The Wise Men's Star

[Webers_Home]

.
• Matt 2:8-9a . . And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said: Go and search
diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word
again, that I may come and worship him also.

. . .When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which
they saw in the east, went before them,

A star that moves from the east towards the west is normal. But a star that
moves from the north to the south, is unheard of.

• Matt 2:9b . . It came and stood over where the young child was.

I have been outside at night on many occasions during my 76 years on this
planet and have never been able to tell which of the stars in the sky was
directly over my neighbor's house. And if I move this way or that way, the
stars move with me; which makes the task all that more difficult. The
problem is, normal stars, and planets too, are so far away that the angle of
their parallax is much too small for the naked eye to detect.

So then, in order for that star to direct the wise men to the precise location
where the child was housed, it would have to be very low in the sky; for sure
at least in the atmosphere rather than out in the void.

Plus: people, as a rule, didn't travel at night back in that day due to
insufficient means of illumination; so the men very likely followed the star in
broad daylight. Well; as most people are aware, the stars are near to
impossible for the naked eye to see in broad daylight due to the sun's
brilliance.

So then, I must conclude that the star that led the men wasn't a celestial
object, rather, it was a special apparition instead.

The question often arises: How did the men know to follow the star?

Well; that's not too difficult to sleuth. According to Matt 2:12 I'm pretty sure
that we may safely assume the men had been in touch with God the entire
expedition from first to last.
_

 

[Pearl]

Even if it was an alignment of planets - not stars as they don't move - the time of this alignment had been planned from the very beginning when God set the heavenly bodies in motion. And that is truly wonderful. All thing come to pass at their appointed time.

 

[historyb]

Here is a great video about the Christmas. He goes through everything people think it might have been and the pros and cons of each.


Was a Great Conjunction the Christmas Star?

 

[Enoch111]

Even if it was an alignment of planets - not stars as they don't move

If the Bible says that a star moved, then we must take that as Gospel truth, for with God nothing shall be impossible.

Many have promoted the idea of an alignment of planets as the Star of Bethlehem, but if that were indeed the case, the Bible would have said so. After all the heavenly bodies and constellations are described in the Bible.

JOB 9: GOD DOES GREAT THINGS PAST FINDING OUT
7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. [Note: God can command the sun not to rise. God can also stop the stars from shining] 8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. 9 Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south. 10 Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.

The Star of Bethlehem: John Gill's Commentary
for we have seen his star in the east. By the star they saw, some understand an angel, which is not likely. The learned Lightfoot (i) is of opinion that it was the light or glory of the Lord, which shone about the shepherds, when the angel brought them the news of Christ's birth, and which at so great a distance appeared as a star to these wise men; others, that it was a comet, such as has been thought to portend the birth or death of some illustrious person: but it seems to be properly a star, a new and an unusual one, such as had never been seen, nor observed before; and is called his star, the star of the king born, because it appeared on his account, and was the sign of his birth, who is "the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star", Revelation 22:16.

This they saw "in the east"; not in the eastern part of the heavens, but they saw it when they were in the east, that is, in their own country; and according to the best observations they were able to make, it was in that part of the heavens right over the land of Judea; from whence they concluded that the king of the Jews was born; but the question is how they should hereby know and be assured that such a person was born?

To this it maybe replied, that there is a prophecy of Balaam's which is thus expressed, "there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel", Numbers 24:17 which is owned by some Jewish writers (k) to be a prophecy of the Messiah; though the star there mentioned is considered by them as one of the Messiah's titles; hence one who set up himself, and for a while was by some received as the Messiah, was called by them "the son of a star"; but when he was discovered to be an impostor, they called him "the son of a lie": but I rather take it to be a sign of the Messiah's coming, and the meaning is, when a star shall "walk" or steer its course from Jacob, or above, or over the land of Israel, then a sceptre, or sceptre bearer, that is, a king, shall rise out of Israel.

Now this prophecy of Balaam, who lived in the east, might be traditionally handed down to this time, and be well known by these men; and who, observing such a star appear over the land of Judea, might conclude that now the sceptre bearer or king was born (l).

Besides, Zerdusht or Zoroastres, the author of the sect of the Magi or wise men, and who appears to be a Jew by birth, and to be acquainted with the writings of the Old Testament, and with this prophecy, spoke of the birth of Christ to his followers; and told them when he should be born, a star would appear, and shine in the day, and ordered them to go where that directed, and offer gifts, and worship him...

 

[Pearl]

Why do so many people seem to think that if they use lots of bright colours and bold print and capitals that that it helps get their point across. In fact I don't read such posts and think they are 'shouty' and 'preachy'.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

.
• Matt 2:8-9a . . And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said: Go and search
diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word
again, that I may come and worship him also.

. . .When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which
they saw in the east, went before them,

A star that moves from the east towards the west is normal. But a star that
moves from the north to the south, is unheard of.

• Matt 2:9b . . It came and stood over where the young child was.

I have been outside at night on many occasions during my 76 years on this
planet and have never been able to tell which of the stars in the sky was
directly over my neighbor's house. And if I move this way or that way, the
stars move with me; which makes the task all that more difficult. The
problem is, normal stars, and planets too, are so far away that the angle of
their parallax is much too small for the naked eye to detect.

So then, in order for that star to direct the wise men to the precise location
where the child was housed, it would have to be very low in the sky; for sure
at least in the atmosphere rather than out in the void.

Plus: people, as a rule, didn't travel at night back in that day due to
insufficient means of illumination; so the men very likely followed the star in
broad daylight. Well; as most people are aware, the stars are near to
impossible for the naked eye to see in broad daylight due to the sun's
brilliance.

So then, I must conclude that the star that led the men wasn't a celestial
object, rather, it was a special apparition instead.

The question often arises: How did the men know to follow the star?

Well; that's not too difficult to sleuth. According to Matt 2:12 I'm pretty sure
that we may safely assume the men had been in touch with God the entire
expedition from first to last.
_

Haven't ships navigated by the stars before there were compasses? In land it would be easier for sure. Look at any star, draw a line down to earth to a location. Could be a hill or something. But the star was not a star, it was either an angel or a planet that moved to a location and the wise men followed. Jupiter is known as the King planet. It moves through the constellations, as do other planets. On 09-23-2017, the constellation Venus appeared clothed by the sun, with the moon at her feet and a crown of 12 stars around her head. This rarely happened in history. In 3BCE on Sept. 11 it happened. Strangely similar to the Biblical story, Jupiter, the King, entered into the area if Venus womb, circled around for 9 months, then exited out of her womb. This may have been the planet and yes God brought that to their attention. Of course this suggests He was born around that time. (Rev. 12) ???

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Why do so many people seem to think that if they use lots of bright colours
and bold print and capitals that that it helps get their point across.

Internet forums have given many of Christ's obscure followers a convenient
venue for sharing their time-won knowledge and experience with a
worldwide audience. For the world's sake, I highly recommend making an
effort to compose legible posts; neatly arranged, sensible, coherent, and
tidy.

Excessive bolding, underscoring, and italics, lack of adequate paragraphing,
twitter spelling, unnecessary emogies, horrible grammar, confusing mixtures
of fonts and colors, and/or shouting with caps and oversize letters, makes
for tiresome clutter and annoying graffiti that leave a bad impression.

Some people's posts resemble the obnoxious placards of worked-up
protesters and political activists; yelling, shrieking, and sometimes even
spraying spittle. They are beyond reason and objectivity in their desperation
to be taken seriously. Apparently they assume that if only they shout loud
enough, make themselves annoying enough, and hold out long enough;
maybe they'll get their point across and somebody will finally listen.

I rather suspect that some people regard forums as a canvas for painting
their comments instead of composing them. Well; that might be okay for
outsiders, they can be as messy as they want because their comments don't
matter anyway. But for those of us who honestly believe ourselves to be
representing God's son; it's unacceptable because it reflects on Christ and
makes him look like his followers are desperate kooks.

"Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ." (Phil 1:27)
_

 

[Webers_Home]

.
• Matt 2:11 . . .They entered the house where the child and his mother,
Mary, were, and they fell down before him and worshiped him. Then they
opened their treasure chests and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and
myrrh.

With enough imagination, just about anything can be forced to be symbolic.
Personally, I tend to be a bit more practical.

In those days gold was real money, and frankincense and myrrh were
valuable commodities. I suggest that the men simply offered the ordinary
kinds of tributes that royalty was accustomed to receiving in those days
from visiting dignitaries; in other words: what the men did was just normal
protocol because it was their understanding that Jesus was a king. (Matt
2:2)

The tributes were providential too because very soon Joseph would be
needing something of value to finance his family's temporary residence in
Egypt.
_

 

[Prayer Warrior]

According to Maria Valtorta, who received visions, and took dictation from Jesus, regarding the star, the three Wise Men, and the Holy Family, described the following:

"I see Bethlehem, small, and white, gathered like a brood of chickens under the stars...it is night. There is nobody in the streets, as it is so late.

I notice that the night light is increasing; it descends from a sky crowded with stars, which are so beautiful in the eastern sky: they are so bright, and large, and seemingly so near that it is possible to reach out, and touch those flowers sparkling in the velvet of the vault of Heaven. I raise my eyes to see the source of the increasing light. A star of such unusual size that the moon seems small in comparison, is moving forward in the sky of Bethlehem, and all the others seem to vanish, and make room for it, as maidservants do when their queen passes by: its brightness is such that it outshines them all. From the sphere, which looks like a huge pale sapphire lit up internally by a sun, a trail departs in which blonde topazes, green emeralds, opalescent opals, blood-red flashes of rubies, and gentle sparklings of amethysts mingle with the prevailing pale sapphire. All the stones on Earth are in the trail that sweeps the sky with a fast, and undulating movement as if it were alive, but the prevailing color is the one emanating from the globe of the star: the heavenly pale sapphire hue which comes down, and makes the houses, the streets, the ground of Bethlehem, the Savior's cradle, look like blue silver. It is no longer the poor town, which by our standards is smaller than a country village. It is a fantastic town of a fairy tail, all in silver, and the water of the fountains, and of the vessels is liquid diamond.

With a brighter radiation of light the star stops over the little house on the narrowest side of the square. Neither the people dwelling in it, nor the people in Bethlehem see it, because they are all asleep in their closed houses, but the star quickens its shining pulsations, and the trail vibrates, and wavers faster, and faster, drawing a kind semicircle in the sky, and the sky lights up because of the net of stars drawn by the trail, a net full of precious jewels which shine, and color all the other stars with the most graceful hues, as if they were communicating their own joy to them. (cf. Mat. 2:9)

The little house is transfigured by the liquid fire of gems. The roof of the small terrace, the dark stone steps, the little door, are like a block of pure silver sprayed with diamond, and pearl dust. No royal palace on Earth has ever had, or ever will have a staircase like this one, built to be used by angels, and by a Mother Who is the Mother of God. The little feet of the Immaculate Virgin can alight on that white splendor, the little feet which are destined to rest on the steps of God's throne, but the Virgin does not know. She is awake near Her Son's cradle, and is praying. There are splendors in Her soul which outdo the splendor with which the star is decorating material things.

From the main road a cavalcade is approaching. Harnessed horses are led by hand, dromedaries, and camels bear riders, or are carrying loads. Their hooves makes the sound of water that rustles, and breaks against the stones of a torrent. When they reach the square, they all stop. The cavalcade, lit up by the star, is a fantasy of splendor of metals, leathers, silks, gems, coats. Eyes are radiant, and mouths smiling because another splendor shines in their hearts: the splendor of a supernatural joy." (The Poem of the Man-God: Volume I, by Maria Valtorta, ch. 34, p. 99, [cf. Mat. 2:10])

(1 of 2)

Traditional Catholics have rejected the visions of mystic Maria Valtorta as being false, and some of her writings about Jesus and Mary as being vulgar. Perhaps a Christian forum is not the place for such writings.

I guess we’ll see if anyone else objects to writings that add what is false to God’s word. I’m curious about what @Marymog, being a staunch Catholic, thinks about these writings.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

There are those who are opposed to the writings by Maria Valtorta, as there are those who are not, including saints, e.g., St. Padre Pio. See this non-comprehensive list of names of bishops, doctors of theology/divinity/canon law, saints/blesseds/venerables/servants of God, university professors, and noteworthy lay faithful, who have approved, and endorsed Valtorta's Work.

Furthermore, I have spoken with my share of Christians who presented excerpts from the writings that they, or someone else, accused of being "vulgar" in nature. In every case the sentence(s) were either taken out of context, and/or the poetic language was read literally.

Additionally, in Rev. 22:18, St. John warned of adding unto the prophecy of "this book", as in his book Revelation. At no point in Maria Valtorta's writings did she add unto that book, or any other. In fact, I will quote Bishop Roman Danylak, who said the following in 2001: "This major work of Maria Valtorta, The Poem of the Man-God, is the Gospel expanded, and with her other writings, is in perfect consonance with the canonical Gospels, with the traditions, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church".

The Bible is an incomplete biographical compilation on the lives of Jesus, His family, and friends, thus in that sense, any information missing inside, but found outside of it, would mean it is not Scripture. However, this does not also mean the information is automatically fiction. Consider, for example, in the Bible we know the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus, but there is no biblical account that covers all the surrounding details of that event in great detail, though one can reasonably assume there is more to know.

Have you read any writings by Maria Valtorta?

Oh yes, we are warned not to add to the words of the Book of Revelation.

BUT also, we are not to attribute words to God that He did NOT speak. If someone did this to you, you would call it lying. All the more with God Almighty! Those who do so are inviting God's condemnation.

I'm sure @Enoch111 would have some things to say about this.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I agree, but Maria Valtorta did not attribute words to Jesus He did not speak.

To answer your question in your previous post, yes, I have read some of her writings that clearly contradict the Bible. But I don't have time to debate this right now. People who are interested can check this out for themselves. You are one of several who are promoting heresies on this forum.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Can you prove He did not speak those words?

I changed my previous post. You may want to read it.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Here are some excerpts from an article written by Catholics.

The false visions of Maria Valtorta
Condemned by the (pre-Vatican II) Catholic Church

The book’s countless evils begin with its title.

The disturbing features of Valtorta’s (false) visions, begin with the title itself: The Poem of the Man-God. This title is not traditional, fitting or reasonable! Catholics refer to our Lord’s natures in order of their dignity—and the Divine nature is infinitely greater in dignity, than the human nature. Catholics refer to our Lord as the “God-man”, not as the “man-God”. However, this title accurately reflects the books “earthy”, humanistic focus, which fits well with conciliar humanism.


Note about the title: the book originally was published anonymously over a several year period (one volume per year). The first volume was originally published under title “The Poem of Jesus”. The subsequent volumes were published under the title “The Poem of the Man-God”. (See the Wikipedia article.) For the rest of this article, we will refer to the entire book as “The Poem of the Man-God”.


Evil and scandalous contents

Perhaps no more need be said beyond that the book was condemned by the pre-Vatican II Church, was on the Index of Forbidden Books, and is beloved by many prominent conciliars.


Further, The Poem of the Man-God is riddled with banalities, vulgarities, blasphemies and doctrinal errors. There is continual idle talk between Our Lord, Our Lady and the Apostles.


However, we include (below) a very few examples from this shocking book, demonstrating beyond any doubt that it is evil and not from God. All citations are from the online book (to allow the reader to confirm the quotes).



Valtorta asserts that Our Lady thought (like the Arch-Heretic Luther) that it is good to sin out of love of God.

Luther declared: Sin boldly, but believe more boldly. Letter #99, Saemmtliche Schriften.


Valtorta (falsely) has Our Lady uttering the similar blasphemous thought that God loves us more for sinning:


[supposed BVM]: “Tell Me, mummy, can one be a sinner out of love of God?”


[supposed St. Anne]: “What are you saying, my dear? I don't understand you.”


[supposed BVM]: “I mean: to commit a sin in order to be loved by God, Who becomes the Savior. Who is lost, is saved. Isn’t that so? I would like to be saved by the Savior to receive His loving look.”


Vol. 1, n. 7, p. 23.


Valtorta falsifies the sin of our first parents.

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had original justice and innocence, and their passions could not be aroused to act against reason. Summa, Ia, Q.95, a.2.


Contradicting this Catholic dogma, Valtorta writes that Our Lord gave this erotic description of Eve’s first sin when she sees the snake:


With his venomous tongue Satan blandished and caressed Eve’s limbs and eyes… Her flesh was aroused … The sensation is a sweet one for her. … And “she understood.” Now Malice was inside her and was gnawing at her intestines. She saw with new eyes and heard with new ears the habits and voices of beasts. And she craved for them with insane greed. She began the sin by herself. She accomplished it with her companion.

Vol. 1, n. 17, p. 49.



Valtorta falsely says Our Lady is second, below St. Peter, in the Church hierarchy.

Valtorta (falsely) has “Our Lord” tell His mother that she will “be second to Peter with regard to ecclesiastical hierarchy”. Vol. 4, p.146.

Valtorta’s scandalously portrays Our Lord as taking revolting, unnatural liberties with the Apostles.

Valtorta becomes especially disgusting in her false portrayal of Our Lord’s relationship with His Apostles.


Let one disgusting incident suffice:


Valtorta describes Our Lord as kissing St. John while he is “half-naked”, lying on his bed. She says St. John is “panting”, “inflamed by his love” and “exhausted by his ardor”. She says Our Lord “caresses him, burning with love Himself.”


Vol. 2, pp. 57-58.


Of course, the book’s blind defenders will say that all of this was meant in a (supposed) “spiritual” sense. We trust you (the reader) will not be blind and not be led by the blind, because we don’t want you to fall with them, into the pit.

Source: The false visions of Maria Valtorta - Catholic Candle

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Here are some excerpts from another article. (Since I'm not Catholic, I don't necessarily agree with everything in there articles, but they show how this mystic blatantly contradicted the Bible account.)

Poem of the Man-God:
Dangerous & Unacceptable for Catholics

Valtorta adds the temptation to impurity to those temptations that the Gospels tell us Our Lord underwent in the desert. In one conversation with Judas, Valtorta has Our Lord speaking about the supposed sexual temptations He experienced.

Judas says to Jesus: “Jesus, have you ever sinned?”

Jesus would have replied: “I never wanted to sin. … I am 30 years old, Judas, and I have not lived in a cave or on some mountain, but among men. And even if I had lived in the loneliest place in the world, do you think temptations would not have come to Me there? ... We all have within us good and evil. We all carry everything within us ...” We note here that Christ is presented as a man, who has within himself the seed of evil coming from Original Sin.

Our Lord supposedly continued, describing the sexual temptations of every man, including himself:

“When you are hungry … the simple thought of being without food will bring back the pleasant smell of food that makes your mouth water. So, the temptation is as strong as that desire, Judas. Satan makes it more intense, more real and more alluring than the accomplished act. Further, the act satisfies and at times nauseates; whereas temptations do not subside, but like pruned trees, they grow stronger and stronger."

“And have you ever yielded?” Judas asks.
“No, never.”
“How did you manage?”
“I said, Father, lead Me not into temptation.”
“What? You, the Messiah Who works miracles, and You ask for help from Your Father."
“Not only for help: I ask Him not to lead Me into temptation."

In this episode, there are three issues to consider, in addition to what has already been said on the impeccability of Christ, which made Him unable to be sexually tempted (see Article 2).

1. Valtorta distorts the Gospel. In none of the Four Gospels do we read about additional temptations other than the ones Our Lord experienced in the desert, let alone any words about sexual temptations.

2. She tries to convince the reader to accept these sexual temptations of Christ by recalling the final words of the Our Father, which Jesus taught to His disciples when they asked Him how they should pray. In it He said to lead us not into temptation, as if the “us” in the petition also included Christ. The Lord's Prayer contains petitions appropriate for men, but not for Christ, who is God and man.

Christ’s last word, according to Valtorta, was ‘Mummy’

3. Throughout the work of Valtorta one observes a sinuous intent to make Christ appear as a mere man, subject to the miseries of man – including that of the flesh – at the expense of His Divinity. One could say that the work was written by Jews, since the tortuous and even at times sarcastic style is an artifice generally employed by enemies of Christ. Mockery is evident, under the guise of sentimental fantasy and sickly sweetness.

For example, for Christ to call the Blessed Virgin – “mummy” (in the English translation) and “mamacita” in the Spanish – is at the least tasteless and lacking in due reverence. We repeat, it is a kind of mockery of Our Lord and Our Lady.

It seems to us disrespectful to continue transcribing the stories of the temptations of the flesh that Valtorta attributes to Christ and the Blessed Virgin, falsifying the Gospel, as when she pretends Our Lord was tempted by a retinue of scantily clad women, who were told by Annas to lasciviously approach the Lord during His stay in his house during the Passion.

These falsifications of Scripture abound in the Poem, making it a real danger for those ignorant of the Scriptures.

Source: - Poem of the Man-God: Dangerous & Unacceptable for Catholics - Errors against the Faith in the Work of Maria Valtorta by Anselmo de la Cruz

 

[historyb]

Why do so many people seem to think that if they use lots of bright colours and bold print and capitals that that it helps get their point across. In fact I don't read such posts and think they are 'shouty' and 'preachy'.

YOU MEAN LIKE THIS

 

[Prayer Warrior]

In the book of Timothy Jesus is essentially referred to as "Man-God": "...the man Christ Jesus", for He was in fact God as a man (1 Tim. 2:5). The terms "Man-God", and "God-Man", can be used interchangeably, and have been in Valtorta's writings, for example, in The Poem of the Man-God, ch. 185, p. 138, Jesus said: "I am the God-Man".



Just before the sentence "Jesus stands up, and calls out loud: "Simon of Jonas, come here", it is written: "Yes, let it be done, as You wish", a reply from Jesus, after His mother concluded speaking to Him about St. Peter's desire to adopt a certain child, his wife's desire to have a child, and advising Him to allow it.

Following the sentence "...but now you are laughing", Peter continued:

"What do You want from me, Master? My life? I have but that, because You have taken everything, but if You want, I will give it to You."

"I do not want to take anything from you. I want to give you something, but do not take advantage of your victory, and do not disclose the secret to the others, you most artful fellow who defeats the Master by means of the weapon of His mother's word. You will have the boy...".

St. Peter expressed thanks to Him, then Jesus replied: "Thank Her, not Me, but remember that this must be of assistance to you, not an impediment..."

In summary, Jesus joked with St. Peter calling him an "usurper", and "corrupter", because he went to His mother about his desire for adopting a child, knowing He could not refuse Her (The Poem of the Man-God: Volume II, ch. 199, pp. 184-185). This means the excerpt quoted in the article was taken out of context, and the accusation Valtorta portrayed Jesus joking with St. Peter about him corrupting His mother sexually, is a lie. A lie deliberately, and blatantly, presented as fact? Perhaps, as the anonymous writer cited the exact volume, and page, of this scene, thus could have known the accurate context. Furthermore, it was lazy, and negligent, on your part to not fact-check.

Shall I continue?

Knock yourself out! God gave us His written word, the Bible, for a reason. When people claim to hear things from God that clearly contradict the Bible, those things cannot be from God, my dear. You should rethink your heretical theology and stick with the Bible unless your goal is to believe lies.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Why do so many people seem to think that if they use lots of bright colours and bold print and capitals that that it helps get their point across. In fact I don't read such posts and think they are 'shouty' and 'preachy'.

Now Pearl, don’t sound so judgy. I use bold and various colors as emphasis. This makes it easy to scan my longer posts for people who don’t have time to read the whole post. Also, I use colors to show things not written by me so that there’s no confusion.

Now, I agree with you about the BRIGHT colors. Everyone knows this is in bad taste.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Out of the excerpts from Maria Valtorta's writings you believe "clearly contradict the Bible", thus far two have been refuted. Before I continue, care to comment on both, or either?

No thanks, Yehren. I think I got the spelling right. Wasn’t that a Greek god or something?

Your fight is not against me, but against God. No one wins that fight! Just some friendly words of warning that lies put you in bondage. The truth sets you free!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Prayer Warrior]

If you could you would.

GOD HAS!!! So I don’t have to. That’s the whole point. He gave us His written word. If you have time to read the writings of heretics who put words in God’s mouth, then you have time to read what He has actually said. You are putting yourself in bondage by believing the lies about Jesus that this woman has written.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I did not say you have to comment on the two accusations against Maria Valtorta I have refuted thus far. I was merely saying if you cared to comment on them, then you would have done so.

To be truthful, you implied that I cannot refute them. See? That’s what believing lies does to a person. They lose the ability to be truthful.