Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘Barack Hussein Obama’

Joseph And The Pharoah: The Butler Was Loved But The Baker Was Hated! Genesis 40

Posted by Job on March 16, 2011

Genesis 40 provides an amazing story that illustrates the Biblical doctrine of election, that being God choosing to to save and who not save, who to favor and who to disfavor. Now actually, the text is much stronger than that; as the story of Joseph, the pharaoh, the butler and the baker can be used to illustrate Romans 9:13, which reads “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” The parallels are so strong that it can as an allegory to describe first God choosing Israel of all nations to be His elect nation, and then the church from all peoples to be His elect people.

First the story itself: Joseph is cast into a pit by his wickedly jealous brothers, who first plan to kill him and then decide to sell him into slavery. This was specifically done in order to prevent the dreams that God gave Joseph from coming to pass (Genesis 37:20) and by all appearances was the result of evil spirits – using human jealously and anger as a vehicle, agent and lubricant – attempting to stop God’s purposes from coming to fruition with regards to the descendants of Abraham and the recipients of his promise and covenant. Instead, while they took a break from their evil deeds to eat lunch (not exactly the brightest or most focused or self-disciplined bunch of miscreants were they?) Midianites and Ishmaelites come, get Joseph out of the pit, and sell him to slavery in Egypt to Potiphar.

While in slavery in Egypt, Joseph faithfully serves his master and for this is rewarded by God (in keeping with 1 Peter 2:18; please reject the false modern humanistic doctrines and instead heed what the Bible says when confronted with injustice and oppression). Evil spirits act yet again to provoke Potiphar’s wife into attempting to seduce Joseph, and in contrast with the sexual immorality of Reuben and Judah, Joseph resists even to the point of 1 Corinthians 6:18’s command to “flee fornication.” That gives the evil spirits acting through the lust and pride of Potiphar’s wife the opportunity to cast Joseph into prison. (Realize that God was with Joseph, for the offense that he was accused of should have resulted in his summary execution.) In prison, Joseph yet again keeps such doctrines as 1 Peter 2:18 and Romans 13:1-4, and rather than protesting the injustice that he is subjected to, he behaves in an exemplary fashion and is blessed by God for it, who also causes the blessings of man – the prison keeper – to fall upon him.

With that out of the way, here is where the allegory – if you will – begins in earnest. First, let us start with pharoah. As emperor of Egypt, pharoah had unquestioned power over the people in his political domain. He had absolute power over his subjects. In that culture, far removed from the west and long before the Enlightenment, there was no concept of human or civil rights. Also, the law of Moses, which limited the rights and prerogatives of Israeli monarchs and gave citizens human and civil rights, did not exist in Egypt. Instead, just as Joseph was a slave to Potiphar, all of pharoah’s subjects were his slaves. As  emperor of Egypt, his subjects were his people to do with as he pleased: to sell to other nations as slaves (a practice not uncommon in that era), to conscript for his own military or economic service (again, a common practice), to reward with riches and favor, or to kill and take all that was theirs (again, a common practice). So, it is no accident that God in His revelation used royal language (king, emperor, lord etc.) to describe His relationship to Israel, all nations and people of the earth, and all of creation itself because in that time and place, everyone would have immediately known and presumed His complete ownership and rule according to it in a manner that we cannot even conceive in modern times due to Enlightenment thinking.

But it is precisely because of this mindset, one where a monarch had complete authority over his kingdom (and also a patriarch had complete authority over his household, including wife, children, younger brothers and sisters and their spouses and children, servants etc.) and is the representative symbol of all that is his, all that is “called by his name” (whether a nation for a ruler, a tribe for a chief or a household for a patriarch) that doctrines like federal headship (i.e. of Adam and Jesus Christ) work. Start applying such notion as individual rights and individual agency, which again did not apply in those days in a political context unless granted by the king himself, and ideas like federal headship (and things that proceed from it like original sin) break down. So make no mistake, just as God is Lord of creation, pharoah was lord over Egypt! (As a matter of fact, the same Hebrew words for lord were used for both Yahweh and human rulers, and human rulers were also called “god” in that day, including at times in the Bible, see the “ye are gods” passage of Psalm 82:6, the one notoriously abused by the Word of Faith teachers for their false doctrines.) And now you see why it was such a serious, grievous error when the children of Israel rejected God as their Lord and King and instead demanded a human lord and king.

So pharaoh, in every earthly sense “lord” and “god” over Egypt, becomes angry with two of his subjects; the chief butler and the chief baker. The nature of his anger is this: the text says that he was “wroth.” The Hebrew root word used was qatsaph which can mean “to put oneself in a rage.” The same word was used to describe the anger of YHWH at the children of Israel over idolatry, disobedience and other sins in Leviticus 10:6, Deuteronomy 9:7-8, Deuteronomy 9:22, and Zechariah 8:14. What was it that caused the wrath of pharaoh against his subjects? The text does not say. So, using this “argument from silence” (a common tactic of Jewish theologians that was used extensively regarding Mechizedek in Hebrews 7), we can extend this allegory, metaphor or what have you to symbolize the wrath of God against all mankind, one that exists not solely because of any sins on the part of the individual, but rather because of our universal fallen sinful condition, our original sin, because of being in Adam. As Adam is the federal head of all men (indeed, the word “Adam” means” mankind, and the English word is actually the transliteration of the Hebrew word and not a translation), he represents his sinful nation – it is called by his name – just as pharaoh represents the Egyptian nation. So, because all men are called by the name of Adam, Adam’s sinfulness is imputed to all men. (Recall also that Adam named his wife Eve, which is the Hebrew word “chavvah “, which means “living”, according to her being the mother of all humanity.) Because of this, God is at war with the sinful nation that Adam is the head of just as America not so long ago was at war with the Iraq nation that Saddam Hussein ruled.

So pharaoh represents God, and the butler and baker represent humanity, and pharaoh’s anger at them for the unstated reason represents God’s anger at humanity over our original sin. What does pharaoh do? He casts the butler and the baker in prison, and away from their prior positions of serving him. This represents our alienation from God and our absence from His presence because of our sin. God is holy, therefore that which is sinful cannot stand before His presence! This recalls how Adam was cast from his position from serving God as caretaker of the garden of Eden because of his sin (Genesis 3:24) and also how Satan and the demons were cast from their first estates of serving God due to their rebellion (Jude 1:6).

Now just like YHWH, it was well within the rights of pharaoh due to the privileges, power and authority contained within his position and rank to kill the butler and baker, and the fact that the butler and baker caused the lord of Egypt such grievous offense made this fact even more so. Yet pharaoh used his kingly prerogative to spare the life of the butler and execute the baker. The butler was loved, the baker was hated. Why was the butler chosen over the baker? Well, do not believe the many Hollywood depictions of this story – and even some depictions by any number of Christian efforts i.e. children’s videos – that favor the character of the butler over that of the baker (such as the 1995 miniseries starring Ben Kingsley and a cartoon movie starring Ben Affleck that depicts the baker as violently assaulting Jacob) – because these movies, made according to modernistic humanistic tendencies and ideas of fairness, are not justified in the Biblical text. Instead, pharaoh chose the butler over the baker during a feast of merriment for all his servants (reminds one of the marriage supper of the Lamb and the bride of Christ that will be witnessed by the angels!) and therefore did it because it was for his pleasure! Though the king could have killed both, for his pleasure and his own sake he graciously spared one! Just as God’s choosing Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with Jacob’s character, for Jacob was a usurper, thief, manipulator, liar and con artist. Witness, for example, the way that Jacob mistreated his wife Leah, and how he blatantly favored the children of Rachel over the children of Leah and the concubines (sending the latter group first so that if Esau and his army started killing people, Leah, the concubines and their kids would have almost no chance to escape, but Rachel’s would have a chance!). Jacob was just as bad as was Esau, if not worse. Yet God chose him!

It was all according to the wishes, the desire, the pleasure of the pharaoh. Please note that the nowhere does the Bible call the pharaoh wicked for exercising his prerogative in this manner. Quite the contrary, the Bible accounts this pharaoh as being wise for recognizing the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, living within Joseph (Genesis 41:38) and making him ruler of Egypt based on it. He is a clear contrast between the pharaoh of Moses, who resisted this same Holy Spirit due to God’s hardening his heart.

Note that the butler and the baker had no say in this matter. The baker did not reject the grace of pharoah; indeed no such opportunity to accept or reject it. And the butler had no say in this matter either. The butler had no opportunity to call the pharaoh unfair for imprisoning him in the first place. He had no space to reject the grace given to him because he felt that it was unfair that he was saved while the baker was not, and while many other people (including Joseph) remained in prison. The baker could not accept the grace of the pharaoh because no such “free will choice” to do so was given to him. And the baker could not reject the grace of the pharaoh, because as the subject of a potentate with absolute power, authority and dominion over him (if only in a temporal sense, and please recall according to Jesus Christ that the power of the pharaoh over the butler and the baker were given to them by God, see John 19:11 … so yes, as frightening as it is to believe, George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama … oh never mind) he lacked the power and authority because of his own low estate – his lack of power, authority, rank and dominion -with respect to the pharaoh. (See what Psalm 136:26, Luke 1:48 and Romans 12:16 about God’s gracious dealing with His people despite our low estate.)

So, for the butler, the grace of pharaoh was irresistible! So is it with the grace of God towards His sheep; His Son’s bride. The bride cannot say no, because if all members of the bride do say no (not merely a theoretical possibility, especially when both the effects of sin and the nefarious plotting of Satan are involved!) then God’s Son has no bride, and the purposes of God are thwarted. God forbid that such a thing would happen! Make no mistake, just as the “god of Egypt” in this incident had the power to love the butler and hate the baker and exercised it accordingly, God of all creation has the same prerogative – indeed even a greater prerogative for God is greater than the pharaoh – to do with Jacob (all those in Jesus Christ) and Esau (all those in Adam) and has exercised it accordingly before foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), since before Genesis 1:1!

And when did this happen? Genesis 40:20 says that it occurred the third day after Joseph interpreted the dreams of the butler (the dream that he would receive salvation of his live through grace) and the baker (the dream that he would receive neither this salvation or the grace that makes it possible). Now how long was our Lord and Savior in the grave after His death for the sins of His bride on the cross? Three days. Now nothing is in the Bible by coincidence; in it are no superfluous facts. So, the fact that three days after the prophecy, the promise of grace, came by the butler from Holy Spirit of Elohim (the Name that Joseph used to the butler in Genesis 40:8) to the butler was this promise of grace consummated by the butler’s release from bondage (which the Bible often uses with reference to sin) is a clear reference to the work of Jesus Christ. That allows us to elevate this episode from being mere metaphor, symbolism and allegory to typology. In this episode, the pharaoh, in loving the butler (Jacob) and hating the baker (Esau) was a type of the Ancient of Days, God the Father. Joseph is commonly regarded to be a type of Jesus Christ. And of course, the Holy Spirit was within Joseph. So in this story, the Trinity is together and in agreement, whether in actuality (the Holy Spirit in Joseph) or typology (pharaoh as God the Father, Joseph as God the Son).

Keep in mind that just as the butler was saved on the third day, the baker was executed on the third day. So, just as Jesus Christ delivered salvation to the elect with His ministry, Jesus Christ will return again to punish the non-elect on the Day of the Lord and will also serve as Judge of the non-elect before their punishment in the lake of fire (read the book of Revelation). So, the purpose of Genesis 40 is not to be fascinated with metaphor, symbolism, typology and allegory. Instead, it should be used to instruct one of the fact that those in Jesus Christ will be saved (the butler) and those not in Christ will perish in eternal punishment of flame (the baker). In light of that fact, one must make His calling and election sure in accordance with the scriptures (2 Peter 1:10). Repent of your sins (Acts 2:38), confess with your mouth and believe with your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord who died for your sins and is whom God raised from the dead (Romans 10:9) and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38) or in the Name of Jesus Christ and in God the Father and God the Son (Matthew 28:19) who indwell Jesus Christ.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan!

Advertisements

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Christian salvation, Christianity, Egypt, election, evangelism, irresistible grace, Reformed, religion, Russia | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments »

A Question For Premillennial Dispensational Rapture Believers: Explain The Fifth Seal In Revelation!

Posted by Job on September 25, 2009

Revelation 6:9-11 reads

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

The Word of God for the elect people of God. Glory be to God.

For my premillennial dispensational brethren who believe in a pretribulation (or prewrath) rapture that spares the church from the time of sorrow, please explain this text. Who are those slain for the Word of God? Are they Christians? And when will these Christians be slain for their testimony? Does it refer to those believers slain in times past, whether in the Old Testament or at the time that Revelation was written? Or does it refer to believers slain during the great tribulation? (If so, how can any Christian stand under persecution, even martyrdom, without being emboldened by the Holy Spirit, which according to premillennial dispensational doctrine has to be taken from the earth along with the church? Please recall the difference between Peter and the apostles before the Comforter – cowering and fearful and running from their lives – and afterwards – bold and brave witnesses even unto death. As a matter of fact Peter himself went from being the worst – the one who denied Christ three times – to being the boldest. And how can anyone even be saved during the great tribulation without the work of the Holy Spirit? Recall: the Holy Spirit was indeed present during the time of the Old Testament saints. Indeed, the Bible states that the earth’s very existence cannot so much as even be sustained without the Spirit of God.) Or does it refer to believers slain during all ages, from the first (Abel) until the last before the return of Jesus Christ?

To interpret this passage with scripture, let us go to another one in Revelation that touches the martyrdom of the saints, which is Revelation 18:24. Please recall that this chapter refers to the fall of Babylon,  which since the Tower of Babel incident and particularly since the destruction of the temple in 586 has been used to symbolize people and systems that rebel against and oppose God and persecute His elect covenant people, and that Revelation extends this symbolism with personification, describing all that opposes God as a harlot (prostitute), which in this verse is called “her”:  And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. Now as much as I love my King James Version, allow me to quibble with their translation of “kai” to “and” in the phrase “and of all that were slain upon the earth.” Many times, “kai” is just used for emphasis, as an amplifier of degree or a focus of attention. This text should probably read:

“And in her [Babylon] was found the blood of prophets and of saints, indeed all [prophets and saints] that were slain upon the earth.”

However, if you go with the King James Version, which granted carries much more weight and authority than my own, and all which follow its tradition on that text, then “and of all that were slain upon the earth” simply means that in Babylon was the blood of every person that has been murdered, all innocent blood that has been shed. This means that the prior clause “And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints” means that “the prophets and saints” (a  New Testament idiom which refers to old covenant and new covenant believers) which means that the blood of Stephen and all other Christian martyrs ever since is contained in Babylon. So with reference to the elect the meaning is the same: the blood of everyone killed because of their faith in God is in Babylon.

So, if we interpret Revelation 6:9-11 with Revelation 18:24, when the fifth seal was opened the martyred souls viewed under the altar should very likely be interpreted to include every Christian martyr since Stephen. This would support the idea of a church that has always been under continuous tribulation. Such an interpretation would be consistent with, indeed fulfill the words of Jesus Christ in John 15:18-20.

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.

The Word of God for the people of God. Glory be to God.

Now one can hardly claim that those words were only aimed at the apostles. Those words are for all Christians for all time. So what basis is there for believing that there will be a rapture to save the church from a persecution that A) Jesus Christ said that we would face and B) Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit to empower us to withstand? Now this is not an endorsement of the historicist, preterist or amillennial position that there will be no seven year literal great tribulation. Instead, it is to say that if there will be such a seven year literal great tribulation, the church will be present for it just as it has been present for all other tribulations, the “lesser” tribulations.

Now the prewrath (and mid-wrath) rapture adherent does have Revelation 3:10, which reads “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth”, in his favor. However, that could be fulfilled in a number of ways, including 1) a place of refuge (which ironically rapture believers commonly propose will exist for those who will saved during the great tribulation … again these people will have to be saved despite the absence of a church to preach the gospel or a Holy Spirit to perform regeneration) or 2) death. Do not let the “death” option astonish you, but instead study the scriptures, especially the Old Testament but also in the New Testament. It is a consistent theme that death is a way of being preserved, saved, spared from times of great evil … to be absent from the troubles of this world and present with God! Perhaps the best example of this is the death of Abijah, son of the wicked king Jeroboam, who died according to God’s will so that he would not be corrupted by Jeroboam and also not share in their judgment in 1 Kings 14. A New Testament example: at the time that he wrote Philippians 1:20-26, Paul viewed death as being removed from the extremely trying circumstances that he was living and exchanging it for a better fate. In that passage Paul stated “to die is gain”, but it appears that the rapture adherents have transformed it into “to be raptured is gain.”

So, the idea that there must be a rapture in order for Christians to be spared martyrdom seems to be inconsistent with Biblical revelation. It is also an idea that only makes sense for Christians living in the west. Practically everywhere else in the world, Christians face persecution: marginalization, poverty, disease, imprisonment, death. There are two doctrinal systems that have the effect of promoting the idea western Christians should have no part in what Christians in Indonesia, China, Iran, Palestine (and Israel!), India and Mexico (where Roman Catholic/pagan syncretists are persecuting Protestants) by simple right of geography of birth: pretribulation rapture and covenant theology. Pretribulation rapture teaches that Christians not currently under persecution now will never have to face it, because persecution will only come to “the good parts of the world” (i.e. “Christian nations” or “western nations” or “non-socialist nations” … you know, what Glenn Beck was referring to) when the anti-Christ (which 8% of New Jersey residents regard Obama to be) takes over it.

Now ask yourselves … why is it that Christians can be persecuted in some places (including Israel … and read this too!) now without the anti-Christ, but it requires the anti-Christ to happen in others (especially America)? Or that the saints in other places (and times, including in the west … remember the 30 Years War and the Anabaptists?) are not spared persecution, but only the modern American saints are? Only the idea that contemporary western (especially American and possibly British!) Christians are somehow better than Christians living in other times and places, and this fact would be due to America having some special status before God as a unique elect covenant nation, giving us special status within the Body of Christ. Of course, the Bible makes it clear in the Roman and Corinthian epistles that there is no special group or people with a special status, special favor, or special standing before God in the Body of Christ, but instead that we are one Body. Further, the Bible makes it clear that those who are accounted greater according to rank or authority (not standing or value) demonstrate this through being servant roles that cause us to A) serve those who are of lesser rank and authority and B) endure even greater persecution than those who are of lesser rank and authority. So, even if America did have some special standing before God, instead of our being wealthy decadent privileged Laodiceans, we would be poor, oppressed and serving everybody else! If you deny this, read the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ!

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Keep in mind, the version in Luke reads “Blessed are the POOR!”)
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

The Word of God for the people of God. Glory be to God.

Now earlier I mentioned the covenant theologians, from whom the modern concept of the “Christian nation” originated. Covenant theologians believe – or at least believed – that people in “Christian nations” would or should be spared persecution only because in a church-state Christians would control the government, economy, military, police, and religion in a theocracy after the manner of Old Testament Israel. That is why such extreme theonomists and reconstructionists as Gary North and Rousas John (R. J.) Rushdoony deny that the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount apply to Christians, instead stating that it only applied to Jews living in that time. (Curiously, hyperdispensationalists believe the same.) While I believe the covenant theology position to be in error, this statement is aimed primarily at premillennnial dispensationalists.

So if America were this special, Christian nation, it would be marked by our poverty and service, not by our decadent delusions of religious nobility which makes us believe that we are somehow exempt from the sufferings of Christians living in Belarus or Namibia, or for that matter the Christians of the early church. After all, when Paul wrote his statement insisting that those in the Body of Christ were equals, the statements were direct AGAINST two groups of people: the Jewish Christians in the Roman church and the wealthy Christians in the Corinthian church. The Jewish Christians regarded themselves to be superior to the Gentile Christians because of nationality, and the wealthy Corinthian Christians regarded themselves as superior to the poorer believers because of their riches. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to tell both groups that they were wrong. So, then, how can we justify believing that a rapture will come and rescue us from the type of persecutions and deaths at the hands of Muslims that are going on all over the Middle East, Asia and Africa right now, such as the two million Christians that were killed in Sudan, many of whom were tortured, raped, doused with gasoline and set on fire, had their limbs chopped off, or were sold as slaves because they refused to renounce Christianity?

Ironically, the world, including the media, the activists, and the government of our own “Christian nation”, did their level best to ignore this genocide, choosing instead to focus on Muslims murdering other Muslims in Darfur. And let us not forget that the term for which the word genocide was originally invented and applied to, that of the Armenians by the Turks, is still not recognized as such by the U.N. or by the government of our “Christian nation.” It is still more ironic when you consider that the Armenian genocide happened in the same general area that the letters in Revelation were sent, in the Turkey region. That persecution kicked off what was the bloodiest period of Christian persecution in history, the 20th century, that saw 45.5 million Christians killed!

So if there were any geographical or political entity within the Body of Christ that had special status, it would be those Christians because of their poverty and persecution who would come first, not us . It is those to whom the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ were addressed, and premillennial dispensationalism completely rejects that truth for the belief that the rapture will save Christians not yet under persecution from ever having to experience it because the saints who have it easier are the ones who fulfill Revelation 3:10! Never mind that the rich church that was not facing persecution was Laodicea, and the church that Revelation 3:10 was addressed to was Philadelphia. Why was the promise of Revelation 3:10 given to the Philadelphians? It is in Revelation 3:8, which reads “I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.” The Philadelphia Christians were being persecuted, and similar to the Sudanese Christians, they refused to yield to the persecution by denying Jesus Christ. In other words, they refused to do the same as the apostle Peter did THREE TIMES before he was empowered by the Holy Spirit, yet dispensationalism teaches that this Holy Spirit will be taken away, and those converted during the great tribulation will have to face the greatest time of sorrows ever without it, and will yet somehow stand? How? Why? Because of their free will? Or because of their inherently good human nature untainted by original sin? Followers of Reformed/Calvinist believers in the rapture like John MacArthur and Albert Pendarvis (the latter’s bookstore sells the Scofield Reference Bible) have to answer these questions! In any event, those who claim that Revelation 3:10 refers to Christians being raptured to escape persecution have to deal with the fact that the text was in reference to a Philadelphia church that was enduring it!

Make no mistake. I believe in a bodily literal return of Jesus Christ which I believe will occur after a literal great tribulation which will include a literal and personal anti-Christ. However, I also believe that the church will endure this tribulation, and that we need to be preparing ourselves and those who will follow us in the faith for it in a manner that is consistent with scripture as opposed to believing that we – or our WESTERN descendants – will have an experience of escaping it that will be unique to Christians living in other times and places. At the very least, someone must explain why western Christians alone should enjoy this pleasure!

The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Christian Persecution, Christian persecution America, Christian Zionism, Christianity, Christians United For Israel, church hypocrisy, church state, church worldliness, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

New World Order Alert: Is The Vatican Going To Team Up With Israel Over Jerusalem?

Posted by Job on May 12, 2009

For those who are not familiar with Caroline Glick, she is very neoconservative and very Zionist. Here, she is stating that Israel should cease working with America and start pursuing a mutually beneficial relationship with Egypt (over Iran) and the Vatican (over Jerusalem). First Egypt: Iran sponsors the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a threat to Egypt’s fragile regime, which will become even more so once Egypt’s aging ruler leaves power. Egypt wishes to reduce Iran’s influence in order to make sure that the nation does not fall into the hands of jihadists. Second the Vatican: Glick asserts that the Vatican could be convinced that the only way to protect “Christian holy sites” in Israel and specifically in Jerusalem is to ensure that they remain in Jewish control and out of Muslim hands.

Now Glick has come out and stated that she opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state for at least two generations, and that during this time Israel should impose heavy measures to keep the Palestinian population subdued, and also take control of Palestinian schools and brainwash – excuse me educate – Palestinian children into hating everything Muslim and Arabic and turn them into pro – western Zionists. After this point, the Palestinians would either willingly desire to be ruled by Israel under terms that benefit Israel and stop demanding a state, or would accept a state that would be Israel’s puppet. In other words, Glick is willing to come out and publicly state what Israel’s neoconservative secular Zionists are usually unwilling to. (This is as opposed to Israel’s paleoconservative and/or religious Zionists, who openly or covertly simply wish to drive the Palestinians out of Israel.)

However, Glick is signaling that she – and the faction that she represents – may be willing to change their tune and give the Palestinians a state much sooner if the Vatican throws its considerable political muscle behind keeping all of Jerusalem in Israeli hands, and speaking out against Palestinian terrorism (which groups ranging from the secular and religious left to conservative Catholics to some Reformed Protestants are willing to pretend does not exist).

Now the majority of Palestinians and Israelis have long favored a two state solution. A dirty little secret is that elements in both the Palestinian and Israeli leadership claim to want a two state solution publicly while working to undermine it behind the scenes. If the Vatican is able to pick off the neoconservative secular Zionists like Glick, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Avidgor Lieberman, that would create a coalition with the moderate and liberal Israelis that would be big and powerful enough on the Israeli side to get it done. The only barrier, however, would be the Palestinians’ putting together a viable government that supports a two state solution and peace. We know that this isn’t Fatah/PLO, and it certainly isn’t Hamas. But it is something that bears watching.

The Vatican joining hands with neconservative Zionist Israelis is just about the last thing that I could have ever imagined happening, but it suits the interests of both sides. By supporting Israel, the Roman Catholic Church helps get past its role in the Holocaust, which badly hurts its image and ability to recruit and retain members in Europe. This will become a particular issue in the next few years when the Vatican elevates Pius XII, the pope who was in charge during the Holocaust to “sainthood.” And the Obama administration’s turning America’s interests in the Middle East away from Israel and towards Iran and Syria – and many believe that this could be a permanent change of policy that will persist no matter which party controls Washington – gives Israel no choice but to seek a new powerful ally. As the EU and Russia have been overtly anti-Israel for some time, it is basically the Vatican or nobody. 

Now as to the Christian Zionist element … I suppose that they will fall in line over this. Ever since the time of Billy Graham and particularly the rise of the religious right, evangelicals, especially dispensationalists, have not only become very friendly with the Vatican, but have actually followed its lead, sometimes knowing it but often not. Dispensationalists have taken school vouchers, faith – based programs, and other initiatives to funnel tax dollars into Roman Catholic dioceses as if it is their own agenda, and also got involved in the Terri Schiavo incident (one completely driven by the Roman Catholic governor of Florida Jeb Bush) and in the process of doing so advocated for the extrabiblical Roman Catholic traditional teachings on end of life issues. And how many Protestant evangelicals love having Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts on the Supreme Court (Kennedy not so much)? And let us be honest: the neoconservative publicity machine, whether it is magazines like the Weekly Standard and the National Review and talk radio … they aren’t dominated by evangelicals. They are dominated by Roman Catholics and neoconservative Jews. Conservative Christian Zionists such as the ones who support torture patronize that media and allow their political AND RELIGIOUS views to be shaped by them. So, if the Vatican and the secular neoconservative Jews (the religious Jews by and large won’t have anything to do with Christians) begin the full court press on talk radio and on the conservative websites that keeping Jerusalem and making Israel secure so the construction of the third temple can take place is all that REALLY MATTERS, then the John Hagee/Pat Robertson contingent (and the many far more respectable and mainstream fellow travelers of this doctrine i.e. those who supported the war in Iraq) will quickly fall in line.

But again, the major shoe that needs to drop for this to actually take place is a viable and (by all appearances) pro – peace Palestinian government led by a (and this would really really help) a charismatic leader to come about. Now that may be Obama’s job: to identify and train such a leader and put him in power (as our government has been known to do in the past … America trained both Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and put them in place, and did similar with the group that is now running Iran). 

Please see link to article where this gets discussed below:

Our World: Opportunity is knocking at Israel’s door

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Regarding Barack HUSSEIN Obama Celebrating The Passover

Posted by Job on April 11, 2009

Perhaps you have heard of Obama holding and officiating over a Passover Seder recently. Now I honestly believe that for a born again Christian to participate in a Passover Seder in full view of the fact that the original passover pointed to and was fulfilled in the Passover Seder that was the Lord’s Supper and in the work and ministry of Jesus Christ is a great thing, something that I find much preferable to things related to Easter eggs and the rabbits that bring them. 

But what of the person who rejects Jesus Christ, as this Barack Hussein Obama clearly does, celebrating the Passover? Well … Obama ran with the Louis Farrakhan Nation of Islam crowd in his Chicago days, a fact that – similar to George W. Bush’s affiliation with the Skulls and Bones – people either seem to have conveniently forgotten, or the fact that we are now stuck with this person as president makes it OK. (Just as Bush’s having the same theological views as the liberal “Christians” that are ordaining homosexuals – that the Bible should not be interpreted literally, is not the final authority, and that all religions worship the same god – became “OK” with evangelicals who defend him to this day, even after Bush rammed through the bailouts that set the stage for HUSSEIN Obama to take over the banking and automobile industries and hand them over to the international interests, which of course these folks are now blaming on Obama alone.) Now as you may know, the Nation of Islam has the belief that Jewish wealth and power – which is held disproportionate to their numbers – has something to do with secrets of Jewish mysticism that they picked up in various places, including but not limited to Babylon. Farrakhan claims that Jews use their secret mysticism to gain benefits at other groups’ expense, especially black people whom Farrakhan claims are the rightful owners and originators of this knowledge, and which the Jews have used to displace blacks (and, er, Arabs, as Fard Muhammed, who trained Elijah Muhammed, was Arab) from their rightful place as leaders of world civilization.

So, we know that Obama does not celebrate the Passover  because of any beliefs that he legitimately holds (whether Christian or Jewish). He is not holding it for the same reason that, say, Calvinist – leaning Messianic Jews are. We know that Obama is not interested in winning Jewish votes or support at this point. So … is Obama holding a Passover seder to get his hands on some of this mystical power, kabbalah and similar? Consider this snippet to know that it cannot be counted out:

The Seder, it turns out, is a fulfillment of a vow that a small group of Obama campaign staff made during their Seder last year, on April 19.

Unable to go home for the holidays, the group of about 10 held an impromptu Seder in the basement of the Sheraton Hotel in Harrisburg, Pa., as the Obama campaign neared the end of its long primary campaign battle in the state.

Obama participated in the Jewish ritual, along with a few friends who were traveling with him that day. At the end of the ritual, after the traditional refrain “Next year in Jerusalem!” Sen. Obama and others in the group jokingly added, “Next year in the White House!”

I regard there to be a link between kabbalah and freemasonry that is stronger than the purported link between Islam and freemasonry (a claim that is made by Muslims and few else incidentally), even though the freemasons fervently deny it. Well, freemasons cannot deny that the actual, legal oath of office by Obama just happened to be taken below the picture of Benjamin Latrobe, the freemason architect of the United States capitol. Incidentally, religious right George W. Bush supporters, John Roberts participated in this, so you cannot deny whose side Roberts is on, or for that matter which side the man who appointed him is on. (On the Latrobe, no complaints from black history buffs who credit most of the things in Washington D.C. to Benjamin Banneker … Banneker was a freemason also.) 

So, this really makes me think that this Obama fellow is dealing with some very sinister and powerful things that not even the people who put him in office are aware of – or can control. Make of this what you will.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Joe Farah Calls On Christians To Reject Romans 13:1-4 With Regards To Barack HUSSEIN Obama

Posted by Job on January 20, 2009

In it, Farah claims that Romans 13:1-4 does not apply to evil rulers, claiming that people who do so fail to look at the entire context. Well, the context that I am aware of is that Romans was written by the very same Apostle Paul whom the fascist murderous Roman Empire executed! In this same Roman Empire, homosexuality, child molestation, abortion, etc. were freely practiced. There were no free markets or personal freedom (especially if you were a noncitizen, as the overwhelming majority of the population of the Roman Empire was) and tax rates were crushing. Oh yes, and at the time the Roman emperor was also worshiped as a god in the Roman state religion. So the difference between Caesar when Paul was writing Romans and Obama right now is what exactly?

So, Joe Farah’s application would have made Romans 13:1-4 useless and contradictory not only to the people that Paul wrote Romans to, but also to the first 300 years of Christianity. (And regarding those of us who regret and oppose Constantinism and believe that the evil of the Roman state continued long after its merger with Christianity, for hundreds of years thereafter. Of course, Farah will not take that position, for many of his writers and supporters are Roman Catholics).

Now I do agree that Christians are to reject obedience to rulers if said obedience causes us to sin. New Testament example and the behavior of the early church bears this out. However, what Farah is calling for is civil disobedience and rebellion of the very sort that he would call evil and demonic rebellion against God were it to take place under a president that he politically agrees with such as George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Pray Obama fails

“That’s why I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fail in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state. It would be folly to pray for his success in such an evil campaign.”

I do not disagree with that statement. But there is a huge difference between praying for the failure of policies, or even for the ultimate failure of the administration that seeks to enact these policies, and telling Christians that Romans 13:1-4 are situational. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, praying that Obama fails to enact his agenda and telling Christians to discard Romans 13:1-4 in the case of rulers that they do not like have nothing to do with each other. The former is resisting evil, as Christians are called to do. The latter is sedition, which the Bible calls sin, and makes clear that those who commit it are going to have their place in the lake of fire.

Christians have to realize that the Bible was not written for modern day Americans, but for all Christians in all situations and all times until Jesus Christ comes back. The vast majority of Christians who have walked the earth, indeed perhaps the majority of Christians living yet today do so in political situations where the very idea of nation-states “anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism” were complete folly. Again, that was the very situation where Christianity was born and existed for hundreds of years and (again) the situation that the epistle to the Romans was authored to begin with: in an evil pagan Roman Empire that had absolute control, and one that became only slightly less evil, slightly less pagan, but actually MORE POWERFUL once it assumed control over Christianity.

“I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God’s. Pretending it is not simply makes a mockery of God’s straightforward Commandments.”

Well Joe Farah, I say the same about you. The reason is that you are willfully creating confusion between using spiritual warfare, evangelism, foretelling and forthtelling, etc. to oppose evil rulers and their policies, and between being a sinful seditionist. Lots of Christians have spent YEARS opposing the wickedness of George W. Bush without resisting and defying to and lying on the Holy Spirit by misrepresenting Romans 13:1-4 and telling people to be seditionists. As a matter of fact, Farah, you have done the same in opposing much of what George W. Bush has done. But in doing that, Farah, you NEVER claimed that Romans 13:1-4 did not apply to people living under Bush. Why? Not because of scripture, but because of your own political preferences. Well what of Christians whose politics disagree with yours? Where in the Bible does it say that Christian unity and love extends to political policy agreements?

Farah is showing the dangers of loving the world and being invested in it. He is bearing witness that loving the world that God will judge (read Revelation, it speaks not merely of judging people, but of nations and political and economic systems, and nowhere does it say that the “good nations” will be spared, despite what all of those endtimes movies and books that you have read that depict America somehow being spared or taking on a leading role for righteousness against the anti – Christ and other notions that are Americanity and not Christianity because they cannot be supported by scripture) means emnity with God the judge.

Well, I will tell you someone else who Romans 13:1-4 applies to: slaves. Under Joe Farah’s logic, Nat Turner, Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, and the rest who took up arms and started killing whites (including women and children) were fully justified. For that matter, so were those who took up arms and molotov cocktails and rioted in the streets of our cities in the 1960s. Because if you were living as a slave, under Jim Crow, or for that matter as a Native American or a Japanese person stuck in a World War II internment camp, then wow, wouldn’t you have every right to “change this country” according to Farah? Or claim that the commandments of man were in conflict with the commandments of God? Because I have news for you: for slaves, people under Jim Crow etc. our principles of private property, capitalism, representative and limited government etc. did not apply.

Well, I say that Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, and the 1960s rioters were murderers like Barabbas, the scoundrel who was set free and the innocent Jesus Christ went to the cross in his place. Friendship with the world is emnity with God, and Joe Farah proves it. Because Farah knows full well that Christians aren’t going to simply start being pro – abortion and pro – homosexual and pro – state just because Obama is in office. If they didn’t under Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Lyndon Johnson, why should they under Obama? Truthfully, it is REPUBLICAN and CONSERVATIVE politicians like Reagan and especially George W. Bush that do a much better job of getting evangelical Christians to abandon the Bible, and Farah knows it. Farah knows full well that Bush was never criticized by leading or large numbers of Christians for claiming that Muslims, Christians, Jews (and ultimately everyone) prays to the same God. He was not criticized for saying that the Bible should not be interpreted literally. Bush was not even criticized for publicly saying that he opposed overturning Roe v. Wade, or for opposing a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, or refusing to sign an executive order to ban federal money going to Planned Parenthood, or for being a committed New World Order globalist and Skulls and Bones occultist.

So Farah’s true aim is not to keep Christians from following Obama into apostasy, because if it was, he would not be going anywhere near the blasphemous idea that scripture  is not the final authority in all situations (of course, again, as Farah hangs out and receives much support from Roman Catholics, that was probably never his position anyway). Farah has another agenda, and for that matter he and people like him need to be watched as closely as Obama does.

So it is fine and well to pray that Obama’s evil agenda would be hindered, and in the course of doing so recognizing that Obama is himself evil, has surrounded himself with evil people, and should not be trusted by Christians.  To me, doing such a thing qualifies as spiritual warfare. But also engage in spiritual warfare against people who tell you that it is acceptable to disobey the Bible. Sedition is a sin. Promoting sedition is a sin. Glorifying sedition and taking pleasure in those who glorify or commit sedition is a sin. This is not the case because I say so, it is the case because the Bible says so.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 105 Comments »

Jeremiah Wright’s Adultery With A White Woman Is An Example Of 1 Timothy 6 False Doctrine Leads To Sexual Immorality!

Posted by Job on September 11, 2008

My position is that 1 Timothy 6:1-10 can be interpreted as stating that false doctrines lead to sexual immorality in those that preach the doctrines and those that hear them. In my opinion, false doctrines are one of the main reasons why there are all these sex scandals in the church, and evidence of correlation between devil’s doctrines and sexual immorality is present in the New Testament, in the church at Corinth in particular

So here is the text of 1 Timothy 6:1-10:

All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved Teach and preach these principles. If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness actually is a means of great gain when accompanied by contentment. For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. 

Now I first made the correlation between sexual immorality and the prosperity doctrine after reading this passage after radio minister/teacher Bob George referenced 1 Timothy 6 in response to a question whether it was acceptable to listen to Kenneth Copeland, Fred Price, and other prosperity doctrine teachers (of course George’s answer was an emphatic no) on his nationwide call in radio show. How does this relate to Jeremiah Wright? Well first of all, Wright’s liberation theology teachings are really no different from the prosperity doctrine. Both center around getting Christians to de – emphasize the promise of spiritual blessings and eternal life in favor of an emphasis of earthly things, whether wealth and health in the prosperity doctrine or seeking political changes that will result in favorable economic conditions for minorities and workers via liberation theology. Just as the extreme version of the prosperity doctrine, the Word of Faith, teaches that God has abdicated His throne with respect to the rule of creation to man, first to Adam and then to the church, the true version of liberation theology denies the actual existence of heaven and the lake of fire, claiming that they are metaphors for political, economic, and social conditions on earth. It is no small coincidence then that liberation theology thought that is so prominent among the religious left that is so influential in the Democratic Party (please remember that Bill Clinton hosted Jeremiah Wright at the White House!) in both the white left as represented by mainline Protestant denominations and liberal Roman Catholics and the black left as represented by the civil rights movement (please recall that Martin Luther King, Jr. rejectd the virgin birth, deity, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and hence cannot be considered as having been a Christian in any sense) has as its correlation the prosperity/Word of Faith doctrines in the form of figures like John Hagee, Rod Parsley, and Pat Robertson that are so influential in the Republican Party (and please recall Mike Huckabee’s attempts to bring Kenneth Copeland into the fold as well). If you want more evidence that the two parties merely represent faces on the same wicked coin that may look different but in truth are part of the same entity and joined in the middle, there you go! 

Continuing, when reading that passage more, I formed the opinion that all false doctrines, not just the prosperity doctrine, lead to immorality in general with sexual immorality being just one. As a matter of fact, associating that godliness is gain and predatory destructive unnatural sexual behavior are just symptoms of the larger spiritual, mental, and character issues that go with one having a reprobate mind.

And this brings us back to this Jeremiah Wright fellow. The fellow was already “married” to another man’s wife that he exploited and abused his position of marriage counselor to get a woman in a troubled marriage to leave her husband so that he could marry her shortly after: Jeremiah Wright’s Adulterous Marriage. This uses as source material in part BARACK’S REV. ‘STOLE A WIFE’ – EX-HUBBY: HE COUNSELED US, THEN WED HER. (Did his congregation care? Of course not.) Well now this: Jeremiah Wright committed adultery with the wife of a pastor, resulting in the dissolution of the marriage. REPORT: REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT HAS AFFAIR WITH ANOTHER MAN’S WIFE. (It would appear that this pastor was another teacher of false doctrine, and also one who uses the same trick of claiming to have degrees that he does not have. By the way, Jamal – Harrison Bryant also claimed the same phony degree from the same place, which only offers certificates from some summer training program and not doctorates, and Bryant, who is leading the charge to bring the prosperity doctrine into the same African Methodist Episcopal denomination that James Cone was a member of when he created black liberation theology – small world isn’t it – is also documented and proven to be sexually immoral. ) And guess what: Wright used the time dishonored “I will leave my wife for you” trick on his prey.

Now make no mistake, Fox News and the New York Post have an agenda. These operations are owned by the world’s biggest pornographer Rupert Murdoch whose pastor is Rick Warren (who asserts that Murdoch is a born again Christian!), who tells his church members to use sexual titillation in order to win converts (see here and here) and is not above using teen girls performing sexually suggestive dances to please his audience like Herod’s daughter did before demanding the head of John the Baptist for her mother (read Matthew 14) during “praise and worship service.” Of course, Warren’s false New Age “God wants to make you feel all good and happy” doctrines are not at all distinct from Joel Osteen’s brand of prosperity teaching. Back to Fox News and the New York Post, their agenda is to influence the upcoming presidential election. 

Me, I do not share that agenda. I could care less who you vote for. As a matter of fact, my position is that Christians should vote for NEITHER. The video in this link from Pastor Slattery illustrates why I have this position. Instead, my agenda is to tell Christians to flee these false doctrines, for they do in fact destroy people’s lives. As far as this Obama person goes in general, it really does appear that he has been recruiting as many degenerate pastors as McCain has, if not more. Here is one good site on that issue. The strait gate is not through the Democratic or Republican Party (or Green or Socialist or Communist or Constitution or Libertarian or Labour or Tory or Christian Democrats or Kadima or Likud) but through belief in and obedience to the Jesus Christ of the Bible through right belief (orthodoxy) and right behavior (orthopraxy). The sad case of Jeremiah Wright’s adultery is just one evidence among many of what happens when pastors and their followers that reject right belief in their teaching … right behavior inevitably exits as well.

Posted in Christianity, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, religious right | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Did Obama Lie About Born Alive Abortion Infanticide Bill?

Posted by Job on August 21, 2008

Not a supporter of the Sun Myung Moon paper the Washington Times (do not even read it anymore!) but still good to read. Not that his opponent, John McCain, would lift a finger to stop this infanticide either, because even if McCain personally opposes it, his new world order globalist masters wouldn’t let him touch it. 

Did Obama Lie About Born Alive Bill?

By Joel Mowbray

For the first time in this presidential cycle, social issues such as abortion took center stage this past week, courtesy of the candidates’ high-profile, back-to-back interviews at a mega-church last weekend.

Yet the mainstream media only days later is starting to address what might be the biggest story in this frame: Barack Obama – whether knowingly or not – provided false information about a controversial abortion vote he made in the Illinois Senate in 2003.

After his nationally televised interview with Pastor Rick Warren on Saturday night in Orange County, Calif., Mr. Obama sat down with Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody and went on the attack against pro-life activists, whom he said were “lying” about his vote to kill a bill protecting babies born alive following botched abortions.

At issue is an Illinois bill in 2003 called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that Mr. Obama voted against, which was modeled on federal legislation enacted the previous year declaring that in failed abortions resulting in a live birth, the baby must be given normal medical treatment. This was in response to a gruesome practice whereby abortions involving induced labor were resulting in unintended live births – and those infants were simply being left to die. It had passed the U.S. Senate without any dissent.

Mr. Obama contended that he “would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported,” but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because “that was not the bill that was presented at the state level.” Except that it was.

As it turns out – and as even Mr. Obama’s campaign admitted Monday to the New York Sun – the National Right to Life Committee wasn’t lying; Mr. Obama was. The specific difference cited by Mr. Obama in the CBN interview was that the Illinois bill didn’t contain the federal legislation’s language explicitly stating that it would not “undermine Roe vs. Wade.” (This was not merely off-the-cuff, as the campaign had issued a written statement to CNN in June offering the same rationale.) Not only did the bill contain the exact provision from the federal bill, but Mr. Obama voted in favor of adding it as an amendment. After the state bill was changed to be almost identical to the unanimously passed federal law, Mr. Obama voted against it.

CNN, to its credit, did report on Obama’s Illinois actions before the Democrat’s accusation that his critics were lying. The New York Times first reported on Mr. Obama’s Illinois record two weeks ago – almost 900 words into a 1,400-word piece on page A16. In a page A18 story this Wednesday dedicated solely to the controversy, the Times’ Larry Rohter carries Mr. Obama’s water, stretching to offer excuses for his vote that even Mr. Obama did not suggest until after misstating his own record last weekend.

The highest-profile mainstream-media piece to date ran this Wednesday in The Washington Post, a page A1 article titled, “Candidates’ Abortion Views Not So Simple.” In its reporting, however, The Post seemed to dismiss the significance of Mr. Obama’s opposition to the 2003 Illinois legislation by referring to it as an “obscure law.” The Post further presents as fact the Obama position that the Illinois bill Mr. Obama opposed was solely about “pre-viable” babies. The testimony of former nurse Jill Stanek, who witnessed babies surviving botched abortions at Christ Hospital just outside Chicago, discussed babies past 20 weeks, including into the third trimester – thus not “pre-viable.”

Though understanding the legislative process is not a common strength in political journalists, most of the reporters in question are smart enough to sift through the plentiful documentation of Mr. Obama’s voting history on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois at the Web site of the National Right to Life Committee. Further, they could even read the simple, yet thorough, narrative of National Review’s David Freddoso, who has written two stories spelling out the timeline and Obama’s actions along the way. (Some of the reporting is adapted from his new book, “The Case Against Barack Obama.”) Mr. Obama’s camp has shifted explanations this week, now claiming that the Democrat merely wanted a provision in the bill clarifying that it would not impact existing state laws. Yet as several pro-life activists have noted, Mr. Obama was the chairman of the legislature’s health committee when the bill came up again in 2003 and easily could have offered such an amendment. He didn’t.

Regardless of the reasons for his vote, Mr. Obama cannot say that his critics are lying. He did oppose a bill virtually identical to the one unanimously passed in the U.S. Senate. And now, five years later, he might end up paying a political price for that decision.

Posted in Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Obama’s Global Poverty Plan Sounds A Lot Like Rick Warren’s Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan!

Posted by Job on July 23, 2008

Obama bill: $845 billion more for global poverty

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | February 14, 2008

Posted on Friday, February 15, 2008 6:41:30 AM by Man50D

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, “We can – and must – make … a priority,” said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop “and implement” a policy to “cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief” and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

“It’s not our job to cut global poverty,” said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. “These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot.”

Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could “result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States” and would make levels “of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion “over and above what the U.S. already spends.”

The plan passed the House in 2007 “because most members didn’t realize what was in it,” Kincaid reported. “Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require.”

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com

Some Christian links on Warren’s plan:

Rick Warren’s Global Peace Plan

Global Peace – Comparisons

Rick Warren’s Global P.E.A.C.E Plan is Dominionism

RICK WARREN’S GLOBAL P.E.A.C.E. PLAN vs. SCRIPTURAL TEACHINGS ON PEACE

Posted in Bible, Christianity, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

What A Surprise … Dobson Is Laying Groundwork For Endorsing John McCain

Posted by Job on July 21, 2008

Dobson Will Back McCain After All!

Because Obama is just SOOOO bad … funny, James Dobson (and Ann Coulter) would have been perfectly fine with President Hillary as opposed to John McCain. But now both are singing a different tune. Now what is the only REAL difference between Obama and Clinton? Hint #1 … it isn’t their sex. Hint #2 … it isn’t their policies. I will let YOU go ahead and guess. This is not about “the lesser of two evils” as Dobson claims, because again Clinton and Obama are no different in terms of policy in the areas that Dobson allegedly cares about. This is about … well you go ahead and guess.

Incidentally, Janet Parshall, a Christian talk show host that I spoke positively of last year here and here, has been playing the “we like Hillary Clinton better than Barack Obama” game for months now. In the past, she vouched for Clinton’s Christian views as being “more mainstream” than Obama’s. She also would state that Clinton is “more in tune with middle America and blue collar voters” than Obama. And last week, the show made claims to the effect that Obama was part of the anti – American left that was seeking to destroy this country, BUT THE CLINTONS LOVED THIS COUNTRY AND WERE NOT. Now were this a secular right wing outlet, of course all of this is part of the “beat Obama” campaign. In other words, they have the luxury of pretending that Hillary Clinton is anything other than a new world order globalist totally opposed to Biblical Christianity. In short, THEY CAN LIE. But Dobson, Parshall, and the rest? They are supposed to be CHRISTIANS, right? 

But then again, what am I talking about. The same people that were burning McCain in effigy a few months ago (rooting for the Mormon to beat him I might add in many cases) are now talking about what a great man of faith McCain is, how he attends a Southern Baptist church and everything. One thing these Christians pumping McCain won’t tell you about: His actual religious beliefs! Seems that when McCain was a prisoner of war, he served as the “chaplain” in the Hanoi Hilton. Good, right? Well check out this sermon that he delivered:

One day I talked about the parable of when they asked Christ whether they should pay taxes and he held up a coin and said, “Render unto Caesar, etc.” My point was and still is that when we were flying in combat, we weren’t doing God’s work. We were doing Caesar’s work. So for us to go to prison and then ask God to get us out was not fair to God, to our religion, to our beliefs and to ourselves. It wasn’t a miracle that sent a SAM [surface-to-air missile] to hit my airplane. It was a guy, a technician at a SAM site.

I think it was important, a little bit for the stability factor, that it wasn’t God who was going to perform a miracle, end the war and bring us home. It was men. It was Caesar. I think the majority of those guys felt the way I did but we just had some, just as people turn to faith healing and that kind of stuff, we had some of that. A lot of times I would pray for strength and I think sometimes I got it. Pray for patience to get through the next minute when things were bad. I just don’t think it’s fair to expect too much out of what is basically not the Lord’s business.

So, because you sinned by fighting in Viet Nam (and if you believed that why were you over there in the first place!?!?) God won’t forgive your sins if you ask Him to? And we also have here a complete, total, appalling rejection of God’s providence, even to the point where McCain told his charges to give credit to EVIL MAN instead of God. Now this is why knowing the social location, time place and culture, of the Bible is often important. When McCain was telling his fellow prisoners that Caesar was going to rescue them, most will not have a problem with that, because to most Americans our government is good old Uncle Sam! But that was not the context that Jesus Christ meant. To Jesus Christ, “Uncle Sam” was the Roman Empire, a wicked, brutal, pagan fascist ruled by a man who claimed to be god, and in a short time would start slaughtering Christians who refused to worship him as God! Further, it is relatively clear that Revelation allegorically refers to the Roman Empire as a representing not necessarily Satan himself, but definitely Satan’s using the wicked rulers and governments, religions, economies, militaries, etc. of the world to accomplish his ends. So, when McCain was sermonizing to his prisoners of war that they should not expect God to help them but rather look to the fallen world controlled by Satan for their salvation and deliverance … wow!

But hey, don’t expect to ever hear this from Janet Parshall, Ann Coulter, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, or any of the rest of the religious right. They are going to keep telling you that you have to choose the lesser of two evils. They are going to make you think that by choosing a lesser evil you are somehow doing righteousness because they are withholding from you the truth: no matter whether the greater evil or the lesser evil is chosen, EVIL STILL WINS AND THEREFORE RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOT ADVANCED. They want you to believe that choosing Stalin over Hitler (or Hitler over Stalin) is somehow more righteous, more Christlike, the mark of a spiritually mature Christian. 

Reading this, I honestly do not see how the liberal deist god of John McCain that does not forgive sinners or answer prayer and forces us to go to Satan for help is any better than the black liberation theology atheist Nation of Islam god of Barack Hussein Obama. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH FALSE GODS AND THEREFORE ONE IS NO BETTER OR NO WORSE THAN THE OTHER. The religious right will not tell you this, because they lust and whore after this world and the things of it, and do not have their eyes on the next life.

Posted in Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

John McCain and Barack Obama to attend forum at Rick Warren’s Church!

Posted by Job on July 21, 2008

McCain and Obama to attend forum at Rick Warren’s church in August

From The New York Times

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s Apostate Christian Beliefs

Posted by Job on July 13, 2008

Original link: ‘I Am a Big Believer in Not Just Words, But Deeds and Works’

Barack Obama talked to NEWSWEEK’s Lisa Miller and Richard Wolffe about how faith plays into his everyday life. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Do you and Michelle talk to your girls about having a God? Jesus?
Obama: Well, we do, but we don’t have a systematic course of study for the girls. We say grace at the table. They are inquiring minds, so whenever they have a question about God or faith, then I have a conversation with them … I’m a big believer in a faith that is not imposed but taps into what’s already there, their curiosity or their spirit.

You said you didn’t hear a lot of the sermons at Trinity. How often did you go?
At the beginning, we went fairly frequently. We were single, so I’d say we probably went two or three times a month. When we had Malia, our first child, we went less frequently, and that probably continued for a couple of years, just because—I don’t know if you’ve had the experience of taking young, squirming children to church, but it’s not easy … As they got older, we would go back a little more frequently, probably twice a month. But then I started campaigning for the United States Senate, and at that point I was in church every Sunday, maybe two, three churches a Sunday, but they weren’t Trinity—because that was one of the most effective ways for us to campaign and reach out to people. So, there was quite a big chunk of time, especially during the Senate race, where we might not have gone to Trinity for two, three months at a time.

You used to travel with your Bible. Do you still do that?
Sometimes, because my briefcase gets so packed, I forget to pack it, but I often have my Bible with me. It’s something that I read in the evenings and it takes me out of the immediacy of my day and gives me a point of reflection.

What do you think about the Kingdom of God? Is it attainable on Earth by humans?
I am a big believer in not just words, but deeds and works. I don’t believe that the Kingdom of God is achievable on Earth without God’s intervention, and without God’s return through Jesus Christ, but I do believe in improvement.

What is the role of doubt in faith?
I wrote about this in “Audacity of Hope,” that even after I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, that doesn’t mean that I don’t have doubts. I had doubts when my mother died. I have doubts every time I pick up the newspaper.

Do you pray in your personal life?
Yes, I do.

Daily?
Yeah, every day.

What do you pray for?
Forgiveness for my sins and flaws, which are many, the protection of my family, and that I’m carrying out God’s will, and not in a grandiose way, but simply that there is an alignment between my actions and what he would want. And then I find myself sometimes praying for people who need a lift, need a hand.

Is there a time you have had to make a decision that was important and you called on God? Can you walk us through that?
Well, that’s pretty personal. I’m not sure I’d want to walk you through that. I mean, I prayed on marrying Michelle because that’s a pretty big decision, getting married. So I wanted to make sure I got that right, and I did. So, prayer worked. I prayed on running for president. That’s a big decision that had an immediate impact on my family—and that I knew, win or lose, would have an impact on the country. Had I run a miserable race, that would have had an impact on the country. Should I win, that carries with it enormous responsibilities. I’ve spent a lot of time in prayer on that.  © 2008

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

How Can Any Christian African American Vote for Obama? Throwing the Race Card on an All Black Table

Posted by Job on July 11, 2008

See link below. I would add … how could any WHITE, ASIAN, JEWISH, HISPANIC, NATIVE AMERICAN, ABORIGINE, ESKIMO etc. Christian vote for OBAMA OR MCCAIN? This question is being asked by a fellow who voted for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and regrets both …

How Can Any Christian African American Vote for Obama? Throwing the Race Card on an All Black Table

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Black Homosexual Tries To Stop Publication Of Bible On Grounds That It Is Homophobic!

Posted by Job on July 11, 2008

I read about this first on a “we hate black people” site (which I peruse from time to time because I happen to be black and wish to see what they are saying about us colored folk) where they are just loving it:

http://cofcc.org/?p=1701

Normally I would not give people like that publicity – let alone traffic – but it seems oddly to fit somehow. Perhaps it is the truth that both the sin of racism and the sin of homosexuality oppose Jesus Christ and the Bible. Any racist that casts stones at homosexuals ought to realize that unless he repents of his sins, on judgment day the racist and the homosexual will both burn for eternity in the lake of fire. Now for the story from a more reputable source:

TESTING THE FAITH
‘Gay’ man sues Bible publishers
$70 million for emotional distress because homosexuality cast as sin


Posted: July 09, 2008 10:52 am Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily   


Bradley Fowler (RightPundits.com)

A homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin. 

Bradley LaShawn Fowler, 39, of Canton, Mich., is seeking $60 million from Zondervan and another $10 million from Thomas Nelson Publishing in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Grand Rapids Press reported.

Fowler filed his claim against Grand Rapids-based Zondervan Monday, alleging its Bibles’ references to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of “demoralization, chaos and bewilderment,” the paper said.

He filed suit against Tennessee publisher Thomas Nelson in June.

Zondervan says that even if Fowler’s claim is credible, he’s suing the wrong party. A company spokesman told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that Zondervan doesn’t translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations but relies, instead, on the “scholarly judgment of credible translation committees.”

U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. refused Monday to appoint an attorney to represent Fowler in the Thomas Nelson case, saying the court “has some very genuine concerns about the nature and efficacy of these claims.”

Fowler, who is representing himself in both lawsuits, says in his complaint against Zondervan that the publisher intended to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group’s conclusion to cause “me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence … including murder.”

Fowler alleges both Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, with its King James Bible, manipulated Scripture without informing the public by using the term “homosexuals” in a New Testament passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9.

He told the Grand Rapids TV station in an interview he wants to “compensate for the past 20 years of emotional duress and mental instability.”

Zondervan, he contended, is misinterpreting the Bible.

“These are opinions based on the publishers,” Fowler said. “And they are being embedded in the religious structure as a way of life.”

‘Astounding research’

Fowler’s blog on Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign website features a post titled “Unleashing America from Injustice,” in which he says he “was completely distraught after discovering the term-homosexual-was added to the bible, in 1976, and then removed, in 2001 and 2006, without any consideration to the many victims who committed suicide or were murdered because of their sexual preference of homosexuality.”

The Obama campaign notes the opinions expressed in its community blog section “in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.”

On a separate personal blogsite, Fowler features his related book, written under the name “Bradley-Almighty,” which, he boasts, contains “astounding research from within the pages of the bible, that will change the face of religion across the globe.”

Titled “365 Reason’s to Study the Bible,” he says his “debut book” takes the reader “on a journey through time, as he shifts swiftly, yet gracefully, through the pages of religious history, slowly exposing hidden secrets bible publishers have fought- feverishly to keep hidden from the general public for centuries. An avalanche of secrets that are keeping millions around the world enslaved today.”

Fowler cites his interview with a newspaper called Michigan Front Page in which he said, “Lack of sincerity from bible readers has helped this conspiracy go on this long.”

‘Engrossed’ with Scripture

On his personal blog’s “About Me” page, Fowler says that while serving a sentence in the Michigan Department of Corrections, he “gained a sincere interest” in the Bible’s teachings and, over a 10 year period, “became so engrossed within” the Scriptures, he couldn’t do much more than eat and sleep.

In the rambling piece, he says “everything inside of me suddenly became consumed and overwhelmed by something greater than me … that’s when I found God.”

Then, in an apparent reference to the complaint in his lawsuit, he says, “Discovering how much the bible has been changed through man’s desicions and incorrect interpretations was hard to accept.”

His discovery, he says, “proves we all have been strung along, foolishly, lost in the essence of our minds.”

Fowler concludes with a description of himself as a “small business owner, part-time college student, member of the Christian Writer’s Guild, freelance writer for the Michigan Front Page, and author of two new books.”

Fowler, notes a post by JoAnne Thomas on RightPundits.com, explained his complaint on his blog. He writes:

In 1970, I Corinthians 6:9 read as followed-Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulteres, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

In 1982 ,the same scripture read like this-

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodimites.

In 2001 the same scripture reads like this-

Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled, those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob thses people will not inherit God’s kingdom.

Yet another person who is trying to read modern sensibilities into the Bible, completely ignoring that the book was written not by white 1960s liberals but rather by Middle Eastern Jews who were so conservative that they would make Bob Jones University look like Cal – Berkeley during the free speech days. First, Jesus Christ was a Jew who honored the law of Moses which CLEARLY bans homosexuality. Second, Paul, who wrote the epistles in question, was a Jew who honored the law of Moses which CLEARLY bans homosexuality. Third, while the New Testament does not use the term homosexuality, NEITHER DOES THE OLD TESTAMENT. BOTH TESTAMENTS CLEARLY DESCRIBE THE SINFUL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, NOT USE A TERM THAT MAY NOT HAVE EVEN EXISTED AT THE TIME. Fourth, INDEPENDENT EXTRABIBLICAL WRITINGS ALL CONFIRM THAT IN THE ANCIENT WORLD CHRISTIANS (and Jews) WERE NOTED FOR THEIR OPPOSITION TO HOMOSEXUALITY (and abortion). Claiming that the Bible does not reject Christianity not only rejects the text of the Bible itself, but IT REJECTS HISTORY. That is why up until very recently, the typical gay rights trick has been to claim either A) the Roman Catholic Church made up or altered the New Testament writings that forbad homosexuality, B) Paul’s teachings on the matter conflicted the words and message of Jesus Christ and should be rejected, or C) the Bible is not inerrant and should not be literally interpreted or the final authority. Claims that the Bible text does not condemn homosexuality and Christians going back to the early church did not practice it – again clearly disproven by history – would be IMPOSSIBLE were it not for political correctness. 

By the way: please note how Zondervan is not standing behind the Bible, but rather is shifting the blame – and financial responsibility – to the translation committee. “Zondervan says that even if Fowler’s claim is credible, he’s suing the wrong party. A company spokesman told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that Zondervan doesn’t translate the Bible or own the copyright for any of the translations but relies, instead, on the “scholarly judgment of credible translation committees.” Remember: Zondervan is owned by the world’s biggest pornographer Rupert Murdoch. Thomas Nelson, by the way, is also now owned by a secular media company. 

Murdoch’s Fox News during “The Passion of The Christ” controversy ran a special which basically took the liberation theology line on the crucifixion (later adopted by dual covenant heretic John Hagee) that Jesus Christ was killed by the Romans for being a political subversive (which by the way would have made Jesus Christ A SINNER if true!), and that the Jewish leaders had nothing to do with it. It is only because so many evangelicals are wedded to the conservative and/or Republican Party lines whose Fox News toes that they were able to get away with such blasphemy without a peep from evangelicals! I have a strong feeling that the instant that publishing the actual Bible is no longer profitable for Murdoch, he will come out with a fake one. And yes, these new translations and this new Bible scholarship that makes any and every excuse to push the Bible translations into more liberal and less spiritual directions will make it so. 

As I have stated many a time before, I do not wish to give things like this more significance than they deserve. I am not Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church who believes that homosexuals are destroying our nation, culture, world, etc. or “Brother R.G. Stair” with his little compound in South Carolina who makes homosexuality the defining aspect of the anti – Christ and the endtimes. Rather, things like this are merely symptoms of problems in our culture – and in contemporary Christianity – that are much larger and run far deeper. For instance, the main problem isn’t that you have fellows like this willing to make this claim, a court willing to take him seriously, or even a major secular immoral corporation like NewsCorp throwing its own translators under the bus, and thereby betraying their intention to hire translators that will make no references to the sin of homosexuality in their future Bible translations (yes, NewsCorp makes a ton of money off the gay community, and furthermore gay rights activists have made huge inroads into the business community and into the Republican Party and conservatism just like everywhere else). No, the problem is that when confronted with this information, so many Christians either lack the Bible knowledge to oppose it, or they have and discard it in order to follow after their own hearts. The latter is obviously true from how so many Christians are following heretic and apostate preachers whose doctrines and lives are open contradictions to the Bible.

Posted in Bible, Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: