  They lose arms, eyes, hands and even tongues.  Some of the greatest confessors of The Faith have had their tongues cut out!  Horrible but that they were so convicted and later found to be approved is testimony to Christ as conqueror and this squares up with the life of The Church being in accordance with the scriptures.

Colossians 3:15 shows how God wants us to obey Him by submitting to how He rules us in His peace in our hearts. And Galatians 2:11-13 is an example of how in the apostolic succession there has been effective correction, versus some renegade overthrower going on and on, with his group not having effective people in authority to stop him or remove him. The religious leaders who continued in violent and dominating power were examples, I would say, of ones who were not Jesus Christ's leaders; so they were not in His succession.  

I agree.  The Apostolicity of a given office has to remain true to the purpose and function because if they step outside of those parameters of what is good and worthy of honor, then they cease to be what they were purposed to be. 

[/size]

Ones can be *allergic* to problematic leaders and *sneeze* them away, I have seen.[/quote]

While it's one thing to just abandon a bad leader sometimes those who remained loyal to office and function despite the abuse have often been great examples of Christ's attitude. 

Philippians 2:5-8

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
      taking the very nature of a servant,
      being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
      he humbled himself
      and became obedient to death—
         even death on a cross!

And also shows how difficult how it would be to be obedient and to keep the command of Jesus while still going to the "Temple" and very much still intermixed with what today we call Judaism.

Matthew 23:2-3

2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

I mean, imagine! having your Lord and Savior tell you to "obey" the Pharisees knowing full well what they do.  We read in acts how The Church was still very much intermixed with the Jews and we see that pulling away in Acts, experience that tearing out from under the yolk of the Pharisees by the Holy Spirit. 

But what great examples of those who despite bad leadership remain obedient and obey out of respect for God's authority present in the seat of God established authority. 

Lord have mercy!

1 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch. (St. Paul too but I'm not sure what's going on here as he doesn't seem to be listed for some reason.[/size]

I'd say Galatians 2:8 shows that Paul was specialized for ministering to the Gentiles, while Peter was specializing in ministering to the Jews. But Peter was clearly used to lead the church, as we see when he was used to start resolving the issue of Acts 15. And Peter was used to first minister the Holy Spirit to Gentiles, at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10), even though Paul was called specifically to reach the Gentiles (Acts 26:15-18). However, Paul with his gift of apostleship was present in the church, while Peter was used to go to the Gentiles at Cornelius' house. Paul got saved (Acts 9), and then was when Peter was directed to visit Cornelius; so I can see that by *faith* Paul's gift of apostleship to the Gentiles was needed in the church, in order for Peter to be able to function with the Gentiles, because we Christians are all "members of one another" (Romans 12:5, Ephesians 4:25), needing all that we each have to offer. And did Peter go to ordain Paul? Uh-uh . . . God used Ananias (Acts 9:10-19). And Paul did not meet with Peter until "three years" later, it appears (Galatians 1:16-18). So, I can see the church function of authorities who have the rule (Hebrews 13:7) involves action by faith and not by sight, as well as direct hands-on ministering and appointing. Ananias was a "disciple" (Acts 9:10), not a bishop or deacon, that it says, anyway.[/quote]

Yeah, you're right.  I always had assumed that St. Paul was a Bishop of Antioch but after Church Study/Class it turns out that St. Paul was more like a Priest but was also given permission to ordain and anoint.  Of course this power was not within his own person and neither was he zapped by God to simply come out of the woodwork to do so but had been ordained by God through The Church.  He had to enter into that which God sought him to become - A MEMBER of The Church.   But he first had to enter in.


God bless

ICXC



You should read St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius.  Those guys were also early on the scene.  Another interesting thing is that many Christian communities often referred to St. Clements epistle as "scripture" and included his epistles in the liturgical readings.   

[ex cathedra]

the church is the assembly of believers where the gospel of Christ is proclaimed and the sacraments are correctly used.

and its pastors are duly called by God through the congregation not through some phony apostolic succession no where in scripture does God teach apostolic successon .

religious narcissism --------- the Vatican

[chestertonrules]

the church is the assembly of believers where the gospel of Christ is proclaimed and the sacraments are correctly used.

and its pastors are duly called by God through the congregation not through some phony apostolic succession no where in scripture does God teach apostolic successon .

religious narcissism --------- the Vatican

Jesus said, As the Father sent me, I am sending you.

Did Jesus choose successors?

Jesus also said, he who listens to you listens to me.

John sums it up well here:

1 John 4
6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit  of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

As does Paul:

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

[comfy]

Jesus made it clear that those who would succeed Him were to be obedient and ones God approved. Paul is very clear about who qualifies to be just *considered* for ordination to be a "bishop".

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;
one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence
(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);
not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil."

So, the leaders approved to succeed Jesus meet these qualifications. But we have people who consider themselves to be above obeying God's standards. One trait of narcissism is how one can excuse oneself from obeying standards that are right; a narcissistic person considers oneself to be above God's standards. So, when ones have ordained disqualified leaders and then have kept them in office, I would say this was narcissistic.

Here is a basic that Peter clearly gives for being a leader who represents Christ: "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3) So, the ones who have been lording themselves over others are not qualified even to be *considered* to lead God's people.

We are led not merely by what leaders say, but we obey a true leader's example So, if a wrong leader is telling people to do  what any psychopath can imitate doing, we are not required to consider that person a successor of Jesus Christ. So, the authority of truly succeeding Jesus is in continuing Christ's example. And Paul says this includes being "self-controlled", in Titus 1:8. So, this would include being able to control what you eat, I think. If food is stronger than you are, how can you be a leader, while food can lead and control you And self-control would include being able to stay out of arguing, so we are following the examples of a leader who is "not quarrelsome".

[truth945]

Religion is the greatest form of mass mind control yet invented and it has been the most important weapon in the reptilian agenda for thousands of years. It has imprisoned the minds of the masses and kept them in perpetual fear and servitude. They accept their, often grotesque, plight on the word of men in long frocks who tell them it is "God's plan".


The Hebrew gods, er, sorry... God

The idea that the Hebrew religion was based on "one God" is outrageous nonsense. They worshipped many gods and in the Old Testament texts they refer again and again to god in the plural, as with Elohim. The Jewish singular "god", El, comes from the name Elohim, which is plural. The Elohim were the Anunnaki, and the serpent goddess, El, in the Edda relates to all this.



But in the English translations the plural gods are turned into the singular God. The first line of Genesis "In the Beginning God created the heaven and the Earth" actually reads in the Hebrew:

"In the beginning the gods created the heavens and the Earth."

The word Elohim, plural, is used 30 times in Genesis and 2,570 times in all.14



These include the terms:

"And the elohim said let us make men in our image";

the elohim said "come let us go down" in the story of the Tower of Babel;

and "Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil" in the Garden of Eden.

Also in Genesis we have:

"And elohim said, 'Let us make Adam'".15

Terms like Yahveh-elohim or Yahveh of the gods, is translated as Lord and Lord God to hide the truth. It was impossible to eliminate "the gods" when these texts were first written because the whole of the world was worshipping a vast range of gods, representing the Anunnaki and others under different names, and the Sun, Moon, planets, stars, and natural forces.



The move from gods to God advanced rapidly with the advent of the Illuminati religion of Christianity and when the Bible was translated into English. The King James Version of the Bible, the most used translation of them all, was sponsored by King James 1st, the first king of England and Scotland, who took the joint throne after the death of Elizabeth 1st in 1603.



Even most of the "new" Bibles are only updates of the King James Version. The "King James" removed a lot of marginal notes included in its predecessor, the so-called Geneva Bible, published in 1560. The king wanted to revise the Bible text because, like his mother, Mary Stuart, he believed totally in the "divine right of kings" in which the monarch answered to no one except "God" (the gods).



The Geneva Bible included phrases he did not like in relation to this "divine right" and so he had them removed. James was a Satanist and reptilian bloodline going back to the Egyptian pharaohs. His sexual desires preferred young boys, as recorded in numerous books and public records, and his lust for blood appeared insatiable. When he killed an animal he would literally roll in its blood, and he was responsible for the death and torture of thousands of "witches". He suggested many of the tortures himself.16



This is the man who decided what the Bible does or does not say! I am sure that the mass slaughter of "witches" by King James and the Christian church is connected with destroying certain bloodlines passed on through the female DNA. Sir Francis Bacon oversaw the translation of the King James Bible. He was from the reptilian bloodline and a high initiate of the secret society network as Grand Master of the Rosicrucian Order.



He was a Knights Templar, an inspiration behind the creation of Freemasonry and the Royal Society, and a key member of the team of initiates under Lord Draconis, Edward de Vere, which compiled the "Shakespeare" plays.