She leaves her sons Victor and Mike behind. My condolences to them and they should justifiably celebrate the life of their mother. She was a great lady!
With sadness for her departure,
CONSTANCE
Tuesday, September 03, 2019
In Memoriam: Dorothy Margraf - New Age Researcher, par excellence
She leaves her sons Victor and Mike behind. My condolences to them and they should justifiably celebrate the life of their mother. She was a great lady!
With sadness for her departure,
CONSTANCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
602 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 602 Newer› Newest»Craig,
Now that we've established beyond all doubt that you believe there was a time when Jesus was not the Word (i.e God), will you kindly take the time to answer the numerous direct, simple questions that I have put forth to you a number of times?
Would you perhaps require a refresher on what those questions are? Please let me know.
I'm sure any number of people in here would love to hear your scholarly, Higher Criticism opinions on Darwin, Creation, the literal creation in Genesis, recorded Biblical miracles, Jonah and the great fish, etc., etc.
PS: Don't pop that popcorn folks, there won't be any answers coming forth from Craig. The reason? He is an enthusiastic supporter of Wescott & Hort, both of which denied recorded Biblical miracles, denied the Genesis account of Creation, enthusiastically supported Darwin, and both were of the Higher Criticism camp, which relied upon secular reasoning to aid them in "interpreting" the Bible !
These are the good folks that provided the basis for your Modern Translation Bible !
RayB,
In John 1:1, "the Word" is God the Son. I know we agree here. So, in order to clear this up once and for all, my question for you is this: At what point did "the Word" become flesh?
Craig says @ 11:18 AM:
"Your questions were poorly stated as well." Question: does my question to Craig seem "poorly stated" ??
My direct question to Craig @ 9:43 AM:
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
Craig's answer: "NO"
This was a precise, direct question. Craig gave a precise, thoughtful, unambiguous, direct answer, which was a resounding "NO"
His answer was the sum of much contemplative study regarding the person of Jesus Christ on Craig's part. Craig is a scholar. As a trained scholar, Craig employed all of his accumulated knowledge and wisdom and answered the direct question with his equally direct response ... "NO."
In no uncertain terms, Jesus is the Word, and the Word IS God. Craig's answer of "NO" to a direct, SIMPLE, well defined question was not a mistake. This is what this man really believes, and it is a position that is consistent with "Higher Criticism" which denies numerous other Biblical truths.
Craig,
Just for starters, please answer the following questions. (Please let me know if my questions are "poorly stated" or if you are confused by these questions).
1. What do you believe regarding the LITERAL account of Creation as found in Genesis?
2. What is your opinion on Charles Darwin?
3. Do you believe that Jonah LITERALLY spent 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish?
RayB,
My comment @ 11:41 AM, can very easily put an end to this issue. A quick answer from you will suffice:
At what point did "the Word" become flesh?
Ray B. has gone very quiet all of a sudden: I wonder why?
Psychological deflection is often considered a narcissistic abuse tactic.
Deflection, by definition, is a method of changing the course of an object, an emotion or thought from its original source.
Psychological deflection is seen as a narcissistic abuse tactic used to control the mind and emotions of others.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying at all that this is what Craig is attempting, it only may appear to apply to Craig's tactics. LOL !
Anon @ 12:24 PM ....
You need to pay closer attention. I've been quite active.
You should be wondering instead as to "why" Craig keeps ignoring my repeated, simple, easy to understand questions that he claims are "poorly worded."
RayB,
Wouldn't you like some sort of resolution here? My question is simple: At what point did "the Word" become flesh?
You don't believe "the Word" always existed with the flesh, do you?
Gentlemen please, just ADMIT your mutual attraction to each other and kiss and make up! LOL
RayB,
You wrote: Craig used an illustration of someone else using "I am," in a completely different context, as an example of someone else declaring themselves to be "God."
You continue to misstate words of mine! I did not ever say the blind man declared himself “God”.
----
For those interested,
In Greek, the words for “I am” are egō eimi. We’re all aware of Jesus’ “I am” statements like “I am the Good Shepherd”. However, in a somewhat similar fashion to English, sometimes the predicate (“the Good Shepherd”, e.g.) is not expressed in Greek and must be assumed from context. In English a mother may ask her children, “Who is going with me for ice cream?” to which the children respond, “I am!”. The predicate “going with you for ice cream” is assumed from the context. Though the Greek is similar at times, at others it is different.
For example, when Jesus was walking on the water He said, egō eimi; mē phobeisthe. This exact verbiage is found in Matthew 14:27 and Mark 6:50 (but these also preface with “take courage”). If we translate this in its most literal sense it reads “I am; do not be afraid.” Most translations read “it is I” here, but see Young’s Literal Translation (“I am He”). Though there is a different way the Greek could possibly be phrased (eimi me: “It is I”), this is not Greek convention. In any case, some claim Jesus is making a Divine statement here, using the Divine name. However, no English translation I’ve found renders this simply “I AM”.
Other occurrences in John of egō eimi without expressed predicates (in the Greek) can be found in 8:24; 8:28; the aforementioned blind man in 9:9; 18:5; 18:6; and, 18:8. The KJV consistently renders the Greek “I am he” in all these verses, the he in italics representing the added English word—added for clarity—not present in the Greek. Other translations sometimes add an assumed predicate. In the verses with Jesus speaking (8:24; 8:28; 18:5; 18:6; and 18:8), is He using the Divine name? No English translations I’ve found render these “I AM”. Of course, the context of John 8:58 is making an implicit statement of Christ’s preexistence, as God the Son, aka “the Word”. In John 8:58, apparently, no predicate is to be assumed. This statement is akin to saying “I exist”, and it can certainly be understood as saying the Divine name. But not all Christian scholars agree that it does. I quoted Brown earlier, who does think this an expression of the Divine name. He also thinks the Divine name is expressed in 8:28.
Craig, I must admit that I do find it interesting that you keep avoiding answering RayB's questions, posting other things instead. While I certainly understand that you apparently felt the need to post those things that you did, I'm having real trouble understanding why you didn't at least put one of them in the same post with your answers to his questions if in not a totally separate post:
1. What do you believe regarding the LITERAL account of Creation as found in Genesis?
2. What is your opinion on Charles Darwin?
3. Do you believe that Jonah LITERALLY spent 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish?
And RayB, to clear the slate on your end vis-a-vis Craig:
1. At what point did "the Word" become flesh?
2. You don't believe "the Word" always existed with the flesh, do you?
This Is How Close America Is To Complete Disaster
http://allnewspipeline.com/Trucker_Bloodbath_Food_Shortages_Military_Crackdown.php
Anon @ 1:49 PM ...
Thank you for asking Craig the same questions that he has avoided answering. For what reason, one can only imagine.
In answer to your question:
At what point did "the Word" become flesh? The answer comes from God's word itself; "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us ..." John 1:14 Obviously, the Word is referring to Christ's advent. Here is the key though to keep in mind, the Word is God, Christ is God, the Word obviously pre-existed the manifestation in the flesh.
In answer to your 2nd. question ... of course not.
Anon @ 1:30 PM
ROFL !!!
RayB, Craig did answer you. This dialogue with you goes much like every other dialogue you engage in here.
You are acting ridiculous....again.
8:19 PM
Please then post the timestamp(s) that Craig answered those 3 questions above. Thanks.
(Constance it would be good if this blogspot could include the date on the automatic timestamping btw.)
The endless questions are merely to provoke. RayB has been answered. This should have sufficed him but he is exasperating.
Craig said...
...........................
Jesus Christ ALWAYS existS as God (the Son); but, Jesus Christ, the God-MAN had a beginning: at the Incarnation. God the Son always existS; but He did not always exist with a human nature, in other words, as Jesus Christ.
Does THAT clear things up for you?
11:18 AM (from previous page)
As someone who was not only familiar with Dorothy Margraff's difficult personality, but subject to her attacks, I'd like to point out a few things:
1. Unless we know someone intimately, we cannot always understand what events in their life shape their personality.
2. Judgement is from God alone and we will all have to face him one day. The question is do we face him with the finished work of his son or without.
On this blog, Dorothy was against the gospel, which is sad, because the gospel is simply that God came in flesh to redeem us. Perhaps on her deathbed, she had a change of heart. We cannot know, but it's a good lesson to anyone who is a believer to not stop sharing the "good news".
There are great scientists, great researchers, great mathematicians, great artists here on this side of eternity, but all of that is like filthy rags in front of a holy God, so we can admire people's accomplishments but in the end, what matters is do you have life, do you have salvation in the one who came so that we have all of this abundantly .
Persoanally I hope Dorothy did, but only God knows?
9:35 pm, which part of your post answers any of RayB's questions?
1. What do you believe regarding the LITERAL account of Creation as found in Genesis?
2. What is your opinion on Charles Darwin?
3. Do you believe that Jonah LITERALLY spent 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish?
RayB,
Now we’re getting somewhere! Your response @ 6:40 PM is implicitly in agreement with the views I’ve been expressing in this regard all along—views you’ve been condemning as heresy.
You wrote, answering the two questions I posed: At what point did "the Word" become flesh? The answer comes from God's word itself; "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us ..." John 1:14 Obviously, the Word is referring to Christ's advent. Here is the key though to keep in mind, the Word is God, Christ is God, the Word obviously pre-existed the manifestation in the flesh.
In answer to your 2nd. Question [which was “You don't believe ‘the Word’ always existed with the flesh, do you?”] … of course not
I shall take the three ‘keys’, the three qualifiers you used above, and illustrate how your view that John 1:1 can be understood as In the beginning was Jesus is incorrect:
- Your first key, “the Word is God”: Yes, the Word is God, God the Son, and He eternally exists. We are in complete agreement.
- Your third key, “the Word obviously pre-existed the manifestation in the flesh: Yes! And, to recast this a bit differently, while holding to the same intent, we can say: “the manifestation in the flesh (Word-made-flesh of John 1:14, aka Jesus Christ) pre-exists as the Word (aka God the Son). Similarly, we can say: “the Word (aka, God the Son) pre-exists the manifestation in the flesh (‘the manifestation in the flesh’ being Jesus Christ, the God-man). So, yes, we are in complete agreement here.
- Your second key, ”Christ is God”: Yes, Christ is God (the Son); but, this must be qualified, for Christ is the manifestation in the flesh of the Word. Thus, to be more specific, we can say ‘Christ is God’, for Christ is God in virtue of His Divine nature, and, of course, the Divine nature of Christ (aka the God-man), predates the Advent (the Incarnation) AS the pre-existent Word in John 1:1.
Since you’re comfortable stating “Christ is God”, you must be equally comfortable stating “Christ is human”, for Christ is human in virtue of His human nature, and, of course, the human nature of Christ (aka the God-man), does not predate the Advent (the Incarnation). In other words, the human nature of Christ began in John 1:14, as you agreed in your answer to my 2nd question, which can be rephrased as the statement ‘the Word did not always exist with the flesh’. Therefore, in John 1:1 the Word was not yet manifested in the flesh, and thus, the Word did not exist with the flesh at that point, and it follows then that the Word in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus Christ, since Jesus Christ IS the Word-made-flesh (John 1:14). The Word in John 1:1 is the pre-existent Christ, the pre-existence of Christ, but the Word is not Christ.
To recap: Jesus Christ has always been (and remains into eternity) the Word-made-flesh, the God-man. The Word has always been God (the Son), but the Word has not always been hypostatically conjoined with human nature in the Person of Jesus Christ.
The Word pre-exists the Advent, the manifestation in the flesh, aka the birth of Jesus Christ, the God-man.
Jesus Christ, the God-man does not pre-exist His Advent, the manifestation in the flesh.
If you are comfortable saying ‘Jesus Christ has always been the Word’ without qualification, then you must be equally comfortable saying ‘Jesus Christ has always been human’. The latter statement in no way diminishes Christ’s Deity, for Christ is 100% God and 100% man.
Craig @ 8:05 AM,
Okay, you responded to RayB's answering of your 2 latest questions, good... but yet AGAIN I'm having real trouble understanding why you didn't at least put your answers to his 3 questions at the end of your latest post if not put in a totally separate "continued" post immediately thereafter:
1. What do you believe regarding the LITERAL account of Creation as found in Genesis?
2. What is your opinion on Charles Darwin?
3. Do you believe that Jonah LITERALLY spent 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish?
Your continued refusal to answer them gives the distinct impression that your answers would be...
1. Genesis is not a literal account.
2. Darwin was right.
3. The account of Jonah in the belly of the great fish did not literally happen.
...is that really what you want?
RayB,
To be charitable, I’ll answer the three questions:
(1) I do believe the literal account of creation in Genesis (to the extent possible, for I’m not so sure God has a mouth from which to speak—I think this is anthropomorphism). (2) I’m not a Darwinist. (3) I do believe Jonah spent three days in the belly of the great fish. Jesus even mentions this in the NT (Matthew 12:40).
Of course, I know full well why you’ve posed these questions. This is in reference to purported beliefs of Westcott and/or Hort. Since W and/or H allegedly did not believe (1) and (3) and were Darwinists (2), you think this somehow disqualifies them from being objective as NT textual critics. This is fallacious reasoning, for if adherence to complete, 100% Biblical orthodoxy is a requirement, then the Textus Receptus/King James would be disqualified, for NO ONE has full understanding (we see through a glass darkly—1 Corinthians 13:12) and NONE are without sin.
I read over the link you supplied earlier @ 4:35 PM (http://www.christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/the-bible/1011-westcott-and-hort-unbelievers-who-influence-millions). This K B Napier fellow has strung together a lot of misinformation, stacking one syllogism upon another. It would take me hours to rebut all the out of context quotings, misinformation, and half-truths. Right from the beginning, in the second sentence Napier states:
…And I always advise that all modern versions are based on the sinful theological practices of Westcott and Hort (W&H), unbelievers who hated the AV.
Here and later in this diatribe the author claims that W & H took their “sinful theological practices”—whatever that means exactly—implying that they changed the Biblical texts to suit their biases. You, RayB seem to be implying that their theological positions, such as in the three questions you posed (and the earlier purported statements of W & H), are reflected in the Biblical text via changes they made. Can you provide one Bible verse, just one, that can support such a position? For example, if W and/or H did not believe the account of Jonah, did they then remove this statement from Jesus’ lips in Matthew 12:40? Nope. Keep in mind also that a belief that the creation event was not literal would affect OT interpretation, not NT.
And W & H didn’t “hate the AV”. They did, however, think the NT Greek text (Textus Receptus, TR) underlying the KJV could be improved because it had some verbiage that was likely not in the original manuscripts. One example is the ‘Johannine comma’ in 1 John 5:7-8. One can see the difference in the English versions and the Greek texts (middle column) at this link: biblehub.com/multi/1_john/5-7.htm. Are you aware that the first two printings of the 1611 KJV omitted the much longer verbiage (“that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,”) found in all subsequent versions? I feel pretty sure you are aware that the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha (known as the Deuterocanon in the RCC)—even though the 400th anniversary version excludes it.
[continued]
[continuing]
At the Napier link the author continues to say that all modern versions are based on W & H, which is partially true. This needs to be explained. W & H came up with a methodology of comparing all extant manuscripts on a particular verse in order to ascertain, to the extent possible, what is likely the original text. This methodology is mostly followed today, for it is good practice. For example, the ‘missing’ text in 1 John 5:7-8 is found in eight Greek manuscripts, all of which are late. Conversely, there are hundreds without this verbiage, including a number of very early manuscripts.
However, W & H believed that two particular manuscripts reflected what they called ‘the Neutral Text’, and in cases in which the evidence was divided as to a particular reading in the Greek, W & H chose this ‘Neutral Text’. Few today believe this, and the result is a departure from W & H’s text in some passages in newer Greek critical editions.
Napier quotes J. Harold Greenlee’s Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism: “The textual theory of W-H [sic; it’s “WH” in Greenlee’s book] underlies virtually all subsequent work in NT textual criticism”. Let me provide the rest of this paragraph:
…Although both the work of recent scholars and the texts of MSS [manuscripts] discovered since WH have brought about modifications of their principles [e.g. the ‘Neutral Text’], their work is so fundamental that is appropriate to give a summary of their theory.
Greenlee goes on to explain the principles used in determining which variant is most likely original. With the remainder of this particular chapter the author notes the opposition to WH from defenders of the TR. Greenlee engages the positions of the TR defenders positions and refutes them.
Though Greenlee’s book is a bit out of date, I can recommend it as a good primer for understanding the importance of the discipline of NT textual criticism. The goal of W & H was to determine what the original writers of the NT wrote. The fact is, we are not 100% certain, but I’m confident that the overall message is well-conveyed by what we do have. This includes the TR, for the differences between the TR, WH, and the modern critical text are relatively small and do not impact any primary doctrine.
With my earlier statement that you are “so far out his depth in these sorts of discussions” I meant that you are not well-enough educated with this specific subject to engage with it adequately, instead relying on the shoddy work of others. Being uneducated is NOT the same thing as being unintelligent. If I were with other individuals who were discussing thermodynamics I’d be lost, for I have no education in that area. But that fact alone doesn’t make me unintelligent.
----
RayB,
@ 11:52 AM, very early in this particular blog post, you wrote:
Satan cannot destroy God's word, because God has promised to protect it. However, Satan can, and does, provide counterfeits. This is exactly what the modern translations are.
Implied in your statement above, is the position that the KJV is the only Bible version that is God’s word. Assuming so—and, if not, let me know which other versions might also be God’s word—what is the eternal destiny of those who don’t believe as you, instead believing that other versions are also God’s word, preferring to read one of these instead—ones you refer to as ‘Satanic “counterfeits”’?
Craig just isn't willing to let this thing go.
Pay no attention to Craig's desperate attempt at deflection.
Prior to his latest desperation, Craig attempted to make the incredible claim that my questions were "poorly worded" in order to excuse his obvious heretical statement.
Here is the "poorly worded" question:
My direct question to Craig @ 9:43 AM:
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
Craig's answer: "NO"
Dear Reader, Do you honestly see anything that is "poorly worded" in my question?
Craig's favorite tactic is this:
Psychological deflection is often considered a narcissistic abuse tactic.
Deflection, by definition, is a method of changing the course of an object, an emotion or thought from its original source.
Psychological deflection is seen as a narcissistic abuse tactic used to control the mind and emotions of others.
Craig is attempting to argue an unrelated point in order to justify his heretical answer to my direct question, that being, that there was a time when Jesus did NOT exist as the Word. This is INCREDIBLY important, because by making such a claim, Craig is stating that there was a time when Jesus was NOT GOD !
Notice that Craig continues to ignore the requests to answer simple, basic questions that reveal one's true attitudes and beliefs concerning the Word of God.
These requests have been made numerous times by both myself and others.
Why the silence Craig?
AGAIN .... please answer these questions Craig:
1. What do you believe regarding the LITERAL account of Creation as found in Genesis?
2. What is your opinion on Charles Darwin?
3. Do you believe that Jonah LITERALLY spent 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish?
RayB,
In view of the last paragraph of your 10:55 AM post just above, I'm near the point of resorting to language more akin with Christine. You continue to twist my words, selective edit them, and misquote them. Anyone reading this ongoing exchange can see this.
RayB,
Refresh your browser, for I have answered your three questions.
I stand corrected. I am guilty of speed reading Craig's laborious, often "off the point" posts and failed to see the full content of his post @ 10:40 AM.
Craig has FINALLY responded to my, and others, repeated requests.
Now maybe, Craig can begin to address the issue as to why he believes there was a time when Jesus was NOT the Word of God.
RayB,
I've addressed your incorrect statement of my position more than once. For the record, Jesus was/is always the Word-made-flesh. He was never "the Word" solely, for this implicitly denies His human nature. If you wish to say "Jesus is the Word", then you must concurrently say "Jesus is human".
Now perhaps you can admit admit that John 1:1 cannot be understood In the beginning was Jesus, because Jesus was not yet born at that point, that is, the Incarnation was not until John 1:14.
Craig states @ 11:24 AM (in part):
"He was never "the Word" solely, for this implicitly denies His human nature."
Are you really saying AGAIN that there was a time when Jesus was not the "Word" apart from when He became "flesh" ??
Amazing ... simply amazing !
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Jesus IS the Word and WAS the Word prior to His advent.
Who are we to believe, the Word of God, or Craig?
PS: this is getting EXTREMELY tiring. Drone on all you want Craig. Personally, I've made the choice to give this a rest. I
"Anonymous RayB said...
I stand corrected. I am guilty of speed reading Craig's laborious, often "off the point" posts and failed to see the full content of his post @ 10:40 AM."
And there you have it.
(And his own posts are not laborious and often off point???)
Well mark it down, RayB, Mr. Rush to Judgment, so doggedly demanding, admits this is how he treated Craig's post but has done this repeatedly to many here at this blog.
Glad, for once, you can see, (as pointed out by someone earlier), you have been Ridiculous Demagogue !
RayB,
This doesn't even make logical sense: Jesus IS the Word and WAS the Word prior to His advent.
Riddle me this: In the calendar that uses "BC", meaning "before Christ", when was that time "before Christ"?
Interesting how MCE suddenly jumped on board Ray B's waggon with her brazen tongue blazing with all of her usual obscenities, this time at Craig, not long after she'd venomously drooled her vitriol over Ray B.
Perhaps she's worried snap-shots of her "ad" for her "Resident Seer" were taken ... legal proceedings on the horizon, its rays exposing the obfuscations of her dark accusations that Ray B somehow started a rumor about an "ad", which never existed.
He wasn't the only one to see it, Chritine, quite a few of us did. There would be no logic for Ray to claim so and have others claim so too if you had really never posted your "Ex" Satanist's and Co-fornicator's (Aka) "Resident Seer's" psychic services "ad" in the first place. Now would there?
The infamous "climate scientist" Michael Mann:
Fake Nobel Prize - Fake Hockey Stick
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKbDfP5DitA
Michael Mann told the courts that he was a Nobel Prize recipient, even though he never received anything from the Nobel Prize Committee. So he forged a fake Nobel Prize certificate and put his name on it. In this video, I show how his science is just as fake as his Nobel Prize.
In the near-endless merry-go-round between Craig & RayB perhaps the answer was simply something more like that the personage known as The Word has always existed and at His incarnation simply added the name & title Jesus Christ to all His others.
"2424 IÄ“soús – Jesus, the transliteration of the Hebrew term, 3091 /Lṓt('Yehoshua'/Jehoshua, contracted to 'Joshua') which means 'Yahweh saves' (or 'Yahweh is salvation').
"Jesus Christ" is properly 'Jesus the Christ.' 'Jesus' (2424/IÄ“soús) is His human name, as the incarnate, eternal Son of God (Mt 1:21,25, see also Lk 1:31) – the Christ, the divine Messiah...
"[Christ (His title) means 'the Anointed One' (the eternal pre-incarnate, Logos, Jn 1:1-18).]"
https://biblehub.com/greek/2424.htm
So then, as an example we could say Craig was Craig (and still is) but has added now the name & title "Lover Of RayB's Writings" while similarly RayB was RayB (and still is) but has added now the title "Lover Of Craig's Writings".
That being said however, in this case they'll BOTH have to share those respective new names & titles with...
Christine.
LOL!
Most certainly, Christine takes the #1 spot for the blog trophy winner as most obnoxious.
RayB, though, in this current discourse and others, may very well be placing in the top 5.
RayB 11:07 AM said...
"I stand corrected. I am guilty of speed reading Craig's laborious, often 'off the point' posts and failed to see the full content of his post @ 10:40 AM."
HUH?!?
This, frankly, smacks of a 'slapdash' approach to serious subject matter, because reading that, one would assume that Craig had buried his answers to those 3 questions midway through his 10:40 AM post. He did not. He, in fact, LED OFF with those 3 answers:
Craig 10:40 AM
"RayB,
"To be charitable, I’ll answer the three questions:
"(1) I do believe the literal account of creation in Genesis (to the extent possible, for I’m not so sure God has a mouth from which to speak—I think this is anthropomorphism). (2) I’m not a Darwinist. (3) I do believe Jonah spent three days in the belly of the great fish. Jesus even mentions this in the NT (Matthew 12:40)."
Moral of the story:
Let us all strive to be meticulously careful and cautious in dealing with important subject matter (especially religious)!
This foul world in action:
PREGNANT, STARVING ORANGUTAN CLINGS TO FINAL TREE AS BULLDOZERS DESTROY HER RAINFOREST HOME
https://www.wakingtimes.com/2019/09/18/pregnant-starving-orangutan-clings-to-final-tree-as-bulldozers-destroy-her-rainforest-home/
Come soon, Lord Jesus!
Army Secures 560 More Acres of Land Along Border for Wall Construction!
http://www.infowars.com/army-secures-560-acres-of-land-along-border-for-wall-construction/
Trump Calls the New Border Wall a 'World-Class Security System'
President Donald Trump signed his name Wednesday on a newly constructed section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall, calling it a “world-class security system” that will be virtually impenetrable.
Trump toured a section of the border wall in San Diego’s Otay Mesa area. It was a return trip for the president, who traveled there in March 2018 to see border wall prototypes that authorities later destroyed to make way for 14 miles (22.4 kilometers) of steel, concrete-filled bollards currently under construction.
Before construction began, the border in San Diego was protected by an initial layer of sheet metal that was easily blow-torched and a second, more formidable layer that could be compromised with powerful, battery-operated saws.
“It was like a sheet metal and people would just knock it over like just routinely,” Trump said, referring to the initial layer that was replaced. He stood with construction workers and top Customs and Border Protection, Army Corps of Engineers and homeland security officials.
Mark Morgan, acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection [said] Trump reached out to border experts to find out what they needed. “You listened to the agents,” he told Trump.
Trump highlighted features of the wall, which he said have been studied by three other countries. He said the wall absorbs heat — “You can fry an egg on that wall.” The concrete goes deep into the ground to prevent tunneling. And agents can see through it to spot possible threats on the Mexican side of the border, he said.
“When the wall is built, it will be virtually impossible to come over illegally, and then we’re able to take border control and put them at points of entry,” Trump said.
He heaped praise on the Mexican government, especially for sending tens of thousands of troops to its northern and southern borders to help slow the flow of migrants headed toward the United States. He said President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador “has been great.”
“We’re all thrilled,” Trump said. “You know Mexico has never done anything to impede people from pouring into our country and now they’re doing just the opposite. They’ve really been incredible.”
The president reveled in details of construction, saying Border Patrol and military officials persuaded him to adopt more expensive designs. He said he dropped a preference for solid concrete, instead opting for concrete-filled steel bollards that allow agents to see through to Mexico to spot assailants throwing rocks or other projectiles. He agreed to go along with barriers that are 30 feet high and double-layered in heavily traveled areas.
“It’s the Rolls-Royce version,” Trump said.
...
Army Corps Lt. Gen. Todd Semonite...offered new details on the pace of construction that underscored how quickly the administration plans to move.
It has built 66 miles (106 kilometers) so far, has 251 miles (403 kilometers) in various stages of construction at 17 sites and contracts for 163 miles (262 kilometers) planned in the next 90 days, the general said. Additional land on private property is expected to take more time.
Crews are installing 270 panels a day, each one with eight bollards.
Trump, whose construction targets have shifted, said he expects to build up to about 550 miles (885 kilometers) of wall along the 1,954-mile (3,126-kilometer) border and said the administration will pause at about 400 miles (643 kilometers) to assess what more is needed.
Trump said cost concerns led him to put aside his preference to paint the wall black, which absorbs heat. He said the wall was “a good, strong rust color” and could be painted later.
Trump is riding a string of wins on the wall and on immigration in general.
...
https://time.com/5680944/trump-border-wall-security-immigration-san-diego/
President Trump has been working vigorously to secure our borders since being elected . In doing so he has sought out the most heavily trafficked areas that the ruthless Mexican Cartels are taking advantage of. These priority areas had one thing in common, border barriers already existed here. However, these old barriers were not walls, or anything intended to seriously stop people or drugs, and most are only 3′ tall. These are nothing more than a hurdle, not a barrier and they are made out of old scrap metal.
We believe these areas are the hot zones for illegal activity because the so-called barriers that previous Presidents built are so grossly ineffective. President Trump is now going in to these hot zones, gutting these ineffective out-dated barriers and building modern multi-faceted walls that are proven to stop people and dangerous drugs from entering into our country.
President Trump is going after the worst areas first. DHS has dubbed these areas as ‘Priority Zones’, Priority 1, 2, 3 and 4, with priority 1 being the most vital. Priority 1 zones are now being addressed with the now approved Defense budget allocation.
Our first completed border wall project was built in Sunland Park, New Mexico just outside of El Paso, Texas on June 3, 2019. It stretches just under a mile and has stopped 100% of illegal crossings. The property owner is an 85 year old Vietnam veteran fighter pilot who was forced to live in fear every single day on his property. Over 100 illegal aliens crossed onto his land each day in the first half of 2019. The US Army Corps of Engineers denied him a wall, they said it was impossible to build a wall up Mt. Cristo Rey where his property was located. They also stated the mountain was a”natural barrier”.
He had a major problem, and We Build The Wall, Inc had the solution.
Our barrier system utilizes a multi-tiered high tech system to detect and deter would be illegal aliens from crossing. US Border Patrol Agents praise the high tech system as the most advanced border wall on the entire US Border which also goes up a whopping 31% grade.
No one can get within 100′ of this barrier without triggering advanced warning systems. It merges brute steel with high tech systems to create the most comprehensive security security wall in the United States. And it’s only possible because American’s keep believing in us!
...
If every Trump supporter who voted in 2016 would donate $80 we could raise enough money to fund and build most of the entire US southern border wall.
In a time of crisis Americans have always rallied to get the job done, we were never forced to rely on the US Government for anything until recent times. The time is now to stand up for your country with this small contribution.
If we continue down this dangerous path our children and grandchildren will never recognize the country that so many Americans died for to protect the freedoms we have today. Let’s not be the generation who lost it all by doing nothing.
PLEASE STAND UP AND FIGHT WITH ME!
God Bless,
Brian Kolfage Jr.
President – We Build The Wall, Inc
https://webuildthewall.us/help-build-the-wall
WE BUILD THE WALL, B.C.
“You know very well what trouble we are in. ... Let us rebuild the wall...and end this disgrace!” ... They replied at once, “Yes, let’s rebuild the wall!” So they began the good work.
...
https://biblehub.com/nlt/nehemiah/1.htm
Nehemiah 1:1 to 7:3
https://biblehub.com/nehemiah/
EXCELLENT Movie/Documentary on the history of the Bible ....
Lamp in the Dark: The Hidden History of the Bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmXBj2N9fhY
I want to caution readers here about TruNews. Rick Wiles, the owner, sits in front of the camera with two other gentlemen and broadcasts news commentary updates on that channel. But they are not correct on many things, and they are quite arrogant, as if they know it all.
Wiles and his fellows have odd beliefs. For instance, they reject any rapture; he insists it's an invention of Darby and Scofield (get ready to be a Tribulation saint, Wiles). Next. I have heard him say recently that there 'is no 7 year tribulation' (no 70th week of Daniel). Incredible!
They have a 'Godcast' (blasphemous, no?) in which I have hear him say once, 'I thank God I am not Jewish'. He has said in the past also that Jerusalem is Babylon. They believe that the 'Palestinians' are an actual people and deserve a homeland. They have a seething hatred for Israel (at least the Zionists) although they claim to support Jews. I agree with their views of the Talmud and Kabbalah, but that makes up the majority of their commentaries. It's a broadcast full of speculation and opinion, little of which comes true as far as predictions. And never have I heard one syllable about Islam, or how it's destroying the West via immigration. Nothing.
Take him with a pinch of salt.
In the beginning YHVH created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep and the spirit of YHVH moved upon the face of the waters and YHVH said Let there be light and there was light
I'd place Ray B in the top 2 of obnoxious, personally. The way he's going, we may have to give Christine a reprieve ... he seems to be growing more duplicitous in his attitude than ever before.
I'd put Ray B at joint 2nd place with Thomas Blaspheming Dahlheimer, with Christine only milimeters in front.
Climate Change as Religion: Seminary Students Confess Their Sins to Plants in Ritual
09/20/2019
By Mike LaChance
Legal Insurrection
Conservatives often say that progressives act as if climate change is a religion. They can now say that without a shred of irony.
Students at the Union Theological Seminary of Manhattan recently performed a religious ritual in which they confessed their sins to plants.
Coy Westbrook reports at the College Fix:
Students at a seminary in New York City recently confessed their sins to plants during a chapel service, an experience that...a campus spokesman called a “beautiful, moving ritual” in a statement to The College Fix.
On Tuesday, Union Theological Seminary in Manhattan shared on its Twitter account a photo of a group of students speaking to an arrangement of house plants.
“Today in chapel, we confessed to plants. Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt and sorrow in prayer”
...
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/09/climate-change-as-religion-seminary-students-confess-their-sins-to-plants-in-ritual/
What do YOU confess to the plants in YOUR life?
✔@UnionSeminary
"When Robin Wall Kimmerer spoke at Union last year, she concluded her lecture by tasking us—and all faith communities—to develop new liturgies by which to mourn, grieve, heal and change in response to our climate emergency.
"We couldn't be prouder to participate in this work."
•This puts a whole new spin on the word “vegetarian.”
Q: Are you a person of faith?
A: Yes, I’m a Vegetarian.
Q: What are the tenets of that, it’s new to me?
A: All human beings have original sin, because we exhale CO2. But we can seek salvation through lowering our carbon footprint, confessing our sins to the Vegetarian Angels around us, and purchasing dispensations in form of carbon credits.
•Well, if their churches have become empty (as so many progressive churches have) then perhaps they can put plants in the pews and preach to them?
•Mea culpa. I often forget to water.
https://tinyurl.com/y6snoe42
Americans Will Find Out Once And For All If The 'Deep State' Is Above The Law!
http://allnewspipeline.com/Do_Or_Die_Time_Rapidly_Approaches.php
NEXT WEEK ON SOUTH PARK
Mrs. Cartman embraces the latest new religious trend...
"Eric, sweetheart, do YOU confess to the plants in YOUR life?"
"WHAT? NO, ma, that's tree-hugging hippie crap!"
In response to the comments posted by Christine, there is no way Ray B. could be compared to the vile attacks she has posted against others over the years. He caught her out fairly and squarely over her advertisement for the seer here. Not long after that (perhaps as a damage limitation exercise?) she claimed a few posts bearing her name were, apparently, not hers. She claimed a different IP address was attached to them than the one she uses, despite all the hallmarks of her usual nonsensical and vile aspersions.
Yet, I suspect those posts were indeed hers, and that if the IP address was different, then she probably used a VPN (virtual proxy network). This would allow her to post some strategic diversions away from her folly at having posted her "ad" for her lover's psychic services here, as well as mustering the sympathy vote for her here. I don't for one minute believe Ray B. started this all off as a rumor.
She has never repented nor recanted any of her claims of nonsense here. She herself has claimed superior intellect compared with others here and has a fierce jealousy of anyone she sees as an intellectual threat (people well versed in their field, such as Physicist or Craig). Her hubris and her hypocrisy know no bounds.
P.S.,
A VPN (virtual proxy network) allows somebody to search and post on the web while disguising their true IP address, the VPN connection ascribes an alternative IP address than the real IP address from where the searches or posts truly originate.
A REALLY Inconvenient Truth!
Over FORTY Climate Doomsday Predictions HAVEN'T Come True!
https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-climate-experts-are-0-41-with-their-doomsday-predictions/
TO SERVE AND PROTECT (Snicker)
Court Shoots Down Cop's Assertion That Driving Without Breaking Any Laws Is 'Suspicious'
http://www.blacklistednews.com/article/74816/court-shoots-down-cops-assertion-that-driving-without-breaking-any-laws-is.html
https://therightscoop.com/in-honor-of-climatestrike-day-here-are-fifty-end-of-the-world-climate-predictions-that-were-total-codswallop/
“Christian” Pastors Bless Abortion Clinic, Singing “Hallelujah. Bless This Room”
https://www.lifenews.com/2019/08/28/christian-pastors-bless-abortion-clinic-singing-hallelujah-bless-this-room/
EARTH WORSHIP AND CLIMATE CONFESSIONS
By L. Brent Bozell III
& By Tim Graham
The Daily Wire
09/21/19
Gaianism is alive and well in what we call Western civilization. In advance of the United Nations Climate Action Summit on Sept. 23, leftists are actively practicing their faith. Man has despoiled the Earth and now must ... confess to the Earth.
Think we're exaggerating?
On Sept. 17, New York's Union Theological Seminary, a progressive Christian adjunct to Columbia University, put out a tweet that many people must have assumed was a satire from the religion pranksters at The Babylon Bee. "Today in chapel, we confessed to plants," it began. "Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt and sorrow in prayer; offering them to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor." Then they asked for an Amen: "What do you confess to the plants in your life?"
The photo accompanying the tweet shows a young female seminarian seated cross-legged on the floor, facing what looks like an assortment of cattails, a peace lily, a majesty palm and potted basil.
Thank God (the other one) for sane people's sense of humor. Twitter ridicule quickly followed. "I think you smoked one of the plants first," someone tweeted.
The Catholic blogger called the Curt Jester used Catholic confessional words: "Bless me ficus, for I have sinned. I promise to turn over a new leaf and nip the root of my sin in the bud. I want to grow in hollyness. I firmly resolve with the hope of thy grapes to sin no more."
But the New York Union Theological Seminary isn't the only place where folks are apologizing to weeds. On Aug. 31, The New York Times tweeted: "Dr. Monica Gagliano says that she has received Yoda-like advice from trees and shrubbery. In 2012, she says, an oak tree assured her that a risky grant application — proposing research on sound communication in plants — would be successful."
So why not pray to plants and wait for the answers?
NBC News also broke out a confessional, with an interactive webpage titled "Climate Confessions." It explained its brainstorm: "Even those who care deeply about the planet's future can slip up now and then. Tell us: Where do you fall short in preventing climate change? Do you blast the A/C? Throw out half your lunch? Grill a steak every week? Share your anonymous confession with NBC News." Categories of "sins" against Earth were shown. Here's an example in each category:
✓Energy: "I sleep with the air conditioner on year-round and justify it to myself by recycling."
✓Transportation: "I fly private jets. We will often burn an extra 500 gallons of fuel to save 10 minutes."
✓Plastics: "I admit to using far too many plastic grocery bags while my reusable ones sit in the trunk of my car."
✓Food waste: "I toss food that's fresh enough to eat, but isn't visually ok (e.g., freezer burn). Getting a vacuum sealer to help with this."
✓Paper: "I use enough Q-tips for a family of 8. I have an addiction to them in hygiene purposes, makeup application, even cleaning."
✓Meat: "I was a vegetarian since 1980. But the last few years I started eating ground turkey. So sad."
Some people turned it into bragging instead of confessing: "I LOVE meat. But I love the earth more. Vegan for over 4 years now." Some seemingly conservative people wrote in mocking responses: "I run my AC 24/7. I'm not going to sweat to appease this climate religion."
Liberal guilt has never been more pronounced. We recommend as proper corporal punishment using the switch (PROVIDED liberals then apologize to the bamboo).
Even Gaia is running for the hills.
https://tinyurl.com/y49eznje
September 21, 2019
Scaring the children on climate is cruel, cynical, and dangerous
By Jack Hellner
It is dangerous when teenagers who have been indoctrinated their entire lives are treated as if they have knowledge on climate change and fossil fuels. They are just repeating talking points when trotted out on media outlets and before Congress as if they were experts. They have been discouraged from doing research and critically thinking because they have been told the science is settled. They know that anyone who says the climate is changing and has always changed naturally is de a climate change denier; to get good grades, they need to repeat what they are told.
It is more dangerous when almost all journalists and other Democrats repeat the same talking points instead of doing research and asking questions. Instead of pointing out to the teenagers that temperatures, sea levels, storm activity, droughts and floods have always fluctuated naturally, and previous dire predictions have been 100% wrong, they just go along.
A high percentage of high school students don't have basic math, reading, or science skills, yet yesterday they were let out of school by the millions to push the Democrat agenda on climate as if they somehow have knowledge on that. They are being denied genuine education on the basics and cynically exploited as pawns for a government power-grab.
Myron Ebell and Steven J. Milloy of the Competitive Enterprise Institute have produced a landmark listing of projections of projections of doom that have gone bust. Here are some of the previous predictions on the climate that have been 100% wrong:
In 1922, the AP, the WaPo, and other news outlets said coastal cities would soon be gone along with the Arctic ice because of warming.
In 1970, on the first Earth Day, billions would starve to death soon because of cooling.
In 1975, a Newsweek headline "Global Cooling is Coming." Maybe the teens should be asked a simple question: if rising CO2, fossil fuel use, and rising populations cause warming how did the world cool so much for over 25 years that a large number of people were predicting problems because of cooling?
1989: The U.N. predicted we only had ten years left to fix the warming problem.
2008: ABC predicted New York City would be under water by June 2015. They also predicted that milk would be $12.99 per gallon and gas would be $9 per gallon. They were so close.
2008: Nancy Pelosi said on Meet the Press that we have to get away from fossil fuels and go to natural gas. Do we really want people making our laws who seemed to be so confused over a decade ago?
2009: Al Gore predicted that the Arctic ice cap would be gone by 2014. It actually increased in 2014.
November 12, 2009: Al Gore said on The Conan O'Brien Show that the Earth was several million degrees a few feet below the surface. Gore is treated as an expert, and he was only several million degrees off.
After Hurricane Katrina hit, we were told hurricanes would be more severe and more frequent than ever, and we had over a ten-year lull in serious hurricanes hitting our shores.
We have repeatedly been told that because of global warming, we would have snowless winters. In 2018–2019, there were record snowfalls in California and elsewhere. The drought, which was supposedly caused by humans and fossil fuels in California, ended because of the record snows.
For decades, we were told that the reason we needed alternative fuels like wind and solar was because we were going to run out of oil soon. Now that we know there is plenty of oil, we are told that it is destroying the Earth and we have to outlaw it.
Here is a list of dire predictions that have been right on the climate the last 100 years:
I couldn't find any.
Instead of telling children they are going to die soon because of fossil fuels and scaring them into pledging not to have children, they should be taught that fossil fuels have increased the quality and length of life the last 150 years, and temperatures rise and fall naturally, as they always have. They should also be told the truth that CO2 is a clear, innocuous, non-pollutant gas that makes plants thrive and allows the world to be fed.
Every policy solution the Democrats propose, on whatever their dire predictions of the day are, involves transferring massive amounts of freedom, power, and money to the bureaucrats and politicians. That is the greatest existential threat to the survival of the United States as a great country — not the continued use of fossil fuels.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/scaring_the_children_on_climate_is_cruel_cynical_and_dangerous.html#.XYXrmLxo_-w.twitter
They 'KNOW' that anyone who says the climate is changing and has always changed naturally is [by default] a climate change denier; to get good grades, they need to repeat what they are told.
Tony Heller’s newest video, explaining in detail the incorrect data on the main page by the National Climate Assessment, which was distributed to ‘journalists’ and policy makers. Heller does this, in part, by superimposing the various charts over each other.
My Gift To Climate Alarmists
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU
This is my most concise expose of climate fraud. Please pass it around to everyone you know and your elected officials. The video is short, but cuts right to the heart of the matter.
The disinformation machine that is corporate media is working overtime to perpetrate this fraud.
Cops Shoot and Kill Beloved Mother, Gay Ellen Plack, in Her Own Home While 'Checking on Her Welfare'
...
Plack’s older brother, Bob Bostock, contacted NBC12 Wednesday stating his sister just turned 57-years-old, only to die ten days later.
...
“Gay was a kind, generous, vivacious, caring person, with a joy for life, a hearty laugh, tremendous artistic talent, and a deep and abiding love for Jesus, her family, and her many caring and supportive friends. She did not deserve to die this way, terrified in her own home by police officers, sent there to help her, who instead ended her life.”
“She was not an aggressive person,” Abada said. “No one was afraid of her.”
No one was afraid of her, that is, except for heavily armed cops in bullet proof vests who were there to make sure she was okay.
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-shoot-and-kill-beloved-mother-in-her-own-home-while-checking-on-her-welfare/
YAY! NO JAIL for Cops Who Set an Innocent Man on Fire and Savagely Beat Him
http://www.blacklistednews.com/article/74826/no-jail-for-cops-who-set-an-innocent-man-on-fire-and-savagely-beat.html
MARTIAL LAW MASQUERADING AS "LAW AND ORDER"
THE POLICE STATE’S LANGUAGE OF FORCE
September 20th, 2019
By John W. Whitehead
The Rutherford Institute
“Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state, and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”—Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting, Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)
Forget everything you’ve ever been taught about free speech in America.
It’s all a lie.
There can be no free speech for the citizenry when the government speaks in a language of force.
What is this language of force?
Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.
This is not the language of freedom.
This is not even the language of law and order.
This is the language of force.
Unfortunately, this is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble in public and challenge the status quo.
This police overkill isn’t just happening [fairly recently] in troubled hot spots...where police brutality gave rise to civil unrest, which was met with a militarized show of force that caused the whole stew of discontent to bubble over into violence.
A decade earlier, the NYPD engaged in mass arrests of peaceful protesters, bystanders, legal observers and journalists who had gathered for the 2004 Republican National Convention. The protesters were subjected to blanket fingerprinting and detained for more than 24 hours at a “filthy, toxic pier that had been a bus depot.” That particular exercise in police intimidation tactics cost New York City taxpayers nearly $18 million for what would become the largest protest settlement in history.
Demonstrators, journalists and legal observers who had gathered in North Dakota to peacefully protest the Dakota Access Pipeline reported being pepper-sprayed, beaten with batons, and strip-searched by police.
In the college town of Charlottesville, Va., protesters who took to the streets to peacefully express their disapproval of a planned KKK rally were held at bay by implacable lines of gun-wielding riot police. Only after a motley crew of Klansmen had been safely escorted to and from the rally by black-garbed police did the assembled army of city, county and state police declare the public gathering unlawful and proceed to unleash canisters of tear gas on the few remaining protesters to force them to disperse.
More recently, this militarized exercise in intimidation—complete with an armored vehicle and an army of police drones—reared its ugly head in the small town of Dahlonega, Ga., where 600 state and local militarized police clad in full riot gear vastly outnumbered the 50 protesters and 150 counterprotesters who had gathered to voice their approval/disapproval of the Trump administration’s policies.
To be clear, this is the treatment being meted out to protesters across the political spectrum.
The police state does not discriminate.
As a USA Today article notes, “Federally arming police with weapons of war silences protesters across all justice movements… People demanding justice, demanding accountability or demanding basic human rights without resorting to violence, should not be greeted with machine guns and tanks. Peaceful protest is democracy in action. It is a forum for those who feel disempowered or disenfranchised. Protesters should not have to face intimidation by weapons of war.”
A militarized police response to protesters poses a danger to all those involved, protesters and police alike. In fact, militarization makes police more likely to turn to violence to solve problems.
As a study by researchers at Stanford University makes clear, “When law enforcement receives more military materials — weapons, vehicles, and tools — it becomes … more likely to jump into high-risk situations. Militarization makes every problem — even a car of teenagers driving away from a party — look like a nail that should be hit with an AR-15 hammer.”
Even the color of a police officer’s uniform adds to the tension. As the Department of Justice reports, “Some research has suggested that the uniform color can influence the wearer—with black producing aggressive tendencies, tendencies that may produce unnecessary conflict between police and the very people they serve.”
You want to turn a peaceful protest into a riot?
Bring in the militarized police with their guns and black uniforms and warzone tactics and “comply or die” mindset. Ratchet up the tension across the board. Take what should be a healthy exercise in constitutional principles (free speech, assembly and protest) and turn it into a lesson in authoritarianism.
Mind you, those who respond with violence are playing into the government’s hands perfectly.
The government WANTS a reason to crack down and lockdown and bring in its biggest guns.
They WANT us divided.
They WANT us to turn on one another.
They WANT us powerless in the face of their artillery and armed forces.
They WANT us silent, servile and compliant.
[And] they CERTAINLY do NOT want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully.
And they DEFINITELY do NOT want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.
You know how one mayor characterized the tear-gassing of protesters by riot police? He called it an “unfortunate event.”
Unfortunate, indeed.
You know what else is unfortunate?
It’s unfortunate that these overreaching, heavy-handed lessons in how to rule by force have become standard operating procedure for a government that communicates with its citizenry primarily through the language of brutality, intimidation, and fear.
It’s unfortunate that “we the people” have become the proverbial nails to be hammered into submission by the government and its vast armies.
And it’s particularly unfortunate that government officials—especially police—seem to believe that anyone who wears a government uniform (soldier, police officer, prison guard) must be obeyed without question.
In other words, “we the people” are the servants in the government’s eyes rather than the masters.
The government’s rationale goes like this:
Do exactly what I say, and we’ll get along fine. Do not question me or talk back in any way. You do not have the right to object to anything I may say or ask you to do, or ask for clarification if my demands are unclear or contradictory. You must obey me under all circumstances without hesitation, no matter how arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or blatantly racist my commands may be. Anything other than immediate perfect servile compliance will be labeled as resisting arrest, and expose you to the possibility of a violent reaction from me. That reaction could cause you severe injury or even death.
And I will suffer NO consequences.
It’s your choice:
Comply, or DIE.
Indeed, as Officer Sunil Dutta of the Los Angeles Police Department advises:
"If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me."
This is not the rhetoric of a government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people.
This is not the attitude of someone who understands, let alone respects, free speech.
And this is certainly not what I would call “community policing,” which is supposed to emphasize the importance of the relationship between the police and the community they serve.
Indeed, this is Martial Law MASQUERADING as "Law and Order."
Any police officer who tells you that he needs tanks, SWAT teams and pepper spray to do his job shouldn’t be a police officer in a constitutional republic.
All that stuff in the First Amendment (about freedom of speech, religion, press, peaceful assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances) sounds great in theory. However, it amounts to little more than a hill of beans if you have to exercise those freedoms while facing down an army of police equipped with deadly weapons, surveillance devices, and a slew of laws that empower them to arrest and charge citizens with bogus “contempt of cop” charges (otherwise known as asserting your constitutional rights).
It DOESN'T have to be this way!
There are other, far better models to follow.
For instance, back in 2011, the St. Louis police opted to employ a passive response to Occupy St. Louis activists. First, police gave the protesters nearly 36 hours’ notice to clear the area, as opposed to the 20 to 60 minutes’ notice other cities gave. Then, as journalist Brad Hicks reports, when the police finally showed up:
They didn’t show up in riot gear and helmets, they showed up in shirt sleeves with their faces showing. They not only didn’t show up with SWAT gear, they showed up with no unusual weapons at all, and what weapons they had all securely holstered. They politely woke everybody up. They politely helped everybody who was willing to remove their property from the park to do so. They then asked, out of the 75 to 100 people down there, how many people were volunteering for being-arrested duty? Given 33 hours to think about it, and 10 hours to sweat it over, only 27 volunteered. As the police already knew, those people’s legal advisers had advised them not to even passively resist, so those 27 people lined up to be peacefully arrested, and were escorted away by a handful of cops.
The rest were advised to please continue to protest, over there on the sidewalk … and what happened next was the most absolutely brilliant piece of crowd control policing I have heard of in my entire lifetime. All of the cops who weren’t busy transporting and processing the voluntary arrestees lined up, blocking the stairs down into the plaza. They stood shoulder to shoulder. They kept calm and silent. They positioned the weapons on their belts out of sight. They crossed their hands low in front of them, in exactly the least provocative posture known to man. And they peacefully, silently, respectfully occupied the plaza, using exactly the same non-violent resistance techniques that the protesters themselves had been trained in.
As Forbes concluded, “This is a more humane, less costly, and ultimately more productive way to handle a protest. This is great proof that police can do it the old fashioned way – using their brains and common sense instead of tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray – and have better results.”
It CAN be done!
Police will NOT [VOLUNTEER to] give up their gadgets and war toys and combat tactics, however. Their training and inclination towards authoritarianism has become too ingrained.
If we are to have any hope of dismantling the police state, change must start locally, community by community. Citizens will HAVE to: DEMAND that police de-escalate and de-militarize. And IF the police don’t listen, contact your city councils and put the pressure on THEM!
Remember, they are supposed to work for us. They might not like hearing it—they certainly won’t like being reminded of it—but we pay their salaries with our hard-earned tax dollars.
“We the people” have got to stop accepting the lame excuses trotted out by police as justifications for their inexcusable behavior.
Either “we the people” believe in free speech or we don’t.
Either we live in a constitutional republic or a police state.
We have rights.
As Justice William O. Douglas advised in his dissent in Colten v. Kentucky, “we need not stay docile and quiet” in the face of authority.
The Constitution does not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials.
Neither does the Constitution require obedience (although it does insist on nonviolence).
This emphasis on nonviolence goes both ways. Somehow, the government keeps overlooking this important element in the equation.
There is NOTHING safe or secure or free about exercising your rights with a RIFLE pointed at you.
The police officer who has been trained to shoot first and ask questions later, oftentimes based only on their highly subjective “feeling” of being threatened, is just as much of a danger—if not more—as any violence that might erupt from a protest rally.
Compliance is NO guarantee of safety!
Then again, as I point out in my book "Battlefield America: The War on the American People," if we just cower before government agents and meekly obey, we may find ourselves following in the footsteps of those nations that eventually fell to TYRANNY.
The alternative involves standing up and speaking truth to power. Jesus Christ walked that road. So did Mahatma Gandhi...and countless other freedom fighters whose actions changed the course of history.
...
And if the founding fathers had marched in lockstep with royal decrees, there would have been no American Revolution.
We must adopt a different mindset and follow a different path if we are to alter the outcome of these interactions with police.
The American dream was built on the idea that NO ONE is above the law, that OUR rights are inalienable and CANNOT be taken away, and that our government and its appointed agents exist to serve US.
It may be that things are too far gone to save, but still, we MUST try.
[And PRAY!]
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/martial_law_masquerading_as_law_and_order_the_police_states_language_of_force
Anon 3:28 PM,
Regarding your statement perhaps the answer was simply something more like that the personage known as The Word has always existed and at His incarnation simply added the name & title Jesus Christ to all His others, let me illustrate how this cannot be correct.
First of all, the definitions supplied at the Helps Ministries, Inc. HELPS Word-studies link are hopelessly muddled (disappointingly, for I use BibleHub to compare various Bible versions), providing some correct information alongside internal inconsistencies and incorrect info. I don’t think it would be beneficial to try to explain all the problems with them, but I’ll restate what is correct. The Greek Iēsous (Jesus) means ‘YHWH saves’. “Jesus” is a human name, and in this case for the person known as ‘Jesus of Nazareth’; but, of course, He is not merely human. He is the God-man. “Jesus Christ” is properly understood ‘Jesus the Christ’, for “Christ” (ho Christos, His title) means the Anointed One. But here we must ask ourselves: Did God anoint God or did God anoint a man, specifically, the God-man? I’ll come back to this.
Using John 1:1-3 as an example, it would be fine to construe it In the beginning was God the Son, and God the Son was with God the Father, and God the Son was God [just like God the Father was/is God, for both are part of the Holy Trinity]…Through God the Son all things came to be…. “All things” refers to all creation bar none. This entire passage is speaking ‘pre-time’. Consequently, substituting “Jesus Christ” for “God the Son” here would not only not be correct, it would make nonsense out of this passage, for Jesus is the unique God-man, the “-man” coming into existence at the Incarnation—in time. Stated differently, humanity was not yet created prior to John 1:3, and John 1:3 indicates the creation event, so substituting “Jesus” in John 1:1-3 would be oxymoronic.
To rephrase and further explain, in John 1:14 God the Son, the Agent of creation [the Father is the ultimate Creator; see Rev 4:11, and etc.], became the unique God-man at the moment of the virginal conception in Mary—in time. This point signifies the acquisition of human flesh, but not a change in Being, ontology. The eternal God the Son (‘the Word’) began a temporal existence while yet remaining eternal. The hypostatic union began in time, though this didn’t interrupt the eternality of God the Son (‘the Word’). Thus, during Jesus’ time on earth the God-man was living a temporal existence and an eternal existence simultaneously. Jesus, in virtue of His human nature, was limited in physical presence while walking the earth, yet, in virtue of His Divine nature, He remained omnipresent, continuously sustaining the cosmos He was the Agent in creating (Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2).
In short, though we must maintain eternal continuity of ‘the Word’ (God the Son), we must also distinguish between His unbounded eternality, and His bounded eternality, the latter beginning at the Incarnation, the birth of Jesus, the Advent (coming, arrival) of the Word enfleshed into our temporal sphere.
Jesus Christ is God the Son by virtue of His pre-existence [the prefix pre meaning “before”] AS ‘the Word’, God the Son in John 1:1. In 1:14 the pre-existing Word attached humanity to Himself resulting in the two-natured Jesus Christ, Whose human nature has a beginning and Whose Divine nature does not. Thus, John 1:1 is speaking of Jesus Christ’s (Word-become-flesh’s) pre-temporal, pre-existence as the Word (before enfleshment), and thus, we can rightly claim that the final clause and the Word was God refers, by extension, to Jesus Christ, and, therefore, that Jesus is God. I’ll quote Murray J. Harris’ excellent and exhaustive book [Greek transliterated and briefly defined; bold added] Jesus as God: The New Testament use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992):
[continued]
[continuing]
In 1:14 John is…[affirming] that the personal individualized Logos [‘the Word’] assumed a complete and genuine human existence. If, for John, the Logos was the preincarnate Son, then Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the incarnate Logos. There was personal continuity between the preexistent Logos and the historical Jesus: the logos ensarkos [Word enfleshed, aka Jesus] was personally none other than the logos asarkos [Word not-fleshed]. If this is so, what John says in 1:1 regarding the person of the Logos, he says, by implication, regarding the person of Jesus Christ (p 59).
At times we strain at language to make proper distinctions, and, by convention, we may sometimes refer to the preincarnate existence of Jesus as “Jesus” to try to explain or maintain personal continuity between His earthly existence and His pre-existence. However, we must do our best to make proper distinctions, if for no other reason than our Christian witness. Being careless or imprecise in our wording can bring about the perception to outsiders that Christians hold to blatant contradictions and are not worthy of a hearing, thus potentially creating an impediment to the Great Commission. Thus, this is not a mere academic issue.
Moreover, Biblically, Jesus had a beginning, His birth; and Biblically ‘the Word’ is without beginning, eternally unbounded. This distinction must be maintained or we run the risk of (inadvertently) divinizing His humanity or humanizing His Deity. In our efforts to maintain personal continuity of God the Son, we must not to do so at the expense of His true humanity or His Deity.
Reiterating and restating: Jesus Christ began His existence at the Incarnation. Yet Jesus Christ pre-existed the Incarnation. But He didn’t pre-exist AS Jesus, He pre-existed as the Word in John 1:1. After the prologue in John’s Gospel (1:1-18) the Biblical author never refers to Jesus as ‘the Word’. ‘The Word’ only refers to Jesus’ pre-existence, not His temporal existence. His temporal existence can be derived from 1:14 And the Word became flesh… = Word enfleshed in its context (“Jesus Christ” is not explicitly stated until 1:17).
Going back to my earlier unanswered question: Did God anoint God or did God anoint a man, specifically, the God-man? See R. C. Sproul’s article here:
www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/jesus-christ-anointed-one/
“Christ” is Jesus’ supreme title. But what does it mean?
... when the New Testament speaks of Jesus Christ, it is saying “Jesus the Messiah,” which literally means, “Jesus the Anointed One.”
In Old Testament times, people were subject to anointing when they were called to the offices of prophet, priest, and king. For example, when Saul became the first king of Israel, Samuel the prophet anointed his head with oil in a ceremonial fashion (1 Sam. 10:1). This religious rite was performed to show that the king of Israel was chosen and endowed by God for the kingship. Likewise, the priests (Ex. 28:41) and prophets (1 Kings 19:16) were anointed at God’s command. In a sense, anyone in the Old Testament who was set apart and consecrated for a servant task was a messiah, for he was one who received an anointing.
[continued]
[continuing]
But the people of Israel looked forward to that promised individual who was to be not merely a messiah but the Messiah, the One who would be supremely set apart and consecrated by God to be their Prophet, Priest, and King. So, at the time Jesus was born, there was a strong sense of anticipation among the Jews, who had been waiting for their Messiah for centuries.
Amazingly, when Jesus began His public ministry, few recognized Him for who He was, despite overwhelming evidence that He possessed an anointing from God that far surpassed that which had rested on any other man.
Thus, both “Jesus” and “the Christ” are terms for the Incarnation and, as such, they cannot be retroactively, anachronistically, applied to the time before the Advent, the Incarnation. And since Jesus Christ is specifically the God-man, the One anointed in time, He cannot be the pre-temporal Agent of creation.
Recapping: To be sure, we sometimes make statements like “the final clause in John 1:1 [and the Word was God] indicates that Jesus was/is God”, but we understand that this is so by virtue of the pre-incarnate, eternal Word of John 1:1 becoming flesh in the Person of Jesus Christ in John 1:14, the Word-made-flesh. That is, ‘the Word’, aka God the Son, from John 1:1 exists eternally, and since ‘the Word’ added human flesh/nature to Himself at the Incarnation in the Person of Jesus Christ, we understand that the eternality and Deity of the Word, God the Son, are in the Person of Jesus Christ. But it would be an oxymoron to import “Jesus” into the context of John 1:1 and change it to “and Jesus was God”.
I hope this has been helpful.
Theology has it's place. An important place. And does need to be proper, of course. But I can be proper in theology yet still unbelieving (what do you bet that the devil knows more Bible than you and I..) because head faith needs to become heart faith. The humble repent. The humble believe. The humble shall see God, know God, live eternally with God.
John the Baptist when he saw Jesus, said: Behold the Lamb of God.
John the Apostle tells us in Revelation 5:5-6: And one of the elders said to me, weep not: behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits (of Isaiah 11 and Revelation 1)sent to all the earth.
Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world. Every knee is going to bow and every tongue is going to confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord.
The Lamb of God, the Son of God, the Son of Man, and the 2nd person of the Trinity, Christ the Lord, all summed up in Jesus, who took on human flesh that He would die as a sinner, who knew no sin, and He is Lord of all, from eternity and time complete, my, our, Savior, just as God's Holy Word has told us.
Is evident that all needs to be played forward, that what is incumbent, is necessary, is that we need to believe more than we need to understand. He told us plainly, for Jesus said: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven". I do not think that the centurian standing at the cross that day was well versed theology.
That, dear friends, is all I really need to know...because that is so rich, so beyond, so unfathomable, that I do not have need to pick Him apart, to analyze....but stand in awe...and simply believe.
And I do.
I hope and pray to God people everywhere will fall in worship before Him, and simply believe with me, in the here and now, while there is still time. Is also evident that we all have an appointment to keep, and no one is guaranteed tomorrow..
I thought you would be interested in this https://twitter.com/hsajwanization/status/1175488492912164866?s=21
Craig @ 4:04-4:05 PM,
You yet once AGAIN deflected from the REAL issue, in this case namely:
(Reading between the lines) you quite evidently egotistically think that your & RayB's "new names & titles" are WAY too similar to each other's.
Very well:
You are still "Lover Of RayB's Writings"
However, RayB is now "Craver Of Craig's Comments"
I hope you're satisfied.
ROFL!
The sheer volume of Craig's posts are woefully unnecessary. Drilling the same points over and again does not add but subtracts from any persuasive merit they possess.
Craig,
You haven't really any new material to you latest posts. Such recycled verbiage could be avoided by directing others back to your earlier points, e.g., "please see my post(s) at ... AM / PM".
RE: 9:07 PM's comments
Speaking of which:
#1) Hopefully Constance will be able to have comments timestamps also include the date to make such referencing much easier.
#2) I might suggest that Craig & Susanna consider condensing their would-be-otherwise very lengthy (and at times rather repetitive) posts to have them instead consist of mainly (or only) links (with 0-2 sentences regarding the links).
Anon 9:07 PM,
Are you sure there was no new material in this latest post? Perhaps you can find an earlier comment in this particular exchange in which I specifically defined Christ as the "Anointed One" and made the case that this is a temporal title and not an eternal one? Or perhaps you can find a comment in which I explained--agreeing with the link/info supplied by 3:28--the meaning of "Jesus" and that this too is a temporal name?
Craig @ 9:31 PM
No offense but I think what's being gotten at in this instance is simply the going over (virtually) the same subject too many times over & over again REGARDLESS of any 'new' points added in during the 'cycle' (if you will) of those postings.
Want To Save The World? Homeschool Your Children So The Communist Educators Do Not Get Their Grubby Paws On Them To Indoctrinate Them With Radical 'Social Justice' Agendas!
http://allnewspipeline.com/Want_To_Save_The_World_Homeschool_Children.php
Craig, you stubbornly repeat the lie that "...the betrothal was much too long for Joseph to have been a widower...."
I have already showed you, Luke says that JOSEPH TOOK MARY TO HIM IN THE END OF THE THIRD MONTH OF HER PREGNANCY, she having stayed 3 months with Elizabeth, and
WHILE THEY WERE LIVING TOGETHER he did not know her.
NOTHING shows their betrothal was a year long. NOTHING shows the angel came later than a few days after her betrothal. The visit to Elizabeth increased the time.
"You wrote: So the term for betrothed remains, because gamos marriage is accomplished in the sex act which never happened, gamos is based in the word for sex....The term means marriage ceremony/celebration,...The word has absolutely nothing to do with sex...."
gamos is from gamo meaning sex. http://byallwrites.biz/2016/03/01/international-swear-words-to-love-and-use-greek-style/
which is why a Greek mentioned snickering when marriage mentioned in church services.
"a combining form meaning “joined, united,” “joining, union,” used in the formation of compound words:
gamopetalous." https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gamo-
And joining and union is exactly what happens in sex. ONE FLESH IS CREATED BY SEX EVEN WITH A PROSTITUTE I COR 6:16. your first legal marriage in church is adultery if you aren't both virgins or prior partners dead or had willing sex with others.
an unconsummated (no sex) marriage is annulable (never existed never completed).
when the only sex is after public moving in together after formal betrothal its easy for the word to mean marriage. I already gave links to Jewish marriage customs. The wedding was just a party.
"you wrote, ...lwhen Jesus said "before Abraham was I AM" He was calling Himself YHWH....I suppose...the blind man that Jesus healed was calling himself “God” in John 9:9 also?:...he...said that ‘I am’."
The reaction of Jesus' hearers AND HIS REFUSAL TO DENY HE MEANT THAT HE IS YH shows He was saying "I AM YHWH." He could have used other words. YOU CAN'T GET MORE EXPLICIT. HE IS THE SAME PERSON AS THE WORD IN JOHN CHAPTER ONE.
Good job re RayB he's exposed himself as a heretic worse than Arius, Wescott or Hort! I think RayB slipped up and admitted what he thinks regardless of his denials. And he's very slippery in his statements.
RayB said "His MANIFESTATION in the FLESH ON EARTH was TEMPORARY and did not become an inseparable, ETERNAL part of His God nature !"
Jesus' physical human nature was never part of His divine nature, it is now and always will held by His PERSON John 4:1-4 Christ IS (not DID but IS) come in the flesh. He has been glorified like He was before the Incarnation WITHOUT LOSING HIS FLESH.
RayB said "Jesus Christ is no longer the "God-man." That was only temporal. He is now fully God without the flesh, which was destroyed on the cross." There is no way you can weasle out of this statement. either repudiate it or not, but don't pretend you didn't mean it.
IF His flesh was destroyed on the cross, and is therefore without His flesh, He did not rise from the dead physically no empty tomb and no resurrection of the body. CHRIST'S PHYSICAL RESURRECTION IS THE BASIS OF CHRISTIANITY!
"Craig heretically believes that Christ continues "through eternity" with an "attached human nature/flesh." THIS IS A CLEAR diminishing of Christ's DEITY!" THIS SUPPOSED HERESY IS THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH THROUGH THE AGES.
"AGAIN, when Christ was "manifested in the flesh," he purposely, and TEMPORARILY LOWERED himself "lower than the angels" "
Christ's deity was never diminished merely hidden. He is now glorified as He was before but STILL has His human nature. He will come back PHYSICALLY.
BTW Jesus went to hell not to suffer but to kick the devil's ass and cripple him.
Christine,
You’ve brought up four different things, which I’ll briefly address:
1) Re: gamos (“gamo”): Word meanings evolve over time. In the NT era, gamos is defined in the various lexicons relevant to that time period using the definitions I’d supplied. That the meaning has evolved over time is not surprising; but, to impose this meaning on our discussion would be wrong, anachronistic.
As to the primary subject of Mary’s betrothal, we’ve exhausted it.
2) Re: John 8:58: We partially agree. The context explicitly states His pre-existence via Jesus’ first claim to have seen Abraham along with His explicit declaration, “Before Abraham was [was born], I am.” In other words, “I am” here is an explicit claim or pre- and continued existence. But is this a use of the ‘Divine Name’? It might well be. But it might not be. Jesus sure seems to be implying it, but he does not state it explicitly; that is, He doesn’t say, “I AM YHWH” (which would be egō eimi ho kyrios = “I am the LORD”) or “I AM THE ONE WHO IS”, the latter the LXX Greek of Exodus 3:14 egō eimi ho ōn. In fact, I think that Jesus is making an implication of Deity here, yet not from Exodus 3:14, but Deutero-Isaiah (43:10-11; 43:25; 45:8; 46:4; 48:12; 52:6). The connection to Isaiah’s “I AM” statements is stronger.
The bottom line is that, in my view, Jesus is strongly implying Deity here; but, He is not saying “I am God” or “I am the I AM”, etc., though I do think this is an example of double entendre, in which a secondary meaning of “I AM” is implied here. That Jesus’ Jewish adversaries understood the implication is apparent by their reaction. In John 10:33 His adversaries actually state the reason for which they wish to stone Him (“you, being a man, make yourself God”). But in John 10, as in 8:58, Jesus does not overtly, explicitly claim to be God, though He most certainly implies it—and His adversaries perceive the implication.
3) As to the third item, let me just say I expected you’d perceive it the way you’ve expressed it, and I’ll leave it at that.
4) Re: The explanation of Jesus during the period between His death and His resurrection, I’ll provide no comment except to say that your view is strictly speculative.
Christine why in the world do you so desperately need for Joseph to have been a widower?
Is it just a need on your part to win an argument? Because it started out as a hypothetical what-if; this silly and pointless idea that Joseph was for some reason a widower, and then Craig made the mistake of pointing out that your phantasy of Joseph as a widower, which is not even remotely hinted at in the scriptures, devolved; decomposed, into a "thing" that you took on as some kind of point of doctrine, which then became your personal crusade against Craig, who foolishly wasted his time and called you out on it.
_Then you make good sense for about one paragraph...
_Then you bust out with this:
"He is now glorified as He was before but STILL has His human nature. He will come back PHYSICALLY."
He has a human nature? Human nature is corrupt to the core. Human nature is incapable of righteousness. Human nature is fatally flawed with PRIDE, Christine, you know about that right?
Wouldn't "human form" have been a better word? I thought it said that He is the Firstfruits of a NEW CREATION. He is the second Adam.
_Then you reach down and pull this out, for shock value:
"BTW Jesus went to hell not to suffer but to kick the devil's ass and cripple him."
Thanks for that insight Christine. So succinct. So down to earth. You go girl. You so reeeeal. Not.
But so incorrect in light of the scriptures that say: "He led captivity captive", and that it was like Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days and nights.
I can't find the place in the Bible where it says that ho got into some kind of United Fight Club fisticuffs with Satan and beat him up, as you imply. And a crippled Satan; I can't find that either, but oh well, It's just Christine being Christine.
paul,
At the risk of being accused of belaboring this further, I need to make the following clear.
The reason I posted voluminously about Christology and continued engagement on this subject here (to the extent of what some apparently perceive ad nauseam) is that Christology is integral to the Christian faith and many do not know it in detail. It appears you missed the earlier exchange in which I stated then defended the position that Jesus remains the God-man forever. This is historically orthodox Christian doctrine among the RCC, EO and mainline Protestantism (as I stated emphatically in a comment in the first 200 here). That said, Christine is absolutely correct that Jesus still has human nature. He’s the glorified God-man described in Revelation 1:12-20 (1:13: “…one like a son of man…”, i.e. human, which I do believe is a reference to the One described in Daniel 7:13).
See the subsection God and man forever here:
www.theopedia.com/hypostatic-union
Early in the first 200 comments I even posted a link to my own Statement of Faith on my blog, which includes the above link. It’s been there since just after the time I started my blog in 2010.
RE: "If we just cower before government agents and meekly obey, we may find ourselves following in the footsteps of those nations that eventually fell to TYRANNY.
"The alternative involves standing up and speaking truth to power. Jesus Christ walked that road. So did Mahatma Gandhi...and countless other freedom fighters whose actions changed the course of history."
Read...
THE GREAT EXPLOSION
By Eric Frank Russell
•Online:
https://www.simpleliberty.org/research/the_great_explosion-00.htm
•Library:
https://archive.org/details/greatexplosion0000russ_h5r5
•PDF:
https://epdf.pub/queue/the-great-explosion.html
The human nature of Jesus Christ was not corrupted by any concept of original sin for he was born of a virgin birth and it is in the seed of the human male that the curse of sin is carried. Until Adam and Eve sinned, their human nature was not corrupt, puffed up with pride or incapable of righteousness. It was after they sinned when the Fall happened; when corruption took root.
However, Jesus Christ in His human nature was still truly tempted by Satan, just as that serpent of old tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Yet Jesus Christ resisted all temptation, no matter how strong the Devil tried to make it (for example, in the wilderness). There was no sin found in Jesus Christ yet He truly came in the flesh (The Word made flesh) and not the mere appearance or form of it. This is why He, sometimes referred to as the 'Second Adam (Adam means man), was able to be the spotless lamb, the perfect sacrifice for the remission of sin(s) of mankind.
Jesus Christ, both fully God and fully man, rose from the death in the flesh. When Jesus Christ returns and we are transformed (changed) in the twinkling of an eye, our bodies change from corruptible ones of flesh to incorruptible bodies. To reiterate, Jesus Christ had and has no sin in Him. His flesh was uncorrupted: the reasons for which, I have addressed in the preceding paragraphs.
Nun pitches gender-neutral robot priests to solve problems in Catholic Church
https://www.premier.org.uk/News/World/Nun-pitches-gender-neutral-robot-priests-to-solve-problems-in-Catholic-Church
"DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! Your last confession was over 4 WEEKS AGO!"
"Robot, I 'confessed' to missing root beer. AND ANYWAY I'M NOT EVEN CATHOLIC!"
"Hear THAT, you bubble-headed booby?"
Shocking Footage Leaked From Inside Chinese Re-Education/Torture Camps!
http://www.infowars.com/footage-leaked-from-inside-chinese-re-education-torture-camps/
More responses to UTS confessions involving plants:
•Those plants think their confessors at Union Theological Seminary are all morons.
•Even so, I am nevertheless frankly judgmental toward Larry The Cucumber for exercising Green Privilege over Bob The Tomato...
•And I must confess that I think they’d probably taste REALLY good simmering in butter!
QUESTION: WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE AND IMMEDIATE ACTION FROM OUR POLITICIANS?
StemExpress CEO ADMITS Selling BEATING Baby Hearts, INTACT Baby Heads!
The CEO of StemExpress essentially admitted in court earlier this month that her biotech company supplies beating fetal hearts and intact fetal heads to medical researchers.
She also admitted at the preliminary hearing of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress that the baby’s head could be procured attached to the baby’s body or “could be TORN AWAY.”
“That is an especially gruesome admission, but it begs the question: how did they get these fully intact human children?” says Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, which is representing Daleiden at the hearing.
“If you have a fetus with an intact head and an intact body, and intact extremities, that is something that would indicate THAT CHILD WAS BORN ALIVE AND THEN HAD THEIR ORGANS CUT OUT OF THEM, or that that child was the victim of an illegal partial-birth abortion,” he told LifeSiteNews. “These are GRUESOME, VIOLENT acts.”
...
Watch this special report where LifeSite Managing Editor Patrick Craine speaks with reporter Lianne Laurence who is on the ground in San Francisco covering the criminal case against pro-life investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/stemexpress-ceo-admits-selling-beating-baby-hearts-intact-baby-heads-in-daleiden-hearing
PETITION: Support pro-lifers who exposed Planned Parenthood's sale of baby body parts! Sign the petition here:
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/petition-support-daleiden-and-merritt-for-their-heroic-actions-and-sacrifices
http://lifesitenews.com/news/we-need-you
IDIOCRACY IN ACTION: Swiss Hikers Hold 'Funeral' for GLACIER Killed by Climate Change!
http://pjmedia.com/trending/bunch-of-swiss-hikers-hold-funeral-for-glacier-killed-by-climate-change-or-whatever/
THIS STINKS: Why are liberals so concerned about cow farts but not PEOPLE farts?
https://www.newstarget.com/2019-09-23-liberals-so-concerned-about-cow-farts-but-not-people-farts.html
@ 1:44 PM,
Probably because they're surrounded by so many Republican farts? I hope you know what a Liberal is. You see, for too long now, the Right Wing Agenda has purposefully shifted the meaning of liberal in America to mean rabidly left wing. Actually, Liberal means to be centrist.
Thomas Paine (who plagiarized much of his work from another Great Liberal, the Englishman John Locke), was a Liberal.
You're not one of those rabidly right wing Republican farts, are you, Anon 1:44 PM? There are far too many about in here. Such Republican people dismiss Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount, etc, and would rather claim He promoted a gun toting, racist and money loving agenda, so they can try and excuse their evils.
Yes indeed 1:19 AM, this blog is crammed to the gills with money-grubbing racists. And only lower life forms would embrace the 2md Amendment. And added to those, your also twisting the preceding story to try to legitimize calling PEOPLE (here) 'farts' shows clearly:
You're an idiot.
4:43 AM,
How can anyone with a modicum of sense take you seriously when your writing is packed full of grammatical errors?
You mention the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America yet you cannot even state what is actually written there. Never mind, I'll help you: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
Pray tell, what arms are permitted in 2019 to be possessed by well regulated militia (as opposed to a well regulated Militia (with a capital M, and singular, therefore highly implying the Army, Navy, Airforce, et al, which are now mere institutions of the U.S. Government) or by private individuals which would fulfil the spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written (namely, to defend the people against a tyrannical government)?
Are such militia or private individuals allowed bunker busting bombs, stealth bombers, depleted uranium bombs and bullets, or even nuclear weapons, etc? If you were to read your country's constitution, you would realise the spirit of the document in no way intends for private individuals, willy-nilly, to bear arms.
The level of gun crime, and murder per se, in the United States of America is staggering when compared to more civilised Western countries where the average citizen does not have the (supposed) right to bear arms.
The sub-clause,'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', is entirely dependent on the clause, 'A well regulated Militia'.
Nor are there militia outside of the sphere of the 'well regulated Militia' (see above), which are included or meant to have been included in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. If you disagree, then why are you not armed to the teeth marching up to Washington D.C. to overthrow the U.S. Government for breach of the U.S. Constitution?
For if we follow the poor logic of your erroneous sarcasm and irony that the 2nd Amendment meant originally and, moreover, means in a modern day America with its weaponry, that any supposed 'well regulated' (regulated by whom?) militia or even any private individual can own any weapon sufficient to overthrow any Government which may be tyrannical, then why are you not marching towards Washington D.C. to overthrow that which is truly denying your 2nd Amendment rights because that government forbids you from keeping a fully loaded stealth bomber and a couple of nukes in your backyard?
Are you a coward, 4:43 AM? Are you a traitor? Or are you projecting your own stupidity onto me when you state, 'You're an idiot.'? I conclude, given your lame post, it is probably all three!
Well, 6:05 AM clearly enough showed they're a troll and in any event is another candidate for relegation to a parallel blog.
Is that the best you've got, 6:22 AM? Isn't free speech nor logical and reasoned argument to your liking? Has America really become so intellectually bankrupt that it has become so alienated from the concept of reason and free speech, or is it just you? Or are you living in an apparently parallel universe where the USA has become of the same repressive spirit as the fascist North Korea?
8:52 AM doubling down and proving my point more profoundly in the process. Too funny!
11:06 AM.
Wrong. The opposite effect.
6:05 AM is making a valid point.
You are not.
11:06 AM,
If you understood the logical implications of your atrocious grammar, you would realise through your simian cackling that the joke is on you: for your subconscious projection of your own stupidity is, via the impotence of your own script, doubling back to tear off your clownish mask and reveal the veritable face of the imbecile you undoubtedly are.
You have proved yourself a beast without reason or sound argument: are you one of those Republican farts alluded to in my 1:19 AM post (I sincerely suspect you are)?
Rule #1 of the internet: Don't feed the trolls.
Thank you, 11:35 PM, and God bless you.
Hi 11:57 PM,
Yes, I agree. Regarding the troll who last posted at 11:06 AM, and in so far is he or she is identifiable via the content of their posts, I have wiped the dust off my feet.
I looked in the mirror and, seeing no spec in my eye, I thought myself not a troll. Yeah, I'm good.
(I'll let people make up their own minds about 1:19 AM, etc., etc., etc.)
Trolling: "the deliberate act, (by a Troll – noun or adjective), of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument."
Wikipedia defines it as:
"a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.”
https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-internet-trolling-3485891
@ 1:16,
I'm 1:09, and I agree about 1:19 AM.
1:36 PM,
Yes, thanks. And the clue about, for example, his/her followup at 6:05 AM was "How can anyone with a modicum of sense take you seriously when your writing is packed full of grammatical errors?". Then at 8:52 AM calling such statements "logical and reasoned argument". Then again at 11:48 AM "If you understood the logical implications of your atrocious grammar...(etc)." Etc.
Now, that being said, regarding the Militia issue for those LEGITIMATELY interested: https://gunsinthenews.com/the-constitutional-militia-what-it-is-how-we-can-restore-it
https://tinyurl.com/y6svtd9h
With every real and false-flag shooting in this republic, statists and liberals re-kindle their heated attacks on “our rights under the 2nd Amendment”. The constant reversion back to that Amendment, instead of looking to the authority and duty we have under Article 1 of the Constitution, is a self-destructive habit. Led by gun organizations supposedly on our own side, we keep handing the gun-grabbers easy victories by simply not knowing the powers and duties of “We The People” that we codified in the Constitution.
https://tinyurl.com/y6svtd9h
Breaking: TVs & Smartphones ‘Talking’ in Secret to Spy on You?
http://newswars.com/breaking-tvs-smartphones-talking-in-secret-to-spy-on-you/
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Claims to Know Who Really Killed His Father and is Out to Prove It
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2019/09/24/robert-f-kennedy-jr-claims-to-know-who-really-killed-his-father-and-is-out-to-prove-it/
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/462656-pamela-anderson-julian-assange-has-been-psychologically-tortured-in-london
To those reading,
None of the trolls have addressed my points in 6:05 AM whatsoever. A link to some site or another (none of which address the complexity and integrity of my points whatsoever) rather than a direct and intelligent response. Don't let them bamboozle you!
Pleasant smiles.
Just go to those sites for YOURSELF and make your OWN mind up!
Rather than let 'Troll House Cookie' dissuade you!
Sampling Of Latest Natural News Stories:
Pelosi’s surrender to the lunatic impeachment fringe of the Democrat party may push America to civil war - 2 Hours Ago
BREAKING: Nancy Pelosi caves to her lunatic Democrat base as she announces "full" impeachment inquiry into Trump - 3 Hours Ago
Child psyop puppet “Greta” loses it, screams about “mass extinction” from carbon dioxide,... - 3 Hours Ago
HOAX: Hysterical climate child turns out to be child actor… it’s all faked for the cameras, as usual - 3 Hours Ago
You won't believe what's in the vaccines being discussed for mandatory vaccinations - 3 Hours Ago
IT’S HERE: D-Wave announces 2048-qubit quantum computing system, theoretically capable of breaking all classical... - 13 Hours Ago
Switzerland is rising up to stop 5G. Will Americans do the same? - 13 Hours Ago
Just as we suspected, climate youth puppet Greta Thunberg is controlled by George Soros - 15 Hours Ago
Corporate media desperately trying to bury the facts about Joe Biden’s corruption, bribery and money laundering - 16 Hours Ago
Need a workout that is quick and easy that you can do almost anywhere? Jumping rope gives you a full-body workout in 5... - 19 Hours Ago
The propaganda of the Left is a weapon of war - 20 Hours Ago
Left-wing climate lunatics now adopting tactics of Antifa: Disruption, chaos and hatred toward America - 26 Hours Ago
You choose: Will you age gracefully or decay miserably? - 26 Hours Ago
Cancer risk from tap water much higher than previously believed… is your water truly clean? - 26 Hours Ago
Rotten Tomatoes is rigged against reality, just like Google, Facebook and all the left-wing tech platforms - 26 Hours Ago
EXCLUSIVE: The NSA is archiving all encrypted emails and transactions, knowing they will be able to decrypt most... - 36 Hours Ago
Scientists tampering with nature have unleashed a new breed of genetically-modified SUPER mosquito with deadly... - 37 Hours Ago
Media’s attempted smear of Trump over Ukraine revelations turns into massive DUMP of Joe Biden’s... - 37 Hours Ago
New org takes on massive anti-conservative bias in Big Tech before it’s "too late" to save society - 37 Hours Ago
http://censored.news/naturalnews.com.htm
“They Have Walked Into a Trap!” -Rudy Giuliani Destroys Democrat Party, FBI and BIDEN CRIME FAMILY — MUST SEE VIDEO
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/09/they-have-walked-into-a-trap-rudy-giuliani-destroys-democrat-party-fbi-and-biden-crime-family-must-see-video/
They're Murdering My Son - Julian Assange's Father Tells Of Pain And Anguish
http://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/theyre-murdering-my-son-julien-assanges-father-tells-pain-anguish
Ingeniously evoking cognitive dissonance in the "church of woke":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqBkuC4Oh-g
Why "Islam IS RIGHT About Women" is Causing "Confusion & Anger"
Attention: Constance
An eye-opener: Hyacinths found to contain compounds that can treat and prevent blindness caused by certain illnesses!
Wednesday, September 25, 2019 by: Melissa Smith
Natural News
Losing your eyesight due to an illness such as diabetes can be devastating, but this could soon be a thing of the past – thanks to a common garden flower. Researchers have discovered a potential solution for preventing blindness using natural compounds found in the Hyacinthaceae plant family. A study published in the Journal of Natural Products suggested that hyacinths could be the key in treating and preventing blindness caused by diabetes, as well as other eye diseases, such as macular degeneration and retinopathy of prematurity (ROP).
Diabetes can cause a complication called diabetic retinopathy, a condition that occurs due to high blood sugar levels that damage the back of the eye. It often takes several years before it damages the eyesight. If left untreated, it can lead to blindness. This condition is one of the most common complications of diabetes, affecting 28 million people worldwide. Wet macular degeneration (MD), the advanced and damaging form of MD, is one of the leading causes of blindness in the world. It affects 20 million older adults globally. Babies, particularly premature babies, may also develop ROP – a condition that could lead to blindness. One out of every five pre-term babies develops ROP.
These conditions are often treated with drug injections directly into the eyes. This puts patients at risk of tearing and painful infections. Fortunately, with the findings of the study, these harmful injections could be avoided.
“Existing therapies for these diseases must be injected into the eye, and do not work in all patients,” said Tim Corson, one of the researchers of the study.
Discover how to prevent and reverse heart disease (and other cardio related events) with this free ebook: Written by popular Natural News writer Vicki Batt, this book includes everything you need to know about preventing heart disease, reversing hypertension, and nurturing your cardiac health without medication. Learn More.
For the study, the researchers from the University of Surrey and Kingston University in the U.K. and Indiana University in the U.S. examined homoisoflavonoids found in the Hyacinthaceae plant family and their potential for use in treating the causes of degenerative eye diseases. They focused on how well these compounds were able to inhibit the growth of new blood vesselsand isolated several active compounds.
The team found that homoisoflavonoids can stop the growth of abnormal blood vessels in the eye. In particular, they discovered a derivative called chromane, which showed the best activity against degenerative eye diseases and can be used to develop future treatments.
...
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-25-hyacinth-compounds-cure-blindness-caused-by-diabetes.html
https://www.stylecraze.com/articles/benefits-of-hyacinth-herb-for-skin-hair-and-health/
http://lifesitenews.com/news/popes-proposal-for-new-humanism-would-wipe-out-christianity
"HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD!"
'PP's Secret Weapon': WashPost Magazine Reveals Hollywood's Planned Parenthood Consultants
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/gabriel-hays/2019/09/25/pps-secret-weapon-washpost-reveals-hollywoods-planned
WATCH: Mini AOC is BACK, Says 'Looks Like Politics are No Longer Off Limits for Children Thanks to Greta!'
http://www.sgtreport.com/2019/09/watch-mini-aoc-is-back-says-looks-like-politics-are-no-longer-off-limits-for-children-thanks-to-greta/
Welcome to Disrn — your new favorite news site
...
Our motto is “Brief, smart, faithful”:
Brief: We deliver the news to you in a short, concise format, including just the details you need to know about while letting the rest blow away in the breeze. You can check in, quickly learn what you need to know, and then get on with your day. We also include links to more long-winded reports in case you want to know even more.
Smart: We immerse ourselves in the hectic news cycle every day and pluck out just what you need to know, discerning the important and interesting from the superfluous and hopelessly spun. What you end up with is succinct, intelligent reporting on the issues you care about, minus all the noise.
Faithful: The issues that are important to you are important to us. We deliver them to you daily with intellectual honesty and integrity, and without the clickbait or rage headlines.
...
https://www.disrn.com/2019/09/24/welcome-to-disrn-your-new-favorite-news-site/
https://www.disrn.com/
Who's been playing with this blogspot? Why the oversized text on the https secure site?
I see Isobel Blackthorn has been actively promoting as the villain of Alice Bailey's life and posthumous fame and reputation with scholars. I will review her work. Any suggestions and/or offers of help on me obtaining my own independent website. I have done my work on a total shoestring for the past 38 years and a website developer is beyond my reach at the moment.
Constance
Constance,
On my PC everything looks normal-sized. I'm on the 'https//' secure site.
Constance:
Strongly recommend that you at the same time also create a parallel website along with it where charmers like Christine, etc. can post to their heart's content and if anyone wants to debate them they can do so there in the same exact format as what will then be your 'drama-free'(!) main website.
The Transcript We REALLY Want To See
25 Sept 2019
By Ann Coulter
The transcript of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky is yet another illustration of the rule: Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to.
But on the basis of one drama queen’s overreaction to a rumor she’d heard about what was said on a phone call she didn’t hear (I’m assuming the whistleblower is Christine Blasey Ford), the Democrats have launched impeachment proceedings against the president.
I guess they figured it’s easier than flying to South Dakota with picks and chisels and carving Trump into Mount Rushmore. But it will have the same effect.
Now that the transcript has been released, it’s the New York Times that doesn’t want anyone to see it.
The transcript I’d like to see is the one of Nancy Pelosi reading the Trump transcript:
"F@@@@@@CK! Whose f***ing idea was it to demand this goddamn transcript?
F@CK!
F@@CK!
F@@@CK!"
The absolute worst version for Trump — i.e. the one being repeated non-stop on MSNBC — is that he did exactly what Obama and Biden were doing to Ukraine: intimidating an ally into giving us something in exchange for the foreign aid we were giving them.
Biden himself bragged about getting Ukraine’s prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold a big fat check from them.
The Democrats’ argument is: No, no, no! When WE were pressuring Ukraine, we were doing it for good! Don’t you understand? We’re good; they’re bad.
The other reason the media are going to have to bury this transcript is that Trump brought up a few items that the media have been hoping the public would never find out about.
Trump said: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”
Well, that’s something the media haven’t mentioned before. Ninety-nine percent of Americans will be hearing about the funny business with Biden’s son, Hunter, for the first time with the release of this transcript.
Why did Vice President Biden order the Ukrainian president to fire the prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian company paying his son millions of dollars? Are Democrats claiming that this company was clean as a whistle and it was an absolute OUTRAGE that it was being investigated?
Ukraine was looking into the company that conveniently placed Hunter Biden on its board long before Trump came on the scene. Something must have made the Ukrainian prosecutor want to investigate Biden’s company — and it sure wasn’t to curry favor with the Obama/Biden administration.
The second issue the media does not want anyone to think about is CrowdStrike.
What is CrowdStrike, you ask? That is the cybersecurity firm that is the sole source of the claim that the Russians hacked the DNC’s emails — which launched the conspiracy theories that tied our country in knots for the past three years.
The Russian collusion story was originally hatched by Hillary Clinton in the summer of 2016 to cover up the utter corruption revealed by the dump of Democratic National Committee emails on Wikileaks. As was her practice whenever a scandal threatened to engulf her, Hillary rushed out and told the press to investigate something else.
And “the great story” about the DNC email hack wasn’t about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” — as she claimed when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. No, this time, it was a vast Russian conspiracy!
At the time, the entire media laughed at Hillary’s Russian conspiracy nonsense — the New York Times, New York Newsday, the Los Angeles Times, and so on. But then Trump won the election, and suddenly the Russia conspiracy seemed totally believable. What else could explain how Americans could put this boob in the White House?
The subsequent three years of breathless Russia coverage was based entirely on the word of one cybersecurity firm, CrowdStrike, that the DNC’s emails had been hacked by Russia.
Recall that the DNC wouldn’t allow the FBI or any other U.S. government official anywhere near its computers. That’s precisely why so many cybersecurity experts doubted that it was the Russians: The FBI was never allowed to perform its own investigation.
CrowdStrike was founded by Ukrainian Dmitri Alperovitch (now an American citizen apparently — because who isn’t?) and funded by the fanatically anti-Russian Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk Foundation.
Talk about interfering with our democracy! Alperovitch and Pinchuk sent one political party and nine-tenths of the American media off on a wild goose chase into Russian collusion that, after years of accusations, investigations and embarrassing conspiracy-mongering … turned up goose eggs.
The entire Russian insanity was launched by a couple of Ukrainians. I think a lot of us would like to get to the bottom of that.
This is why Trump said to President Zelensky: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it.”
(How’d you like to be the Ukrainian translator for a Trump conversation?)
Trump has been justly criticized for hiring his daughter and son-in-law at the White House. But at least when he pressures a foreign leader for a favor, it’s to investigate corruption, not to get a prosecutor off his son’s back. Maybe Biden’s son was guilty, maybe he was innocent. But it is a fact that Joe Biden held up foreign aid to a desperately needy ally in exchange for their halting prosecution that implicated his son. It’s not Trump’s fault that Biden is now running for president.
I’ll give the Democrats this: They’ve gotten so good at trying to remove Trump from office that, instead of THREE YEARS, their insane accusations now blow up in their faces within a WEEK!
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/25/ann-coulter-the-transcript-we-really-want-to-see/
China orders Ten Commandments REPLACED with Communist leader’s quotes
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/china-orders-ten-commandments-replaced-with-communist-leaders-quotes
To Anon @ 10:22 AM
"China orders Ten Commandments REPLACED with Communist leader’s quotes."
Anon,
How can this be? I mean the "leader" of the Christian world, his "holiness" entrusted the Communist Chinese to pick his Catholic Bishops in China.
This kind of makes Francis look like a ... dare I say it? .... a COMMUNIST !
My new article
After researching New Age theology for decades I came to believe that because there is so much misinformation about it on the internet, books and newspapers, I decided to publicly recommend that for people just beginning to try to understand what the New Age spiritual philosophy is about-that they study the teachings of Helena Blavatsky, Mother of the New Age Movement, and Paramahansa Yogananda, widely regarded as the father of yoga in the West.
Helena Blavatsky wrote in THE SECRET DOCTRINE Vol. 1, Page 274: The Universe is called, with everything in it, Maya, because all is temporary therein, from the ephemeral life of a fire-fly to that of the Sun. Compared to the eternal immutability of the One [Spirit]. Yogananda wrote: Spirit is not the universe; Spirit is that which was and will be whether the universe does or does not exist.
Yogananda also wrote: Maya is the principle of relativity, inversion, contrast, duality, oppositional states; the "Satan" (lit., in Hebrew, "the adversary") of the Old Testament prophets; and the "devil" whom Christ described picturesquely as a "murderer" and a "liar," because "there is no truth in him". -(John 8:44) In addition, Yogananda also wrote: "Maya is Nature herself—the phenomenal worlds [the universe], ever in transitional flux as antithesis to Divine Immutability." ... "Scientists declare that, despite its vast size, the universe is finite. The Infinite, God [Spirit], is the ultimate cause of all finite creation." ... "Being infinite, God [Spirit] cannot be limited to any form, human or stone; yet He is manifest in all forms." ... "Beyond the gross vibratory boundaries of matter [or beyond the finite universe], the Immutable Infinite reigns in all His majesty and vastness."
Yogananda also wrote: Spirit existed before God. God is the Creator of the universe, but Spirit is the Creator of God.” The Hindu name for “God” is Brahma. “This Sanskrit word [Brahma] derives from the verbal root brh ‘to expand, grow, fructify,’ because ‘Brahma expands’ and becomes the Universe woven out of his own substance” - Theosophy Wiki.
A Hindu sacred text states that after Spirit (the Supreme God) emanated/created the subordinate God (Brahma), He sinned, causing H/him to manifest as the U/universe. Because of Brahma’s original sin, H/he now has both a divine manifestation and a less-than-divine manifestation, meaning the U/universe is both, an essentially undifferentiated mass of light permeated with Christ/Krishna/Buddha God Consciousness and the material universe is a corrupted, less-than-divine, illusionary manifestation of the divine manifestation of the Universe. The less-than-divine manifestation of the U/universe, the material universe, has a soul, it is the world soul.
One of the founding figures of the modern New Age Movement, David Spangler, wrote: “The idea of a world soul, an anima mundi, a planetary Logos, is an ancient one found in both Eastern and Western culture. The world soul is usually conceived as a ‘formative force,’ an active, intelligent, purposeful spiritual presence at work in the material world to guide and guard the course of planetary evolution. It is generally not accorded the status of being the ultimate source, or Creator [Spirit], but might be looked upon as a [less-than-divine] great angelic or archangelic being presiding over the well being of the world, or the gestalt, the wholeness of all the lives and patterns that manifest upon, and as, the earth.”
The goal of New Agers is to first become One with the Divine manifestation of the Universe, and then go through It, to ultimately become One with Spirit.
Yogananda's Guru wrote: “Jesus meant, never that he was the sole Son of God, but that no man can obtain the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond creation, until he has first manifested the ‘Son’ or activating Christ Consciousness within creation” - Swami Sri Yukteswar
A REAL SHOCKER: Media Outlets CUT OUT Crucial Parts of Trump Transcript
CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Fox News, the Washington Post, and ABC are among the media outlets that cut out crucial parts of the transcript of the call between President Donald Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
CNN twice on Sept. 25 following the release of the transcript cut out 540 words between one sentence in the transcript and another without noting that anything was between the two sentences.
The deceptive edit started with a line from Trump: “I would like you to do us a favor.” CNN then immediately placed another line—”There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.”
There were no ellipses or any commentary noting the two sentences were not even in the same paragraph in the transcript.
After asking Zelensky for a favor, Trump in the call said: “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike…”
MSNBC’s Katy Tur also combined the same two sentences despite the vast gap between the sentences without noting the gap.
...
Mollie Hemingway, a senior editor at The Federalist and a frequent media critic, was among those wondering about all the outlets removing the references to Crowdstrike.
“The ‘favor’? Help with DOJ’s probe of 2016 election meddling by Ukraine,” she said, sharing pictures of front pages of the Post and the New York Times.
“Neither of these headlines accurately describe that. A *great* example of the corruption of our political media, which is now running and fueling the impeachment effort against its most hated political foe.”
https://m.theepochtimes.com/media-outlets-cut-out-crucial-parts-of-trump-transcript_3097282.html
Constance:
The profound(ly tiresome) Pro-NAM Anti-Christian posts of Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer should also be consigned to a new parallel blog and even though we'll miss them terribly here we can go visit them there. We'll cope somehow.
If Dahlheimer's article was printed on paper it would not qualify as decent toilet paper.
He is deluded to think it is something for this blog to be even remotely interested in.
Does make me laugh, so there's that.
Must be his readership is very tiny and needs a boost by posting it here, desperate to get it out there...somewhere...
Dahlheimer, how about trying somewhere over the rainbow, where blue birds fly..
When I post here I am going right to where the source of the Christian propaganda about the New Age is located. My latest post exposes Constance's Christian propaganda that falsely teaches the New Agers worship the earth and/or universe.
Why would we be the least concerned to get your propaganda "right" when it's so ignorantly wrong to begin with? What a yawn.
You are concerned about that, when Jesus Christ is vastly misunderstood (by you and so many others) but is your right to get it so wrong about Him if you choose to. So be it.
Get over yourself.
TD keeps beating the SAME drum as THE main excuse for posting here:
"Christian propaganda...falsely teaches...New Agers worship the earth and/or universe."
BUT instead of limiting his posts to once per thread and simply saying "FYI: New Agers do NOT worship the earth and/or universe." followed by a link (supposedly) proving that statement, he goes on & on with his unwanted NAM blather.
seeing the heresies chugged out by Ray B and Paul lately, this stuff is too urgent to let slip
https://tinyurl.com/yxcknhch
Anon @ 1:34 AM ...
Don't you think you would have been providing a service to humanity had you issued a stern WARNING associated with your link?
If I have nightmares over this, I'm holdin you responsible !
Yes 10:18 AM,
That link is an infowolf in infosheep's clothing!
RayB @ 10:16 AM,
To what do you refer when you state, Don't you think you would have been providing a service to humanity had you issued a stern WARNING associated with your link? Why is a "WARNING" needed here? What about that link might give you nightmares? You are not afraid of being direct here on this blog site, so let's 'hear' it.
Does MCE think that if she posts anonymously then the 1x week restrictions on her posts here don't apply?
Wow Craig ... don't you have even the slightest drop of humor running through your veins?
No, Craig was probably just wondering whether you are a hypocrite:
"RayB 9:01 AM
"On a personal note, I would caution you not to make personal attacks on anyone. While you are entitled to point out errors on MCE's posts, based on Biblical authority, I firmly believe that personal attacks are not according to God's will and needs to be repented of."
(From the 'Barbara Bush 1926-2018 Fond Memorances' thread.)
Anonymouse 1:34
Troll much?
Anon 6:18 PM,
Thank you for finding that. I didn’t recall those particular words, and I’m not sure I even read them the first time. But they sure are apt here.
---
RayB,
If nothing else you are quite adept at deflection. In the most recent case here, when I confronted you about what I—and Anon 6:18 PM—perceived as ad hominem (literally, “against the man” [gender non-specific; i.e. “human”]), rather than admit it, you deflect by asking about my sense of humor. Well, I do have a sense of humor, yet I didn’t find your comment in the least bit funny.
In the comment in question @ 10:16 AM, rather than address the substance of the statement @ 1:34 AM, or the video at that link, you instead posted the ad hominem against the person in the video link—Christine.
I direct you to your comments @ 12:25 PM and 10:55 AM regarding my supposed “psychological deflection”. I’m sure I’m not the only one to see this—in Alinskyan fashion—as the very thing you were doing in refusing to address your statements about Christ’s human nature being “destroyed on the cross”, for it “did not become an inseparable, ETERNAL part of His God nature”. Thus, while deflecting by accusing me of deflecting, you then continued with your nonsensical position amounting to ‘the Divine-human Jesus was the Divine-human Jesus before He was the Divine-human Jesus’ in your ad nauseum attacks on my completely orthodox Christological position (exemplified by my succinct comment #200 [last one in first 200] @ 11:18 AM).
Then, once I answered the three questions you kept badgering me with (@ 10:40/41 AM), you didn’t engage with the substance of that post, because it asked pointed questions and illustrated the failed reasoning of and for your entire enquiry. But, given the tenacity with which you asked those questions, I think it fair that I receive an answer to this question in that response to you:
…You, RayB seem to be implying that their [W & H’s] theological positions, such as in the three questions you posed (and the earlier purported statements of W & H), are reflected in the Biblical text via changes they made. Can you provide one Bible verse, just one, that can support such a position? For example, if W and/or H did not believe the account of Jonah, did they then remove this statement from Jesus’ lips in Matthew 12:40? Nope.
Not engaging with that comment, you instead continued deflecting, posting something totally unrelated @ 10:02 PM. Then when Christine posted her comment @ 9:09 AM, calling you out in a more direct manner than I did regarding your beliefs about Christ’s human nature post-Resurrection (There is no way you can weasle out of this statement. either repudiate it or not, but don't pretend you didn't mean it.), you continue to ignore this issue. Instead you post a comment (10:27 AM) in response to Anon 10:22 AM. I think it’s well-past time you either repudiate or own your statements about Christ’s human nature post-Resurrection. And the lame and dishonest deflection ‘I was confused and misspoke because of Craig’ ain’t gonna cut it.
RayB,
And while I’m at it, it’s also well-past time you address the question I posed at the tail end of my 10:41 AM post above, which I’ll copy and paste below for the sake of convenience. This is the very first W & H-related comment in this entire blog post—the one that got this discussion going.
@ 11:52 AM, very early in this particular blog post, you wrote:
Satan cannot destroy God's word, because God has promised to protect it. However, Satan can, and does, provide counterfeits. This is exactly what the modern translations are.
Implied in your statement above, is the position that the KJV is the only Bible version that is God’s word. Assuming so—and, if not, let me know which other versions might also be God’s word—what is the eternal destiny of those who don’t believe as you, instead believing that other versions are also God’s word, preferring to read one of these instead—ones you refer to as ‘Satanic “counterfeits”’?
I’m assuming most readers here are not KJV-only, and, therefore, read and own other Bible versions. I think we all deserve an answer to this question.
"On a personal note, I would caution you not to make personal attacks on anyone. While you are entitled to point out errors on MCE's posts, based on Biblical authority, I firmly believe that personal attacks are not according to God's will and needs to be repented of."
"(From the 'Barbara Bush 1926-2018 Fond Memorances' thread.)"
Wow ... didn't realize Babs Bush knew MCE - maybe Babs saw one of MCE's ads some place?
12:41 AM...
THE BEGINNING
"My Georgie needs more high-level direction to outdo Ronald and I CAN'T just hire Nancy's astrologer, I HAVE to OUTDO her! Maybe I'll get some inspiration from these Weekly World News ads... Let's see... Oh, THIS looks interesting: 'Get Great Big Gobs Of Guidance From Our Green Goo And You'll Soon Be An Orange Blob Believer Too!'"
12:41 AM...
THE MIDDLE
In green goo Babs was seated, at the request of the seer, when out of the kitchen an orange blob did appear..., a cauldron soon cooling 'neath the webbed ceiling fan, as new ingredients were tossed into the pan: pickled chakras of yellow and blue, the blaspheming tongue of a Martian male, a sprinkle of dust from Nibiru's moon, the curse of a mother at the end of her wits, yea, even more was added to it, a marriage contract that ne'er was signed, a thousand concoctions stirred into the brine. Babs took up her spoon yet when the Res. Seer did hail, that old witch of Rocklin, poor Bab's face grew pale. She heard there was error in MCE's tone, and it chilled the first lady right to the bone ...
Re: Craig
It is VERY difficult when dealing with someone that does NOT believe in the fundamental truth that Jesus Christ was ALWAYS the Word of God. Thee was NEVER a time when Jesus was NOT the Word, because the WORD IS GOD.
Again, this is the plain question that I posed to Craig ... along with his reply:
My direct question to Craig @ 9:43 AM:
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
Craig's answer: "NO"
When Craig's heresy was exposed, he then blamed me for "poorly phrased questions" !
Craig's clear position that there was a time when Jesus Christ was NOT the Word of God, is EXTREMELY important.
John 1:1 reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Even the Jehovah Witnesses cult admit that the "Word" refers to Jesus Christ. Because they don't believe He is God, they simply changed it to read "..."and the Word was A God."
By Craig proudly proclaiming that there was a time when Jesus WAS NOT THE WORD ...
Craig is emphatically stating that THERE WAS A TIME WHEN JESUS WAS NOT GOD !!!
Craig's clear answer to a direct question represents HERESY of the highest level.
(more)
Re: Craig
I ordinarily drop debates with people such as Craig, of which I have known many in my lifetime. However, being he has accused me of being in the (in his previous post), "King James Only Cult," I feel that it is necessary to make my position clear. I AM NOT A KJV ONLY believer. Why? Because the Word of God existed of course PRIOR to the KJV translation. I DO believe that the KJV is a far superior translation to all other MODERN translations, which, I will stand by my statement, are counterfeits.
The KJV is in great conflict with the Modern translations, which are not really "translations" at all, but rather INTERPRETATIONS. They are interpretations because Wescott & Hort allowed their own personal biases and beliefs to influence their findings. THAT is why Wescott & Hort's beliefs are so important, many of which I already enumerated on this thread, and virtually NONE of which "Craig" has addressed .... other than making the bogus claim that "Jesus never actually stated he was God" ... which is nonsense. Jesus IS the WORD of GOD ... anything revealed in the Word is as if it were spoken out of the mouth of Jesus ! Wescott's bogus claim is an often repeated lie of liberals that is INTENDED to bring about confusion, along with questioning the deity of Christ.
Craig is among those that consider themselves to be of "higher intellect." They typically LOVE to impress people with their vast "knowledge" of the original Greek. In that way, believers are dependent upon people like them, because they simply cannot understand God's Word unless people like THEM tell them what it means. It is a clever form of Priest craft, in which knowledge is only to be had from THEM, not God.
These types also are also generally members of the "Wescott & Hort Only" cabal. I've known many of these people personally. They are tenacious in their belief that the KJV is "FAR INFERIOR" to whatever version they have, as long as it it MODERN.
(more)
Re: Craig
Why am I NOT a KJV Only believer:
Here is the Lineage of the King James Bible ... compiled by Dr. Ken Matto:
THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Masoretic Text
1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text
THE NEW TESTAMENT
All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)
30-95------------Original Autographs
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Peshitta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
310--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of 508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible (1)
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------Taverner's Bible
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible
1565------------Theodore Beza's Receptus
1568------------The Bishop's Bible
1569------------Spanish Translation by Cassiodoro de Reyna
1587------------Geneva Bible ("Imprinted at London by Christopher Barker, Printer to the Qveenes Maiestie. 1587. Cum priuilegio." )
1598------------Theodore Beza's Text
1602------------Czech Version
1607------------Diodati Italian Version
1611------------The King James Bible with Apocrypha between Old and New Testament
1613------------The King James Bible (Apocrypha Removed) (2)
1769------------4th update of the English Language in the King James Bible
We have in our possession today the 4th update of the King James Bible. It was done to update the English language only. No translation work was done.
(1) Out of the Bible which was translated by Martin Luther came True Bibles in the following languages: Russian, French, Norwegian, Spanish, Italian, Bulgarian, Rumanian, Swiss, Swedish, Austrian and Czech Bibles.
(2) Out of the 1611 KJV came a Bible in the following languages: Chinese, Burmese, Malayan, Japanese, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, American and many others.
Link to a VERY interesting site called "The Learning Pastor," that teaches from the NIV.
In this article, you will see for yourself the CONFUSION that has been caused in this man because of his reliance upon the NIV.
The issue in particular is entitled:
"The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth and Sexism: What's In the Text? What's In the Footnotes?"
Read this for yourself. The Pastor is confused because of the conflicting manner in which the word "virgin" has been translated.
For example, in the NIV footnote for Isaiah 7:14 ("... Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." KJV) the word "virgin" is used in the NIV, BUT, the footnote states that the word "virgin" actually means "young woman of marriageable age." !!!
Directly from the "Learning Pastor," note his utter confusion (who is it that is the author of confusion?):
"The problem? The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 translated as “virgin” in the NIV Bible actually means “young woman of marriageable age.” It is most interesting to me that the footnote of my NIV Bible reference edition (published by Holman) points the reader to Genesis 24:43, a verse which uses the word ‘”maiden” instead of virgin and has another footnote to go to Proverbs 30:19. That verse uses the word “maiden,” instead of virgin as well. The NIV translates the Hebrew word in Isaiah as “virgin” and the other two textual references as “maiden” yet it is the same Hebrew word in all three texts! An inquisitive student has to ask, “Why?”
AGAIN:
Do a verse by verse comparison using the KJV vs ANY of the Modern Translations. Over and over and over again, you will see words changed, altered, eliminated, verses missing, even at times entire passages .... ALL of this is can be laid at the feet of Wescott & Hort ... both of which held many unbiblical beliefs and allowed those prejudices to influence their "interpretative" text.
I posted this before ... it is so important that I am posting the link again. Packed with factual information.
This is an EXCELLENT documentary/movie that is VERY well done regarding the history of the church, its persecution, and God's protection of His Word:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmXBj2N9fhY
PS: I was once a user, and defender, of Modern Translations. For over 35 years, I have been convinced that the KJV is the most reliable, accurate translation that is available in the English language.
RayB,
Once again, you deflect (and I’ll return to the other things you’ve added in subsequent comments).
You continue in your complete misunderstanding of the eternality of God the Son (the pre-incarnate, pre-existent Jesus Christ) and how that relates to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. I’ve already explained myself and I will not do so again, thereby falling prey to your further attempts at deflecting away from your ad hominem attack against Christine, and your deflecting away from the heresy you expressly stated, specifically, that Christ’s human nature was “destroyed on the cross”, because it “did not become an inseparable, ETERNAL part of His God nature”.
It’s time to own these things or repudiate them.
Craig,
You are correct. You have explained yourself VERY clearly when you answered my direct, "poorly worded" (your words) question:
My direct question to Craig @ 9:43 AM:
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
Craig's answer: "NO"
Craig,
I'm sure I'm not alone as I wonder what was so "poorly worded" about this direct question?
RayB,
Stop deflecting. It's time to own your words that I referenced @ 9:38 AM (and 11:33 PM) or repudiate them.
One of the favorite tactics in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is to accuse your opponent of the very same offense that YOU are guilty of. The slimy Clintons are masters of this tactic, as Hillary was a great admirer of Alinsky.
Sadly, I'm being forced to consider that Craig might just be an adherent of Alinsky as well, because he repeatedly uses this very same tactic.
I'm not going to play this game with Craig. I've already made my positions abundantly clear and have not "deflected" anything, but have been forthright in stating my positions.
On the other hand, Craig's well documented deflections and meaningless points drone on and on to the point of ad nauseam.
He considers himself an intellectual and loves to portray himself as a Greek scholar. These types want YOU to feel inferior and conclude that nothing can be gained unless these types teach you how to think, what to think, and ultimately rely on THEM.
One can only wonder how much Craig and his ilk HATE this verse:
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
- 1 John 2: 27
RayB,
Once again you deflect by accusing me of deflecting. Thus, I'll restate yet again:
It's time to own your words that I referenced @ 9:38 AM (and 11:33 PM) or repudiate them.
To: Craig & RayB & Constance
•Craig:
A) You shouldn't have let those 3 questions of RayB's go unaddressed for so long.
B) You shouldn't have gotten this whole merry-go-round going again.
•RayB:
A) You shouldn't have let those 3 questions of Craig's go unaddressed:
#1) To what do you refer when you state, "Don't you think you would have been providing a service to humanity had you issued a stern WARNING associated with your link?"
#2) Why is a "WARNING" needed here?
#3) What about that link might give you nightmares?
And this separate one:
#4) Do you stand by or repudiate the statement that: Christ’s human nature was "destroyed on the cross", because it “did not become an inseparable, ETERNAL part of His God nature”?
B) You shouldn't have persisted (alá Don Quixote) in bullheadedly and doggedly trying to force your interpretation of his comments to make it seem as if Craig was blaspheming by saying that The Word and Jesus Christ are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, SEPARATE 'people' with no relationship to each other, (wasting your & our time, your effort & this blogspot's space).
•Constance:
A) When you establish your new replacement of this blog (that you have recently said you have an interest in doing) please try to find one that can let lengthy academic expositions or prolonged back-&-forth 2 person debates be off on the side of the main thread.
B) And if necessary (for Thomas Dahlheimer & Christine, etc.), please create a ('parallel') second new blog where they can post to their heart's content!
(Clarification)
...to make it seem as if Craig was saying that The Word and Jesus Christ are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, SEPARATE 'people' with no relationship to each other, (wasting your & our time, your effort & this blogspot's space).
One more, and FINAL comment re: Craig ....
My initial experience with Craig occurred several years back on this blog site.
On a particular thread, I was defending the doctrine of the Trinity against an "anonymous" poster that was attacking the doctrine.
As is typical, we went back and forth a number of times. The opponent continued to use scripture verses that were lifted out of context which centered upon Christ's HUMANITY in order to justify their false position. (I am very familiar with this tactic, as I have invited countless Jehovah Witnesses into my home with the attempt to reason with them out of the scriptures. Eventually, the Trinity doctrine is brought up by them to "prove" the validity of the JW's).
Back to the "debate" on this blog in question, I used as one of the "Trinity" verses, I John 5:7, which reads:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Craig had not participated in the lengthy discussion at all until he injected himself in with his contribution to the debate. eWhat was Craig's "contribution" ? Did Craig defend the Trinity? No. So what was Craig's contribution?
Craig's contribution was an emphatic statement that "1 John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible, and therefore cannot be used in defense of the trinity."
Craig's "authority" for making such a ridiculous assertion was, in effect, "that ALL respected Bible scholars agree on this point."
Craig's contribution immediately deflected away from the doctrine itself, and ended up drawing attention to what he craves; being recognized as an "intellectual" and a "textual expert."
There is not a doubt in my mind, that when Craig needlessly injected himself into the debate, he in effect, sided with the opponent of the Trinity !
More recently, on this current thread, Craig proved himself again when he sided with Wescott's clever, back-door denial of Christ's deity when he stated: "After all, Jesus never actually declared himself to be God."
Craig further exposed his inner beliefs when he declared that there was a time when Jesus was not the Word. NOTE: the Word IS Christ, the Word is GOD, if there was ever a time when Jesus was NOT the Word, then there was a time when Jesus was NOT God !
Craig further implemented himself with Wescott's belief system by stating that he "reads his commentary" on John. Mind you, that Wescott held to many heretical beliefs, including denying miracles that are recorded in scripture, the Genesis account of the literal creation, questioned the infallibility of God's Word, participated (with Hort) in the occult (seances), organized a society that delved into the occult, believed in the RCC doctrine of "Mary," etc., etc.
To all of this, Craig just gives his "Wescott & Hort Only" originators a gentle, little, soft pass.
Again, I usually do not tarry long with people like Craig. I've known, and dealt with, many just like him. They end up wasting much of your time and also drain you of your energies which can be utilized in a much more profitable manner.
RE: 'Isaiah 7:14, in Hebrew means maiden, not virgin. Therefore, it is not a prophecy.'
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel," (Isaiah 7:14).
Isaiah 7:14 says that a virgin will bear a son. The problem is dealing with the Hebrew word for virgin, which is almah. According to the Strong's Concordance it means, "virgin, young woman 1a) of marriageable age 1b) maid or newly married." Therefore, the word almah does not always mean virgin. The word "occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Genesis 24:43 (maiden); Exodus 2:8 (girl); Psalm 68:25 (maidens); Proverbs 30:19 (maiden); Song of Songs 1:3 (maidens); 6:8 (virgins)." 1 Additionally, there is a Hebrew word for virgin: bethulah. If Isaiah 7:14 was meant to mean virgin instead of young maiden, then why wasn't the word used here?
The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. This translation was made around 200 B.C. by 70 Hebrew scholars. In Isaiah 7:14, they translated the word almah into the Greek word parthenos. According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2 parthenos means virgin. This word is used in the New Testament of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27) and of the ten virgins in the parable (Matt. 25:1, 7, 11). If the Hebrews translated the Hebrew word almah into the Greek word for virgin, then they understood what the Hebrew text meant here.
Why would Isaiah choose to use the word almah and not bethulah? It was probably because he wanted to demonstrate that the virgin would ALSO be a young woman.
Is it still a prophecy?
Of course!
https://carm.org/isaiah-7-14-virgin
In all fairness, it wasn't only Ray B.
Paul (paul) is, in my opinion even worse in his brand of heresy. Where he mocked and poorly attempted to correct Christine, he stated:" He has a human nature? Human nature is corrupt to the core. Human nature is incapable of righteousness. Human nature is fatally flawed with PRIDE, Christine, you know about that right? Wouldn't "human form" have been a better word?"
So, here we see Paul (paul) denying Jesus Christ came in the flesh at all. According to Paul (paul), Jesus Christ came in "human form", not in the flesh but, as one is left with no option to infer from Paul's (paul's) statement, a mere appearance of flesh. Utter heresy, for which Paul (paul) was challenged yet he scuttled quietly back into the weeds from whence he came.
RayB,
You wrote They [modern Bible versions] are interpretations because Wescott & Hort allowed their own personal biases and beliefs to influence their findings.
Again, show ONE example of such an ‘influence’ in any modern translation. The burden of proof is on you. Ah, but, you cannot produce one example, for there is no such thing. You make allegations with no substance. The issue you brought up in Isaiah 7:14 is a non-issue, as Anon 12:17 PM illustrated.
And, again, we await your answers to items 1, 2, 3, and 4 as enumerated by Anon 11:44 AM.
Craig, I have a feeling that we'll be waiting until Christ returns before RayB answers those four questions.
https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/17-9.htm
@2:20 AM, have the green goo and orange blobs got a certain kind of dull Tinge to them?
Dullheimer, the hardcore bailey blavatsky purists may not worship the earth, they are looking to connect with lucifer who is definitely evil and seductive and deceptive, and the neopagan type nam which runs a lot of nam and media, do promote earth wroship and pantheism ALL are part of the occult revival.
"3) As to the third item, let me just say I expected you’d perceive it the way you’ve expressed it, and I’ll leave it at that." way you say it sounds like you disagree but your caveat shows you don't.
Wescott saying Jesus encouraging others to see God in Him sounds like new agey divinity in us ideas. God isn't just IN Jesus, God the Son IS Jesus. Jesus could have said "I'm older than Abraham" or "I was alive before Abraham," but instead said "I am." That is explicit.
"4) Re: The explanation of Jesus during the period between His death and His resurrection,...strictly speculative."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell Scroll down for Scriptural basis for all this.
its called the harrowing of hell in the west. univesal notion for nearly 2,000 years. leading captivity captive draws on the triumph parade after a Roman victory showing off the conquered so a fight is implied.
practical experience, missionaries find more outrageous paranormal activity at first, then as Christian ceremonies, prayer, etc. go on it fades. LUTHER ACKNOWLEDGED IT, CALVIN THOUGHT JESUS SUFFERED IN HELL AS PART OF OUR REDEMPTION (even though He said "it is finished" on the Cross just before He died) modern prots reject both ideas except wierder charismatics, Augustine provides basis for this rejection.
Anon I did not turn my venom on RayB he said blasphemous heretical things overtly which I addressed. corrupt words come from a corrupt mind, and he (and you and others) LIED about that alleged ad. Craig's tendentious to the point of soporific statements sound nestorian but apparently doesn't mean it that way.
But I doubt you Anon have any Christian belief (since you don't seem to see the issues addressed) or any decency. I will ignore the rest of your garbage.
paul, less heretic than confused? said "He [Jesus] has a human nature? Human nature is corrupt to the core...."
THAT IS THE FALLEN HUMAN NATURE, NOT THE ORIGINAL CREATED HUMAN NATURE. Jesus does not have original/ancestral sin.
"Wouldn't "human form" have been a better word?" No, because that implies He is not human merely faking it. DOCETIC GNOSTIC HERESY.
PAUL DO YOU CONFESS THAT JESUS CHRIST IS, NOT DID PAST TENSE BUT IS COME IN THE FLESH? (I John 4:1-4) human flesh is of human nature, animal flesh is of one kind of animal nature or another.
Original sin is not passed only by the male, the virgin birth needed to highlight Jesus' miraculous advent, and as He was begotten in eternity by The Father without a mother, so He was begotten in time by a mother without a father. BEING BUILT FROM HER FLESH JESUS WOULD HAVE WHATEVER SHE HAD THAT WASN'T BLOCKED. Transmission was blocked from JEsus. Some used to think only the male provided the child at all the female just housed it, but the female seed is bigger and gives mtDNA the male doesn't. And look up traducianism. guarantor against reincarnation and explains original/ancestral sin inheritance. The soul material passes from the parents like the physical material. Being more fluid the soul is more changeable. Hebrews 7:7-10 takes this for granted, note Genesis Adam BECAME not acquired a living soul. Ps. 50 both parents involved, mother highlighted. conceived and birthed in sin.
Yes of course I agree that Jesus IS come in the flesh.
Okey Christine, I stand corrected.
But the "first Adam" is terrestrial flesh. The second Adam, (Jesus), is heavenly.
It does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear, we will be like him.
That's why we are likened to virgins in Matthew 25. A virgin has probably heard about sex, but simply doesn't know what it's like.
We simply don't know what our heavenly flesh will be like to live in.
But we will know. Hallelujah!
Happy Rosh Hashanah everyone!
This is the Feast of Trumpets. The fifth of the annual Feasts. The first of the three annual Fall Feasts, aka the High Holy Days by the Jews. It is followed by The Feast of Atonement and then the Feast of Tabernacles. Many scholars have speculated that it could be the day of the Rapture of the saints.
I'm not a scholar, but I believe that it's very possible.
Regardless, Look up, for your redemption draweth nigh.
Oh dear, paul is advocating the Darbian heresy of a
pre-Tribulation Rapture now ... whatever next!
Christine,
When I responded to you in regards to what I enumerated as the third item, I was intentionally ambiguous, for I did not want to further this discussion—at that time. Now I hope it’s clear that I did and do agree with you on this point.
You wrote: Wescott saying Jesus encouraging others to see God in Him sounds like new agey divinity in us ideas. God isn't just IN Jesus, God the Son IS Jesus.
Since you apparently missed the comment in which I provided the complete context for Westcott’s statement, I’ll post it again:
“And Thomas...My Lord and my God The words are beyond question addressed to Christ (saith unto him), and cannot but be understood as a confession of belief as to His Person (comp. ‘Syn. OEc.’ v. Can. 12, De tribus capitulis) expressed in the form of an impassioned address. The discipline of self-questioning, followed by the revelation of tender compassion and divine knowledge, enabled St Thomas to rise to the loftiest view of the Lord given in the Gospels. His sublime, instantaneous confession, won from doubt, closes historically the progress of faith which St John traces. At first (John 1:1) the Evangelist declared his own faith: at the end he shews that this faith was gained in the actual intercourse of the disciples with Christ. The record of this confession therefore forms the appropriate close to his narrative; and the words which follow shew that the Lord accepted the declaration of His Divinity as the true expression of faith. He never speaks of Himself directly as God (comp. 5:18), but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.”
You wrote: Jesus could have said "I'm older than Abraham" or "I was alive before Abraham," but instead said "I am." That is explicit.
Yes, this statement is explicitly stating preexistence. But is it an instance of using the Divine name? It may or may not be. It depends on how one views the relationship of the Hebrew ʾehyeh ʾᵃšer ʾehyeh and the LXX’s translation egō eimi ho ōn to the Tetragrammaton YHWH. I do not agree with you that Jesus’ saying “egō eimi”, “I am” is virtually equivalent to stating “YH” in YHWH. I agree with this writer:
faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/02-exodus/text/articles/beitzel-ex314-name-tj.pdf
The Exodus discourse between Moses and his God bristles with a number of virtually insoluble philological and theological problems, and one is not surprised at the inability to forge a common scholarly concensus regarding the linguistic and theological meaning of the ineffable tetragrammaton…[I]t seems preferable to conclude that tetragrammaton is a quadriradical divine name of unknown lexicographic and ethnic origin, and that its relationship with hayah (ʾehyeh) in Exodus 3:14 is one of paronomasia, not etymology.
Since the use of paronomasia promoted a certain excitement and curiosity to invite a search for meanings not readily apparent, it is not at all surprising to find that a divine revelation like Exodus 3:14 would be couched in paronomastic forms. Nor is such a view inconsistent with those Johannine passages in which Jesus consciously seeks to identify Himself with the "I am" of Exodus. But neither the gospel nor the proclamation of Exodus is attempting to supply us with the etymology of the tetragrammaton. Exodus 3:14 becomes, therefore, yet another instance of paronomasia in the Bible.
So, in my opinion, in John 8:58 Jesus alludes to the Divine Name by extension by stretching the Greek linguistic convention of using “egō eimi, “I am” without an assumed/implied predicate (which we translate “it is I” or “I am he”)—and keep in mind that in LXX Exodus 3:14 the predicate ho ōn is supplied—thereby leaving it to be understood in the absolute sense of “I exist”. This then also harkens back to John 5:26 in which the Father has self-existence and has given self-existence to the Son.
Anon 9:44 AM,
The pre-tribulation rapture doctrine is not heresy. You may disagree with it (as do I), but it's hardly considered heretical.
It is absolutely heretical. It is an invention from the Mid-1800's and has no truly historical place in orthodox Biblical exegesis, it goes against Holy Scriptures such as Revelation 20:04: "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I SAW THE SOULS OF THEM THAT WERE BEHEADED FOR THE WITNESS OF JESUS, AND FOR THE WORD OF GOD, AND WHICH HAD NOT WORSHIPPED THE BEAST, NEITHER HIS IMAGE, NEITHER HAD RECEIVED HIS MARK UPON THEIR FOREHEADS, OR IN THEIR HANDS; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.", as well as many others.
No one with any ounce of honesty and discernment would ever read Revelation 20:04, and conclude that it is because of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture that the saints mentioned there had not worshipped the Beast. Indeed, it is because they refused to worship the Beast or his image, or receive his mark in their foreheads or their hands for which they were beheaded.
The Tribulation is the Tribulation of the Saints by the Devil and his agents, it is not the Tribulation of the Worldly. Moreover, it is not to be confused with as the wrath of God.
The concept of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture dismisses the multitudes of Christians through the centuries who have been tortured, raped and martyred right up until today. This false doctrine in effect calls Jesus Christ a liar. It takes away from the Holy Scriptures, and is indeed heresy.
Revelation 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
The Testimony of the Word makes it very clear when the Resurrection occurs: on the Last Day!
John 6:39: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the LAST DAY."
John 6:40: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the LAST DAY."
John 6:44: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the LAST DAY."
John 6:54 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the LAST DAY."
1 Thessalonians 4: 16 "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and THE DEAD IN CHRIST SHALL RISE FIRST:
17 THEN we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord!"
The dead rise FIRST. Only after then are we caught up in the air to meet Him (NB: moreover, it doesn't say whisked away to somewhere else; it only says we are caught up to meet Him). Yet when will that happen? It tells us 1 Corinthians 15:52: In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the LAST TRUMP: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
It is a dangerous thing to reject or take away from the words of Jesus Christ:
John 12:48: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
It is absolutely heretical. It is an invention from the Mid-1800's and has no truly historical place in orthodox Biblical exegesis, it goes against Holy Scriptures such as Revelation 20:04: "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I SAW THE SOULS OF THEM THAT WERE BEHEADED FOR THE WITNESS OF JESUS, AND FOR THE WORD OF GOD, AND WHICH HAD NOT WORSHIPPED THE BEAST, NEITHER HIS IMAGE, NEITHER HAD RECEIVED HIS MARK UPON THEIR FOREHEADS, OR IN THEIR HANDS; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.", as well as many others.
No one with any ounce of honesty and discernment would ever read Revelation 20:04, and conclude that it is because of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture that the saints mentioned there had not worshipped the Beast. Indeed, it is because they refused to worship the Beast or his image, or receive his mark in their foreheads or their hands for which they were beheaded.
The Tribulation is the Tribulation of the Saints by the Devil and his agents, it is not the Tribulation of the Worldly. Moreover, it is not to be confused with as the wrath of God.
The concept of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture dismisses the multitudes of Christians through the centuries who have been tortured, raped and martyred right up until today. This false doctrine in effect calls Jesus Christ a liar. It takes away from the Holy Scriptures, and is indeed heresy.
Revelation 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
The Testimony of the Word makes it very clear when the Resurrection occurs: on the Last Day!
John 6:39: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the LAST DAY."
John 6:40: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the LAST DAY."
John 6:44: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the LAST DAY."
John 6:54 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the LAST DAY."
1 Thessalonians 4: 16 "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and THE DEAD IN CHRIST SHALL RISE FIRST:
17 THEN we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord!"
The dead rise FIRST. Only after then are we caught up in the air to meet Him (NB: moreover, it doesn't say whisked away to somewhere else; it only says we are caught up to meet Him). Yet when will that happen? It tells us 1 Corinthians 15:52: In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the LAST TRUMP: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
It is a dangerous thing to reject or take away from the words of Jesus Christ:
John 12:48: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
New Worry: What Happens When Liberals Have Too Much Time On Their Hands...
http://www.infowars.com/netflix-movie-depicts-time-traveling-liberals-carrying-out-pre-crime-murder-of-patriots-to-prevent-american-uprising-against-globalism/
UNCOVERED: Ukraine ‘whistleblower’ is an anti-Trump Deep State CIA employee who used fake news reports to lodge complaint!
http://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-29-ukraine-whistleblower-anti-trump-deep-state-cia-employee.html
9:44
So other than trolling, what do you do?
Anonymous @ 12:39
you said:
"The Tribulation is the Tribulation of the Saints by the Devil and his agents, it is not the Tribulation of the Worldly. Moreover, it is not to be confused with as the wrath of God."
I wonder:
The Tribulation of the saints? Huh?
The Tribulation of the saints by the devil and his agents? What?
I can't find those terms anywhere in the scripture. Help me out.
Are you saying that it IS the tribulation of the saints?
Are you saying that it's not the great tribulation of the whole world, such the world has never known?
Are you implying that it's just Christians who will suffer the Tribulation?
I thought it was a worldwide multi facited tribulation that lasts for probably seven years, definitely at least three and a half years. I thought that the horrible events were the result of, both mankind's rebellion against God, but also, even more, by God Himself, who through his judgement creates catastrophes fit for the sins of mankind.
ANONYMOUS, are you saying that you yourself are ready to be beheaded for your testimony of Jesus?
Wow, okey then.
You're just not ready to divulge your identity here on a blog site as you instruct and correct people here and call some people here heretics. I get it. Okey.
I thought it was a worldwide multi faceted tribulation that lasts for probably seven years, definitely at least three and a half years. I thought that the horrible events were the result of both mankind's rebellion against God, but also, even more by God Himself, who through his judgement creates catastrophes fit for the sins of mankind.
So, what else do you do besides trolling, anything interesting?
The word heresy is sure lobbed around lately.
Accusations galore based on assumptions.
What a lack of grace!
Lobbed around like it is sport.
Disagreeing is one thing but this goes beyond and that's twisted.
Get over yourself, 9:44 AM (also @ 12:39)
paul, as ever you are ungracious and pig-headed. The only troll between the two of us is you.
Many suffer during the Great Tribulation, yet the saints are the ones who suffer mostly. Do you not understand that we fight not flesh and blood but spiritual wickedness in high places? The Holy Bible doesn't use the word, Trinity', yet can be logically and exegetically deduced from the context of Holy Scripture in its integrity.
Mankind is hated by the Devil and his minions (I sincerely hope you're not unwittingly or wittingly one of the Devil's minions, paul): I have never witnessed anything of true Christian love in any of your posts- sure, a feeble attempt at humility once in a while, yet nothing sincere ... and yet in your penultimate post to Christine you have the audacity to speak about pride, aiming it as an attack at her, when you were wrong in your denial that Jesus Christ truly came in the flesh. Did you apologise to her? No, you merely brushed it off in your usual narcissistic manner.
Moreover, people who have truly turned to Jesus Christ are the real targets of the Devil (he already has the rest - the unsaved - he makes his angels appear (pretend to be) angels of light and will do so to the vast masses of the World, making things appear fluffy as long as such people bow down and worship him). There is no middle ground.
So yes, quintessentially, I stand by my comment that the Tribulation is the Tribulation of the saints (you really don't sound like one of those, paul ... it's years of reading your vitriol which bring me to such a conclusion here). This point is evidenced in Revelation 20:4 and elsewhere.
Yet you want your spoilt American ears tickled by fairytales, which are deadly to the soul, of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture, where little old paul is whisked away to safety despite the history of untold brutality against Christians throughout the ages.
Yet I see I have become your enemy because I tell you the Truth. It is obvious, with regards to the Holy Scriptures you so abrasively dismiss, that in reality you are a hater of Biblical Truth, paul (you do not deserve your name).
Denying Jesus Christ came in the flesh and therefore had/has a human nature as well as His Godly Nature, and trying to claim He just came in human 'form' (an appearance of such substance), as well as promoting an enormous twist of Holy Writ devised in the mid-1800's for the ears of the selfish and the eyes of the blind, is indeed heresy! You backed up your earlier heresy by your claims of human flesh being totally corrupt, yet such corruption happened through sin when and after the fall happened. God is not the author of corruption or confusion. You are blinded by your Calvinist heresies which twist God's Nature and turn His sovereignty into that of a monstrous dictator - which Calvin was but God is most certainly not! That is why you have a lack of love, paul, because you believe God has a lack of love. You are unchangeable because you are unwilling to let Him change you by you truly submitting yourself to His Grace and Love. The days are cut short because if they were not then not even the elect would survive. God does not give his Glory over to the Devil and the Antichrist for any period of time. The Tribulation is not the same as the wrath of God.
I have spoken to you somewhat in the vein with which you speak to others. Hopefully you will take stock of your thoroughly unloving and unlikable character of a classical narcissist and ask God to change you.
paul, I refer your Christ-came-in-the-flesh denying heretical self back to my post at 12:39 PM
11:01
Oh dear, what am I going to do?
I had always thought that God would be my judge. God knows me better than I know myself. God is righteous and He is the righteous judge of everyone.
So imagine my surprise when I just found out that there are people right here on earth who, though they've never seen me, much less met me, who can judge my soul since they know for sure exactly what I think about things, even though I've stated the exact opposite of what they claim.
Somehow, (it must be supernatural), they claim to know that I deny that Jesus has come in the flesh, even when I have clearly stated that He has. I mean, I thought I believed that statement but here comes this person, with a cloak of anonymity, who inform me and everyone else here, that I don't believe it! Amazing.
And I also have been living under the delusion that Christians everywhere are in disagreement regarding the Rapture of the saints, because some Bible believing Christians have interpreted it's many prophesies to say that we are not appointed to the wrath of God but will be yes, whisked away so to speak just before He unleashes the most terrible of his judgements on the world at large. Not that there is any precedent to think so. Not that for instance Noah and his family were spared the awful judgment of the Flood.
No, this anonymous Judge has decided that since millions of Christians have been murdered, martyred, over the last 2000 years, that all Christians MUST also be murdered. Not that John the Revelator himself was murdered. No, in fact many scholars believe that he may have actually written the book of Revelations after his banishment to the isle of Patmos. I'm referring to the John to whom God said: "Come up here", and he was instantly in the heavens.
Enoch never saw death. That is, the Enoch who said clearly and repeatedly, from his first chapter, that the elect will be spared the end time wrath of God. Never mind that, or the fact that Paul says in his Hebrews epistle (Hebrews 11:5-6) that God translated him so that he wouldn't see death, because God was pleased with him.
Of course Jude also quotes Enoch.
Somehow Anonymous the Judge has decided that since many many Christians over the centuries have been murdered, that we must all see the same fate as them. I don't follow that logic, though I allow others to think that if they feel compelled too. I simply disagree with them. I don't lash out and call them heretics. I don't condemn them to hell, like Anonymous does. And I don't, in classic primitive fashion like Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff, declare them to be hopelessly evil and accuse them of all the very things that I am guilty of. It's an old time honored technique: when you steal something, just accuse your enemy of stealing. When you lie through your teeth about something, just accuse your enemy of lying.
It's right out of Lao Tau's "The Art Of War".
I say: "Of course Jesus came in the flesh." So you say: "You deny that Jesus came in the flesh." And likewise you flip my words
and say that I'm hateful.
Your post above is hardly an example of love and compassion. Just the opposite.
So again I ask you; what do you do besides trolling, anything?
Natural News:
Deep State intelligence community SECRETLY CHANGED “first-hand knowledge” rules to allow Ukraine “whistleblower” to file complaint against Trump!
http://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-29-deep-state-intelligence-community-secretly-changed-whistleblower-rules.html
GET READY: It’s time to start taking names of all the traitors pushing the fabricated “impeachment”... - 4 Hours Ago
http://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-30-start-taking-names-of-traitors-pushing-impeachment-criminal-coup.html
Dems want to impeach a president for trying to expose a crime, then elect the person who actually committed the crime - 6 Hours Ago
http://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-30-dems-want-impeach-president-exposing-crime-elect-the-criminal.html
Census data reveal there are 22 million illegals living in America right now… and Democrats are working to make sure all of them can vote - 6 Hours Ago
http://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-30-census-22-million-illegals-america-democrats-vote.html
Liberal logic: We’re all gonna die within 7 years, so it’s okay to molest children and murder babies - 6 Hours Ago
http://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-30-were-all-gonna-die-7-years-liberals-molest-children.html
Has the time come for Trump to fire ALL the top operators at the FBI and CIA, then start over? - 6 Hours Ago
http://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-30-time-for-trump-to-fire-fbi-and-cia.html
Bonus Round:
http://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-29-the-un-plan-to-break-apart-and-occupy-america-following-the-red-dawn-invasion.html
See more NaturalNews news...
http://censored.news/naturalnews.com.htm
Here are two cents for the sirs who deny the 'rapture'...
There ARE references to a 'rapture' during the first centuries of the church.
Gary Stearman presents some of them on his channel. So it is not correct to state that they were invented by Darby and Scooby Doo.
Even the New Age trancers and channelers receive messages of a future world-wide event involving mass disappearances and space ships. Put two and two together, mate.
Even the dark side suspects this will happen eventually (and they are preparing an explosive explanation for it). And at the end when the Messiah returns, why is the world in mourning and weeping? If the Christians are here, they'd be celebrating and partying. Are they ALL dead? No. So what happened to them???
Yes, you are right about the Tribulation saints. That is what YOU may end up as, if you're not careful.
Ah, nice, 5:41 PM.
Your way or the highway.
1 Corinthians 2:2 says...For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. That is the criteria that is foremost for believers according to Apostle Paul who was moved by the Holy Spirit to pen those words.
Keeping the main thing the main thing. You seem to be struggling to maintain that since your "hobby horse" way to read the Bible is how you determine if someone is a believer or not. Paul is a pretty much a heretic according to you, but clearly he is not. Who made you judge?
Will There Be a Secret Rapture?
Many believe when Jesus returns, He will approach secretly to snatch away all believers and children in a rapture to protect them. Is the idea of a secret rapture biblical?
Many Christians believe that when Jesus Christ returns to this earth, He will approach secretly to snatch away all believers and all children in a rapture. The theory is that they will be taken to heaven where they will be protected during the Great Tribulation.
Though the Bible does clearly teach that there will be a Great Tribulation and that Jesus Christ will return, it does not teach there will be a secret rapture.
The Rapture Theory
This teaching is often referred to as the “rapture theory.” It is a theory because it has no definitive proof. Neither Jesus nor the apostles taught that such an event will occur and, in fact, it has no scriptural support. Although there is some disagreement as to its exact origin, the doctrine was unheard of until the early 19th century and became widespread when it was incorporated into the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible.
Scofield’s comments are in reference to 1 Thessalonians 4:17: “Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.”
The phrase “shall be caught up” is believed by adherents of the rapture theory to describe the rapture. One meaning of the English word rapture is “being carried away in body or in spirit.” However, the word rapture is not used here or any other place in Scripture. The phrase “shall be caught up” is translated from a Greek word that means “to catch, pull, or take by force” (Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). This is a strong word in the Greek, emphasizing that the action will be sudden and forceful. It conveys the forceful power of God by which He will resurrect those who had died.
In the Vulgate (Latin) Bible the phrase “shall be caught up” is translated rapere, from which the word rapture is derived.
In order to see this statement in its context, it’s helpful to read 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17: “But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
“For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.”
The Promise Of A Resurrection—Not A Rapture
Apparently these first-century Christians had expected Jesus to return during their lifetime. When some died before He came back to the earth, they were concerned and confused. To encourage them, Paul appeals to their faith in Jesus’ resurrection and the promise of a resurrection of the faithful when He returns.
Notice that this passage does not include any warning about or even a reference to the Great Tribulation at the end of the age. Paul wasn’t warning them to be mindful of their Christian responsibilities so they could be among those who were “caught up together” to “meet the Lord in the air” to escape difficult times. In fact, if the faithful are dead and in their graves, why would they even need to be snatched away to escape the Tribulation? By reading the full context we see that Paul reminded them of the promise of the resurrection of the faithful when Jesus returns.
Clearly he is writing about a resurrection, not a rapture.
NOT A Secret Event
With trumpets and angels declaring Jesus’ return, this is hardly the description of something done secretly.Another key element of the rapture theory is that it is supposed to be secret. With no warning, faithful believers suddenly disappear.
But notice again 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17: “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.”
With trumpets and angels declaring Jesus’ return, this is hardly the description of something done secretly.
In Matthew 24:30 Jesus says that at His return people from all over the earth will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven. In Revelation 11:15 we read that the seventh trumpet will sound and a loud voice will proclaim that Jesus will rule the nations of the world forever.
These passages describe the same event: the dramatic, powerful and very visible arrival of Jesus Christ when He returns to take control of and rule over all the nations. There is no passage to support the teaching that He will approach the earth without really returning, secretly snatch away believers to heaven and then return again after the Tribulation.
Meet the Lord in the air
Does the final phrase in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 mean that we will go to heaven and be always there with the Lord? Note that they will meet Him in “the clouds”—that is, in the lower atmosphere of the earth, not in the heaven where God resides.
When Jesus returns, He will come to the earth and He will rule over the earth (Acts 1:9-11; Revelation 11:15; Zechariah 14:1-4). Those who “meet the Lord in the air” won’t stay in the air with Jesus, but will come down to the earth with Him. The phrase “and thus we shall always be with the Lord” doesn’t mean they will go to heaven with Him, but describes how it is that the resurrected saints will come to be with Him.
The word translated “meet” is from a Greek word meaning to officially greet and escort a visiting member of royalty or a governmental representative (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words). In other words, when Jesus returns, faithful believers who had died will be resurrected and those still living will be changed to spirit. They will rise together into the clouds to greet Jesus as He is returning and escort Him to the earth where He will begin His reign.
Will Some Be Left Behind?
The passage in Matthew 24:40-41 is sometimes cited as a description of the rapture: “Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left.”
Once again, we understand more fully when we consider these verses in context. Starting in verse 36, Jesus warns that since we will not know just when He will return, we must be ready for it at all times. He urges us not to be oblivious, as people were before the Flood. Instead, we can be spiritually prepared for Jesus’ return. But still, He warns, there will be some who are prepared and others who are not.
In verse 42 Jesus makes the point: “Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.” And in verse 44 He concludes the thought: “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” Verses 40-41 contrast those who heed Jesus’ warning to be prepared with those who do not. Nothing is said of anyone being taken away in a rapture.
Notice also that being “taken away” isn’t necessarily a good thing. Speaking of those who weren’t prepared in Noah’s time, verse 39 says that the Flood “took them all away.” And speaking of the end times in verses 40 and 41, Jesus said that one is “taken” and the other left. Could being “taken” indicate one who is swept away by the events of the Tribulation at the end of the age and the “other left” a reference to one who is spiritually prepared and endures that time?
Warnings Of Troubled Times, But NO Promise Of Rapture
There are many prophetic warnings about the end of this age. The apostle Peter said that knowing the times that are ahead should motivate us to live “in holy conduct and godliness” (2 Peter 3:11). Jesus described coming times of unparalleled stress and difficulty (Matthew 24:21-22). He warned that since we don’t know the timing of His return, we ought to take heed, watch and pray.
Jesus also warned that we must be on guard so that we are not caught unawares as those events draw near and that those who are vigilant and focused may escape the times to come (Luke 21:34-36). And Revelation 12:13-14 describes in symbolic language the Church being protected from Satan during the time of the Great Tribulation. BUT they AREN'T taken in a rapture, and they DON'T go to heaven to be protected. (For more on this, see our article “Place of Safety” https://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/revelation/place-of-safety)
In all the prophecies of the end of the age and of the return of Jesus Christ, there is no indication or even a hint that He will swoop near the earth to secretly snatch away believers, leaving the rest to suffer the anguish of the Great Tribulation. His return will be visible, and His followers will be with Him as He descends to the Mount of Olives to begin His thousand-year reign here on the earth (Zechariah 14:4-5; Luke 21:27; Revelation 5:10; Revelation 20:4). (For more on this, see our article “1,000 Years—the Millennium” https://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/revelation/1000-years-millennium)
https://lifehopeandtruth.com/prophecy/end-times/rapture/#
https://youtu.be/fyVJ2HkK3ig
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Warning: RayB does not approve of your viewing things that he does not approve of...
https://biblehub.com/galatians/1-10.htm
I’d always read that eschatology is a secondary doctrine, and, as such, is not something to divide over. But I admit to scratching my head in response to those who would adhere to a post-millennialism—that Jesus returns after the millennium. What I term ‘hyper-charismaticism’ promotes post-millennialism, and I’ve been convinced for a while (following Cumbey, essentially) that their Christology is a ‘Christianized’ New Age one.
However, I admit I was totally unaware that the so-called ‘Christian left’ has a “social gospel” that apparently leans this same way towards post-millennialism. I came across the following yesterday, in which a sign was made displaying Jesus with an AR-15, distorting Matthew 25:35-36 (calling it “New Hypocritical Version):
For I was hungry and you cut my food stamps, I was a stranger and you deported me. I was sick and you denied me healthcare, I was a child afraid to go to school, and you voted with the NRA.
There is much wrong with the underlying theology on this sign. You can read the author’s take on it below, but I immediately recognized that the underlying eschatology is post-millennial. It also fits well with a pro-New Age, New World Order ideology.
unsettledchristianity.com/when-i-was-hungry-you-a-brief-look-at-the-social-gospel/
In a new clip from 'comedian' Sarah Silverman's Hulu show "I Love You, America," Jesus Christ is portrayed as a liberal who defends abortion, celebrates NFL protesters and criticizes America for not having universal health care.
https://foramerica.org/2017/12/hollywood/sarah-silverman-depicts-jesus-pro-choice-liberal-loves-health-care-nfl-kneelers/
Craig at 9:34 AM.
Amazing isn't it, how many "views" people can find to veer away from the Lord's Word to read what clearly is not there? Some things God has said are purposefully meant to be a mystery until He chooses to reveal more and are simply and humbly to be taken by faith. Trying to speak for God when He has not clearly spoken must give them some sort of idea of glory that they "have figured God out" so to speak, and go about it to make it a "thing" when as you said, is secondary to God's real purpose to begin with, that being the Gospel. All else is secondary to that by God's own Word and action, so who are these to attempt to hijack His story? These are vain and proud people. Views such as what you mentioned are "doctrines" that give glory to men and not to God (though they name drop His name repeatedly to turn the unlearned to their doctrines of men) like the Pharisees of old. Because of the adherence to man-made thinking and "believing" these sorts fall prey to the very secular worldly ideas they claim they are not part of, but end up advancing nonetheless.
And this ploy of the devil is nothing new...the new age is as old as the devil's displacement from the halls of heaven, way back there...for that long the devil has tried to put himself in the place of God, hoping men will take the bait to think their thinking equal to, on par with the Lord's, that he may destroy them using their own pride.
Anon 11:49 AM,
Earl Paulk wrote a book titled Held in the Heavens Until…. A concise synopsis would be: Jesus cannot return until we self-Deify. This exemplifies the hyper-charismatic version. In somewhat similar fashion, according to the “social gospel” as outlined in the blog article referenced @ 9:34, Jesus will not return until we cure societal ills—ills as defined by those adhering to this particular “gospel”.
Smart Cities Are Creating a Mass Surveillance NIGHTMARE
Albert Fox Cahn
The Daily Beast
10.01.19
More than a million New Yorkers could soon willingly agree to carry a government-issued tracking device, whether they realize it or not.
That’s the proposal from Mayor Bill de Blasio, who having recently returned from the cornfield-dotted campaign trail in Iowa, is setting his sights on transforming New York City into something out of a dystopian sci-fi novel. But some critics are urging caution about the move.
The fuss is about a tiny RFID chip that the mayor wants to embed into each and every municipal ID card for New York residents as part of the “IDNYC” program.
The latest proposal might seem modest, but the reality is that it potentially puts hundreds of thousands of us at greater risk of identity theft [and] stalking... And sadly it’s part of the global trend towards so-called “smart cities”—a series of high-tech undertakings that claim to improve municipal efficiency at the modest price of stripping us of our privacy and autonomy.
...
The privacy risk is hard to overstate. Government agencies will have increasing amounts of extremely sensitive data about our health, our children’s school performance, and where we spend our free time. Go to the bar? The smart city knows. Go to a protest? It probably knows that too. And so will anyone who hacks in.
Hacking isn’t some theoretical risk, it’s already happened.
...
As The Wall Street Journal recently noted: “The more connected a city is, the more vulnerable it is to cyberattacks.” Even with the best security protections, cities can’t eliminate the threat—not as long as we continue to collect the data.
Sadly, for many smart city projects, privacy protections are NOT just an unwanted expense, but an existential THREAT. After all, even though these systems are sold with the promise of promoting government efficiency, the TRUE product is often the public itself and all our data.
...
The risks likely go even further than what we can imagine now.
Rather than accept the New York’s new chip proposal, advocates are speaking out, and now the New York City Council is considering a bill that would outlaw this type of feature. If the bill passes, it will be a milestone in the backlash against smart cities and a clear signal we need to slow down and think more clearly about implementation before accidentally rushing into a dystopian future we can’t come back from.
(Albert Fox Cahn is the executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project at the Urban Justice Center, a New York-based civil rights and privacy organization.)
https://www.thedailybeast.com/smart-cities-are-creating-a-mass-surveillance-nightmare
http://lifesitenews.com/news/president-trump-most-pro-life-president-weve-ever-had-catholic-priest
http://lifesitenews.com/blogs/hillary-clinton-proves-impeaching-trump-is-all-about-protecting-abortion
Post a Comment