Dialogue with a friend of Rob Skiba II, after the latter recently died from Covid-19

PART 2 - Revelation 12 and the Nuremburg Connection
Apr 15, 2022 | Rob Skiba
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7knfLjjWaw

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It would seem to me, the classic death from Covid is a kind of allergic reaction. Too many antibodies.

This means the infection is dangerous, and it also means vaccines are dangerous.

I'd have loved to see him as a Catholic before he went ... not meaning the Bergoglio style.

V C F

The church is spiritual it's not institutionalized christianity or a specific denomination.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@V C F It was fairly well institutioned by Christ back in the New Testament, so why would it not remain so?

As to "not a specific denomination" ... well it has the denomination "Christians" given in Antioch in Acts and gets the denomination "Catholic Church" just a few decades after the NT, also in Antioch.

V C F

YT keeps removing my comments. The Church was really institutionalized by the Roman Empire, after emperor Constantine convoked the Council of Nicaea in 325 which established one " holy Church" under the same powers that had failed to suppress Christianity . How convenient don't you see? They didn't embrace Christianity they coopted it. It's called controlled opposition. That's 101 enemy MO. I can't believe you're a follower of Rob Skiba and don't understand how the enemy operates and can't see all of the occult Babylonian symbolism permeating the R C C hiding in plain sight as it is customary in the "mysteries" and the occult in general . The o.b.e.l.i.s.k. is probably the most blatant example. This p.o.p.e is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@V C F I am not a follower of Rob Skiba. I am critically sympathising - and absoluetely not agreeing with him on what Babel was.

Now, what you say about what happened at Nicaea doesn't the least explain why the Church prior to Nicaea:

• was Trinitarian and had in Alexandria condemned the priest Arius;
• had bishops (Alexander), priests (Arius, who was as said deposed) and deacons (to my best memory the position of St. Athanasius at the outbreak of the quarrel;
• seemed to have such a structure already in the New Testament;
• heroically resisted when Emperors became Arian, starting with Constantius just after Constantine's day.

It is also not compatible with the promise of Christ given to the twelve in Mt 28:16-20, unless you can point to some parallel Church that remained faithful, and before you cite Anabaptists, they started out more than 1000 years later at the Reformation.

It is also not compatible with the commission given with that promise, since that commission basically states that the Church should coopt nations - including their governments.

V C F

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Either the Church is an institution that exists independent of its members or it is the corporate body of believers. Jesus said ; “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” It doesn't sound like you really need to depend on some corrupt paganized idolatrous institution to serve as a mediating agent between Him and us .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@V C F Any "institution" is a body of believers in what the institution is about. The military is not just impersonal systems, it is a body of people believing that war is sometimes what one should (in justice or prudence or both, or even in charity too) do, and therefore they prepare for and sometimes go to war.

If the Catholic Church has been really and truly paganised, it is not the Church Jesus founded, if it hasn't (not at all or only in superficial matters), then it arguably is what it claims to be, the Church Jesus founded.

But "institution" is a red herring.

And the Church Jesus founded is sometimes corrupt in places, see Laodicaea.

Now, the Church Jesus founded certainly was institutional. How so? Romans 10. [13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. [14] How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

Now, the word you quote defines 2 or 3 as what Jews would call a minyan - a group capable of praying together. But the Jews don't become Jews by gathering ten in a minyan, they become Jews by birth, circumcision, Bar Mitzvah. Once they are Jews, however, ten or maybe even eleven is their minimal minyan. Our Lord says two or three are sufficient.

If I and you both being Catholics pray the Rosary for a licit purpose, God will hear us, since that is what He promised in the verse you cited. But we become Catholics by steps that do not all of them always involve already meeting the Catholic Institution (or some semblance of it), but at least deal with it sooner or later.

The following

I could not access under youtube but had to try to answer via gmail sending to youtube. I failed, and so I added the answer next day.

V C F

Hans-Georg Lundahl OK from an as unbiased and objective a position as possible ask yourself this question. What is more logical : 1) That those who tried to UNSUCCESSFULLY suppress Christianity converted to Christianity or 2) they simply decided it was strategically the best move to co-opt Christianity (if you can't beat them join them) ? I personally believe "they" did lose some control over it at some point to fully regain control of it during the so-called Renaissance. That's why the Middle Ages have been demonized and labeled the "Dark Ages"and the Renaissance is considered the "rebirth" of classical ideals

Hans-Georg Lundahl

V C F
I am for one thing glad you refuse to demonise the Middle Ages.

Now, for the question:

1) That those who tried to UNSUCCESSFULLY suppress Christianity converted to Christianity
or 2) they simply decided it was strategically the best move to co-opt Christianity (if you can't beat them join them) ?

Both, if you take the question on its terms. And the thing is, the latter type showed their mettle when Constantius persecuted St. Athanasius. Once the Arian crisis was over, the real Christians were again in full control of the Church, and the latter type may still have existed, but had to bide their time.

Again, I refuse to take the question at its bare terms, since the son of a persecutor or grand-son of a persecutor need not follow in his father's or grandfather's evil footsteps. Over time, even in one same household, people die off and are replaced by adults who had previously been children or not even born yet.

And, again, there is a wider question : if you assume the Church was vamped, what became of the Church Jesus founded? Study that question in the light of Matthew 28:16-20. Saying "first it was persecuted, then vamped, but it partially shook the shackles off, then had to do it again after 1000 years by the Reformation, and did so more fully" makes some sense - but forgets that Christ had told His Church to not have communion with Belial. Can you imagine a real Church of Christ partially unwilling and partially inable to do that for a 1000 years? I cannot even do so for 40 years, unlike Israel of old.