Did the Jews Kill Jesus?

Apparently most historians are extremely poorly educated. They claim that "Jews lacked a motive for killing Jesus," and that "it would be more accurate to blame the Romans for His death" since crucifixion was their specialty. Do these historians not read the Bible? The Jews had nothing but motives for killing Jesus (Matt. 26:3-5; Luke 22:1-2; John 5:16-18; 7:1, 19-20, 25; 8:37-44; 19:10-12; 18:36b; Acts 5:27-30). What was the single greatest motive for the Jews to kill Jesus?

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. John 8:56-59

"I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." John 10:30-31

Jesus identified Himself by the name that God had given to Moses in the desert—"I Am," and said that He and the Father were one. Unlike Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others cults, the Jews knew precisely what Jesus was saying. Look at their response: "You, being a man, claim Yourself to be God." Why else would they pick up stones to stone Him? Jesus was declaring that He was God. He declared His divinity even by giving Himself the title "Son of man." He was not acknowledging or declaring His humanity. (See this article.)

Did the Jews kill Jesus? Yes, they did! Did each and every single Jew alive at that time kill Jesus? No! Did Jews today, or each and every Jew today, kill Jesus? Of course not! That is not what the New Testament is saying, and it is quite possibly not what the biblical Congregation ever said. No doubt certain "Christian" groups have blamed the Jews entirely through all generations, such as the Catholics. Stating matter-of-factly that the Jews killed Jesus is not "anti-semitism." That is just another term that ignorant individuals sling around as a smokescreen to discussing the facts, as just laid out above.

Each and every single Jew is not to blame for the killing of Jesus. Nevertheless, the Jews killed Jesus! It is no "myth," as ignorant individuals like to argue. There is no "idea" being "perpetuated." The Jews killed Jesus! The apostle Paul even acknowledges that the Jews killed Jesus in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15. As with the apostle John in his Gospel, the term "the Jews" refers to those who opposed Messiah Jesus and His message, which predominantly was the hypocritical Jewish leaders: the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. It never meant that each and every living Jew at that time, or since, is responsible for the death of Jesus.

Denying that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus is like denying that the holocaust ever occurred. God gave the nation of Israel many opportunities to repent and turn to Him. Yet, they rebelled in disobedience. That is what the prophecy in Isaiah 28 was about. God told Israel that some day He was going to speak to them through the languages of foreigners, which they deemed to be worthless in comparison to themselves, and that they would reject this and would subsequently be destroyed. On the day of Pentecost, part of this prophecy was fulfilled. As 1 Corinthians 14:22 says, "tongues are for a sign ... to unbelievers." They were a judgment sign upon unbelieving Israel. In A.D. 70, the rest of this prophecy was fulfilled.

To say that it would be more accurate to blame the Romans demonstrates a complete ignorance as to reality and truth. Open the Bible and read it! The Jews knew that they could not put someone to death of their own accord (John 18:31). This would bring the judgment of the Romans down upon them. They had to present their case to the Romans. Both Pontius Pilate and Herod questioned Jesus. Pilate found no fault with Him and wanted to let Him go. But what did the leaders of the Jews incite many of the Jews to do? They shouted all the more loudly, "Crucify Him!" (Matt. 27:22-23; Mark 15:13-14; Luke 23:21; John 19:15).

Realistically, we are all to blame for the killing of Jesus. The Jews pursued it; the Romans executed it; but it was our sin (all of us) that put Him there and drove the nails.

Attention Seekers Galore

What is happening to the human race? Human sensibilities have gotten flushed down the toilet. Not only do the disillusioned reject nature and science by denying the fact of two (2) genders/sexes (determined by XX or XY chromosomes), but they are also rejecting reality and pretending to be other-than-human trapped in human bodies. Is there something in the water? Is it demonic influence? Whatever the cause, there is without a doubt something severely wrong. Let us look with discernment at some of the different trans roles out there.

Trans-ethnic or Trans-racial: These people are attention seekers who are looking to cash in on ethnicity. Rachel Dolezal went as far as becoming President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) telling people she was black. Treasure Richards, a black woman, thinks she is a caucasian: "I just know that I am white. I can feel it through my veins." Apparently a mirror is not helping her face reality.

Trans-abled: These people are attention seekers who are looking to cash in on sympathy. Jewel Shuping actually blinded herself because she felt like she was meant to be born blind. Other people like her have actually amputated their own limbs. There is something severely psychologically wrong in your mind for you to do such things to yourself.

Trans-aged: These people are attention seekers looking to dodge responsibility. Paul Wolscht was a married man with 7 children, until he decided he wanted to be a 6-year-old girl. Now, instead of raising a family and being a responsible father, he is being raised by a delusional couple as a 6-year-old girl. They even let him play with their grandchildren alone. Pedophile, anyone? And, no, that is not a stretch. One man who was accused of sexually abusing several little girls used the defense of "identifying" as a 9-year-old boy so that his actions would not be seen as sick, demented, or illegal.
By the way, when these people reach retirement age, they should not be allowed to collect old age pension. If they "identify" as a 6-year-old girl, then they are not old enough to qualify for receiving it. They cannot have their cake and eat it, too!
Why is it that this trans role only goes one way? Where are the 12-year-olds who "identify" as 21-year-olds so that they can purchase cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol? Oh, that is right. They are only children and cannot make such decisions. Then why are parents letting children make the ultimate decision to choose to be a gender/sex of which they are not and will never be?

Trans-sexual or Trans-gender: The classic trans role, these people are attention seekers who are looking for attention. Their attention seeking is usually aimed directly at their parents and/or past partners. These people typically have a very high suicide rate, likely due to no longer receiving the attention that they initially got in the beginning. It is a scientific fact that children who have such thoughts, if you leave them alone, they eventually grow out of them. Adults who go through this have psychological issues that need to be dealt with.
These people sometimes seek the benefits of the other sex/gender. For example, women pay less for car insurance despite the fact that most women have lead feet (always speeding beyond posted rates) and are more likely to be involved in an accident. Certain men choose to do so because as men they suck at athletics, and by joining female athletics they can blow away the competition (because no woman will ever touch them).
By the way, trans-sexualism/trans-genderism is just another form of homosexuality. You are not "assigned" a sex/gender at birth; your sex/gender is discovered at birth (and sometimes via ultrasound). Your sex/gender is determined at conception when the male or female sperm first penetrates the ovum (egg). The XX chromosome determines female, and the XY chromosome determines male. The boy from the movie Kindergarten Cop said it wisely, intelligently, with discernment and understanding: "Boys have a penis; girls have a vagina." Like it or lump it, that is the way it is. Period!

Trans-species: These people are attention seekers who are trying to be "unique." This is trans on steroids. These people are so attention-deprived that they will seek attention not only from family and friends, but also from anyone within view. Their delusion knows no boundaries. Some of these people use the demonic practice of "guided meditation," and other New Age mumbo-jumbo, in order to "discover" the species they should have been born as. Many, though not all, of these individuals start out as trans-sexual/trans-gender, and their confusion continues to spin out of control.A woman from Oslo, Norway, calling herself "Nano," claims that she is a cat trapped in a human body. While she has not undergone any body modifications (last I heard), there are those who have. A woman from Chicago, Illinois, Kimberel Eventide, claims to be an elf trapped in a human body, and has had her ears modified to look the part. Others who claim to be vampires trapped in human bodies have had work done on their teeth to look the part. But these are not the worst of this trans role. Richard Hernandez first went through a trans-sexual/trans-gender phase, and is now going through a trans-species phase. Anthony Loffredo is also going through a trans-species phase. These two have chopped off parts of their bodies (ears, nose), split their tongues, had body modifications done to their faces, and tattooed their eyes (which has high risk of blindness).
By the way, what is to stop these people who "identify" as these non-human species from pursuing relationships with said species? All of a sudden you have a case in support of bestiality/zoophilia. "Oh, he/she 'identifies' as a dog? Then why shouldn't he/she be allowed to engage in sexual activity with his/her 'kind'?" Where does the crazy stop and our sensibilities kick in?
Modern society thinks that there is nothing wrong with this? That the rest of us should just "go along with" and "accept" their insane behaviour? This is the result of people not being rooted and grounded in reality! These people are clinically insane! They need help! They need to speak with a legitimate qualified psychiatrist and psychologist. There is nothing "loving" about you embracing their insanity and pretending that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. The most loving thing you could do for them is to tell them the truth!!!

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'  ... For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24

That is the crux of the issue. The entire homosexual and trans dysphoria is a direct attack on God. These people are saying that God was wrong and that they know better than God as to who and what they are. The majority, if not all, of trans individuals are mentally ill, suffering from one to several dysphorias. This is predominantly the result of extremely bad parenting or a lack thereof (meaning these people did not receive enough spankings when they were children and probably got away with murder). Such parents do their children, and society, no good. They are pathetic excuses for parents and should never have been parents to begin with! Parents who let their children choose to be something they are not are horrible parents and should have their children taken away from them. What they are doing by allowing their children to do such is child abuse!

We are being told to ignore biology, science, nature, and the reality before our eyes, and to acknowledge and elevate a person's feelings above biological reality. These people want us to view them as something other than what is biologically accurate. We need to stop pandering to and catering to these people's delusions. They are not and will never be what they are pretending to be. Yes, they are pretending because each and every single one of them knows that they are not these things they are choosing to be! There is something innately wrong with the wiring in these people's brains. They have not been rooted and grounded in reality. Some of these people have been so disconnected from reality, spending much of their time in cosplay and LARP (Live-Action Role-Play), that it has inevitably led to this point in their life. They cannot seem to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. Now they are demanding that the rest of us cow-tow to their fantasy and give breath to their delusion. You are either a heterosexual human male or a heterosexual human female. Period! Anything less is a direct attack against Almighty God.

Likewise, people who feel the need to get all sorts of tattoos and/or piercings all over their body, and who stretch their earlobes (or other parts of their body) to look like uncivilized tribal people, are attention seekers, too. Again, their attention seeking is usually directed at their parents, but they are also attention deprived and will seek it from anyone within view. They try to argue that they are just trying to be "unique," but if everyone else looks just like you, how "unique" are you, really? You can be unique without doing stupid stuff to your body. You do not have to deface and mutilate your body in order to be unique. And doing it just to get attention only demonstrates how much of an idiot you are.

Why I Cannot Recommend the NIV 2011

by James T. Bartsch

The New International Version rests on laudable origins. It was published as a contemporary translation for the evangelical community. The New International Version New Testament was published in 1973.The complete Bible, containing both Old and New Testaments, was first published in 1978, and revised in 1984.

In the Preface to the 1978 version, one reads that "the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form." Further, it was stated, "The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers." In its Constitution, Article II, Section 1 reads as follows: "The purpose of the Committee shall be to prepare a contemporary English translation of the Bible as a collegiate endeavor of evangelical scholars, and to pursue matters related thereto."

Article III Section 3 spoke of membership on the translation committee: "Only those shall be eligible for membership on the Committee who endorse the purpose for which the Committee exists, and who are willing to subscribe to the following affirmation of faith: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographs”; or to the statements on Scripture in the Westminster Confession, the Belgic Confession, the New Hampshire Confession, or the creedal basis of the National Association of Evangelicals; or to some other comparable statement."

In its Preface to the 1984 edition, this assurance was given: " the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form."

On a personal level, I have enjoyed insights gleaned from reading my personal copy of the 1978 version of the NIV. I have studied Hebrew and Greek, but I do not consider myself an expert in either discipline. Nevertheless, there are times when I work rather closely with the original languages. The NIV is translated from a dynamic equivalence point of view, rather than from a more formal  word-for-word correspondence. For that reason, except for a brief time when I resided in Australia between 1978 and 1982, I have not preached from the NIV. There are certain passages in which the NIV is too periphrastic, too interpretive for me. I prefer a translation such as the NASB, which, in my judgment, renders the original languages more precisely. That being said, I have never, until now, actually attempted to dissuade others from using the NIV. What has brought about that change?

The 1984 revision of the NIV did not particularly generate controversy, but with subsequent editions, all bets were off. In fairness to the editors of the NIV, they did not and do not state that they had or have a feminist agenda. Their argument is that language in the Bible must conform to modern usage. But what, I ask, has driven the change in the English language as it relates to masculinity and femininity? It is the political agenda of feminism. Philosophically, the editors of the NIV are committed to the translational philosophy of Dynamic Equivalence. That means they are more committed to the reaction of the receptors of the translation (in this case, the English readers) than they are committed to representing with fidelity the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments. So whether the NIV editors admit it or not, concessions to political feminism became, as codified in 1992, and remain a major goal in their translation work. They have become more concerned about appearing tolerant as defined by the feminist agenda than they are about "the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers." What a tragedy. Let me illustrate with a brief history of the advance of the feminist agenda in the New International Version.

 Continue reading...

The Son of Man

Jesus referred to Himself as the "Son of Man." Out of all the occurrences in the New Testament, 94% of them came from Jesus in reference to Himself. Jews, Muslims, Unitarians, and many cults will point to this and argue that Jesus was simply acknowledging his humanity, saying that He was just a man like any other man. However, that simply is not true. Here we have another instance where Jesus was calling Himself God without having to use the exact words: "I am God."

According to ancient Israelite and near-eastern literature, the only figures who "come on the clouds of heaven" are divine. By referring to Himself as the "Son of Man, Jesus was declaring Himself to be divine; He was declaring Himself to be God in the flesh.

"I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images." Isaiah 42:8

"The LORD has established His throne in the heavens, And His sovereignty rules over all." Psalm 103:19

"For God is the King of all the earth; Sing praises with a skillful psalm. God reigns over the nations, God sits on His holy throne." Psalm 47:7-8

"--for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God--" Exodus 34:14

"Your throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting." Psalm 93:2

"All Your works shall give thanks to You, O LORD, And Your godly ones shall bless You. They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom And talk of Your power; To make known to the sons of men Your mighty acts And the glory of the majesty of Your kingdom. Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And Your dominion endures throughout all generations." Psalm 145:10-13

Anyone Who Does Not Provide For His Own

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." 1 Timothy 5:8

This verse was thrown at me by an "elder" at a Reformed "church." In fact, most people have the idea that this verse is speaking about getting or having a job and supporting your family. Several even use it as a proof-text for the man being the sole breadwinner of the family. Let me ask you a simple question. What is the context of this verse? Go on, read it. I'll wait.

"Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.
Honor widows who are widows indeed; but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. Now she who is a widow indeed and who has been left alone, has fixed her hope on God and continues in entreaties and prayers night and day. But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives. Prescribe these things as well, so that they may be above reproach. But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man, having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge. At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed." 1 Timothy 5:1-16

You cannot lift a single verse out of its context and force it to say something that it does not say! *cough* Mr. de Boer! *cough* Reformed individuals are no better at paying attention to the context of Scripture than any other denomination. The main reason for the poor understanding and interpretation of Scripture across every denomination is due to the addition and existence of chapters and verses. I get that they help you reference smaller portions of Scripture (why they were created in the first place), and I get that they help you memorize Scripture (though frequently taken out of context and misapplied). However, when they are absent from the text, it is harder for you to mangle the text because you are forced to pay attention to the context of what is being said. You do not have distracting chapters and verses falsely telling you that this ends here and this starts here and this verse stands alone.

This entire passage of Scripture is speaking about widows and those who should take care of them. With that understanding, what precisely is verse 8 saying? Wow! Look at that! It takes on an entire different meaning when you actually pay attention to and understand the context. Mr. de Boer needs to take a good hard look at himself in the mirror. He is the kind of religious elitist and hypocrite that Jesus constantly confronted and mocked.

"White Privilege" and "Systemic Racism"

I generally do not like writing political articles on this blog because its primary purpose is for "[studying] . . . rightly dividing the word of truth." But sometimes certain subjects need to be addressed with complete seriousness. Far too many people in this world need to be woken up from their slumber and given a dose of reality and truth. So, here it goes...

"Endemic racism," "foundational racism," "institutional racism," "pernicious racism," or "systemic racism" do not exist! This is a fear-mongering tactic used by Liberals/Democrats to keep black people scared and under their thumbs so that they will continue to vote for them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evd_uwHgXeA). Liberals/Democrats are the ones who hate blacks, using them to further their own agenda. Liberals/Democrats know that if black people wake up and learn the truth, they have lost the vote . . . probably forever. Whether you are white or black, pull your head out of the sand, stop believing the false narrative, get educated and inform yourself as to the truth! Since nobody wants to listen to a white person when they discuss the facts, here are several videos of black people discussing this issue, dismantling it, and destroying it. STOP believing and peddling the LIE!!!

Larry Elder Challenges "Systemic Racism"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqVNPwsLNo

Larry Elder on "Systemic Racism"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFrfV-y_VC8

Candace Owens and Larry Elder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR2lK36Tc4M

Larry Elder: Where's the Proof of "Systemic Racism"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3nInyPuFE

David Webb: The USA is NOT Institutionally Racist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv7hsiUirUU

What Most "Experts" Aren't Telling You During Black History Month
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwUbx6Y1Zgo

Let us call things by their proper names. Prejudice and discrimination exist. If you do not like fat people or extremely skinny people, that is prejudice and can be (but is not necessarily) discrimination. Guess what? You have the right to dislike whoever you want to dislike; you do not have the right to lay a hand on them, however. It does not matter who it is or what they look like.

Some people have this idea that if they see blacks and whites together, it is because of guilt or some underlying ulterior nonsense. That they could not possibly like each other and get along, or that they should not be married to one another. Sorry, but that is true of you alone. You are the one projecting your feelings and thoughts upon everyone else (whether you are white or black). You think and feel these things and therefore attempt to accuse others of thinking and feeling them also. Many blacks and whites genuinely get along without any guilt or underlining ulterior nonsense. Many genuinely love each other. (You idiots push "love is love" for gays but reject it for blacks and whites? Who is the real "racist" here, bub?) How can this be possible? Because they see each other as human beings and not as colours.

Take your argument and apply it to white people with different coloured hair: "There's no way that redhead could be friends with that blonde. There's no way that brunette could love that blonde. It's gotta be because of some guilt or underlying ulterior issue. There's systemic hate against blondes." Do you see how stupid that sounds? I have worked with many black people, and I get along famously with them. I have worked with Indians and Asians as well. I love them all. They are people just like I am a person. I do not see them as any different. If you are going to make a big deal out of their melanin, then it is you who has the problem. STOP projecting your guilt, feelings, thoughts, and prejudices upon everyone else!

"White privilege" also does not exist. Wealth-based privilege does; power-based privilege does; fame-based privilege does.

Black Man Accused of "White Privilege" by Black Woman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAlig2jW7SA

"White Guilt": A Trend That Needs to Die
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at0t53G3C7U

Tell me, what kind of "privilege" does a poor white person who grew up on Welfare living in a trailer park have compared to a black person whose parents are a doctor and a lawyer and pull in a six-figure income? Who is the privileged party in that scenario? Do not get duped by the "critical race theory" asininity. When people talk about "race relations," it never includes anything outside of black and white. It has to do with what black people feel about white people, and what white people feel about what black people feel about white people.

PRIV·I·LEGE n. a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

According to that definition, who are privileged individuals? Visible minorities! Homosexuals. Trans_____ (fill in the blank). Muslims. The Left-wing SJW hypocrites determine that every "minority group" gets an automatic win on the basis of being "underdogs" (which will soon include bestiality/zoophilia and pedophilia). Look at Hollywood, big media, and big tech in their support of Islam. Big tech "guidelines" are one-sided, always favouring Muslims; the same argument never applies to any other religion. Muslims complain about "offensive" speech, and big tech removes the so-called "offense." If you quote the Qur'an and Islam's trusted commentaries and expose the hateful and offensive speech contained within, big tech removes your stuff for pointing out the hateful and offensive speech of Islam against everyone else. Amazon will remove items that "offend" Muslims, but if a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu contacts them about items that offend them, they are told to suck it up and the items remain for sale. Hypocrite much, Amazon? The same goes for eBay and other companies, too. Muslims are privileged because people are caving in to their demands and letting them have their way. When was the last time you saw restaurants and grocery stores having to provide kosher foods for Jews? And yet they have to provide halal foods for Muslims. Hmm... Seems the scales are unjustly tipped in someone's favour.

Here is a news flash concerning the black slave trade. In the 6th century, Muhammad bought, sold, and traded black slaves (Sahih al-Bukhari 6161, 7263; Sunan an-Nasai 4625). Muhammad called blacks "raisin head" (Hadith 1:663; 9:256) and valued them as half the worth of an Arab (Sunan an-Nasai 4625). Muslims were the first, and are the longest running, black slave traders on the planet. Muslim countries signed pieces of paper in the late 20th century (after the rest of the world) to stop their black slave trade, but it continues to occur to this day! By the way, Muhammad was white (too many references to list), so black people who embrace Islam are not only ignorant but they are also basically agreeing with the slave trade. Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr. and Mike Tyson are two of the most famous black people to be duped by the lies of Islam.

When the Europeans got into the black slave trading market, white men did not attack and kidnap blacks. Do you honestly think that the blacks did not know how to fight, and that they could not defend themselves against a few white men on a boat? Black kings of various tribes sold their own people (usually those considered criminals) in exchange for arms in order to defend themselves against other black tribes. People are taught to blame the white man when it was the black man who sold his own brother into slavery. If you are going to attempt to claim that your ancestors were stolen from Africa, then how about you get a backbone, grow a pair, renounce your citizenship in North America, and hop the first flight back to Africa. If you had it so great there, then why do you not return? We all know that you will never do such a thing because you are full of nothing but hot air. We have called your bluff, now grow up!

The Regressive Left is nothing but an echo chamber for morons. If you do not include one or more blacks as part of something, they accuse you of "systematic racism"; if you do include one or more blacks as part of something, they accuse you of "minstrelsy." You cannot win for losing because the Regressive Left has no rules for the mindless games they play; they make it up as they go, and no matter what you do you lose. The Regressive Left are simple-minded anti-intellectual know-nothing half-wit idiots who cannot provide a single coherent argument for the stupid things they believe and argue over. They are a collective hive-mind whose combined IQ would barely be enough to toast a piece of bread . . . lightly. They are incapable of thinking for themselves, having to be told what they should believe. If any of them ever has an original thought, what little brains they have will likely explode. The Regressive Left pushes the idea of "systemic racism" because, as Candace Owens has said, "The people that are shouting 'racism' the loudest are the racists." The Regressive Left hates America; but even more than that, they hate people who do the right thing. They do not possess an ounce of honesty, integrity, decency, ethics, morals, honour, class, or character.

The Regressive Left is gaslighting people with fake news of "endemic racism," "foundational racism," "institutional racism," "pernicious racism," and "systemic racism." Yes, certain people are prejudiced against black people. Yes, certain people are also prejudiced against white people. You are allowed to dislike whomever you want, but you are not allowed to lay a hand on them. That is the law! Was Officer Chauvin to blame for the death of George Floyd? Absolutely! No doubt about it. If someone is resisting, you are allowed to use reasonable force to make them comply. The way Officer Chauvin was sitting on Floyd's neck was not "reasonable." It was dangerous. In fact, if this officer had any brains, his training (or at least common sense) would have informed him that Floyd was in trouble. He could see his face with his own eyes; he could hear his voice with his own ears; and he could feel his body beneath him. Hell, if I am goofing off and wrestling with another person and I apply too much strength, I sure as hell have the intelligence to discern it and back off. So what the hell was Officer Chauvin's excuse? With that said, one bad apple does not make the entire bushel bad. If you have a crooked officer, you get him fired. You do not blame every other officer out there, including black officers, and demand such stupidity as "defunding the police." Use your brains, people!

The Regressive Left is using this event as a smokescreen, gaslighting the ignorant who cannot tell when they are being manipulated and controlled into doing the Left's bidding. Their media coverage of the event is purposefully designed to instill fear and fuel hatred, inciting people to a mob mentality and violence. It is fake news. It is like this: If a homosexual harassed and physically assaulted a Christian, the Regressive Left would not report on it for even one second. They would ignore it, deny it, and rate it as factually false. But if a Christian struck a homosexual in self-defense, the Regressive Left would throw the book at him and report the hell out it, making the Christian to blame and accusing him of hatred and violence. The homosexual will be painted as an innocent bystander who was minding his own business. How many white men get killed by police officers every year? How many white men get killed by black police officers every year? Do you ever hear anything about this? No, you do not! But, if one black man gets killed by police officers, even if by a black police officer, you will never hear the end of it. The Regressive Left will use and abuse that story, exaggerate it, and report the hell out of it, milking it for all it is worth. You could have a single black man killed by a police officer once in five years, and the Regressive Left media will spin it as if it happens every single day. It is a fear-mongering tactic used by the Liberals/Democrats to keep black people under their thumb.

How is a single black man being killed by a police officer supposedly evidence of "perpetual" police brutality and supposed "systemic racism"? Please! Do yourself a favour and look up the statistics. This is why nobody wants to debate Larry Elder on this issue because he will bury them alive with facts and evidence. The incident with George Floyd is tragic, and Officer Chauvin is entirely at fault. But do not take one bad egg and create a false narrative that says all police officers step out on the job with the single thought in mind, "I need to kill me a black man today." That is sheer stupidity and blind ignorance. When dealing with police, regardless of your ethnicity or colour, when they tell you something, do as you are told. They have a job to do, which is often stressful enough without you adding to it, so let them do their job. Give them the benefit of the doubt; and if it is a crooked cop, or you feel you were wronged, get their name and badge number and you can deal with it later. How would you like to be shot at all the time and have people trying to knife you and everything else?

Now, as a point of fact for the fascists of the Regressive Left who like to name call and use ad hominem, who like to project what is true of themselves on everyone else, and who falsely accuse people of real and imagined crimes they never committed, listen closely... I do not have a "racist" bone in my body. I love and dislike all people equally. Nyakim Gatwech, known as The Queen of Dark, is one of the darkest women models in the world. While some idiot Uber driver told her she should bleach her incredibly dark skin (which would be "racist" [it is in quotes because the correct term is prejudiced]), there is nothing she needs to change. She is absolutely stunning. If she had green skin like Gomora from Guardians of the Galaxy or Garona from WarCraft, or even blue skin like Neytiri from Avatar, she would still be gorgeous. If she were the woman God intended me to be with, I would not hesitate for even one second. Regardless of and inclusive of her skin colour, she is a beautiful woman. Why do people think the below photo is not or cannot be genuine and sincere? That it is somehow "unnatural"? Why does there have to be guilt from any side? Why does there have to be some underlying ulterior nonsense? Sorry, but if you honestly think that way, then it is you who has the problem and you are projecting your own inadequacies upon the rest of human civilization. The rest of us see human beings; amazing people to be friends with, hang out with, and even love.

Who is guilty of fear-mongering black people and constantly feeding them a false narrative? The Regressive Left! Hollywood, the media, and academia. These people are pathological liars! They would not know the truth if it bit them in the derriere. If you know any such Left-wing nuts, cut these cancerous individuals out of your life until they grow up! Get educated; inform yourself! An educated mind cannot be enslaved.

Christians In Touch With "Jewish Roots"?

Have you ever heard certain Christians speak about getting in touch with their "Jewish roots"?

Guess what?

Christianity does not have its roots in Judaism! Judaism is not the root of Christianity! Yes, both Christianity and Judaism share the same foundational faith of the Old Testament. However, modern Judaism contradicts both Old and New Testament faith. It borrows from Old Testament faith-practices, but has added myriad traditions and laws never spoken by God. As Jesus rebuked them for in His day, they "teach as doctrines the commandments of men," "neglect the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men," and "reject the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition."

If you are a Christian and you have been conditioned (brainwashed) by Dispensationism's bankrupt theology into believing that Christianity has its roots in Judaism, it is time you learned the truth. While the early Christians were Jews, they were not followers of Judaism. Paul wrote to the Galatians, "For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism [the Jews' religion], how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism [the Jews' religion] beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions" (1:13-14).

Information on sites like Wikipedia claim that Christianity is rooted in Second Temple Judaism, and that is entirely false! The faith of Abraham had nothing to do with Second Temple Judaism, and this is what Paul tells us: "Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. ... Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. ... For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. ... There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:7, 16, 26, 28-29).

Ignorant individuals like to cry "anti-semitism" anytime something does not support the Jews. I guess Jesus was the biggest "anti-semite" ever because he constantly stood against its leaders and their hypocrisy. In fact, despite the apostle John being a Jew, his Gospel is apparently highly "anti-semitic," written as someone completely removed from Judaism. However, it is more likely that by the use of "the Jews" John is referring to Jesus' opponents who rejected Him and His message, especially the nation's leaders.

The Old and New Covenants are one continual revelation of Christ Jesus! The New Testament Congregation is the continuation and fulfillment of the Old Testament faith, joining Jews and Gentiles of authentic faith into one body for eternity. Judaism is a corruption borne out of rebellion against God. Neither Jesus nor Paul accepted Judaism as authentic faith! John 10:16; Acts 1:6-8; Romans 2:28-29; Romans 9-11; Galatians 3; Ephesians 2:11-3:13; 1 Peter2:9-10; et al, make it clear that true Israel (Christ Jesus) consists of believing Jews and Gentiles together, for which the Old Testament repeatedly prophesied the Gentile inclusion. It is expansion theology!

Christianity and Judaism are as different as night and day.

Where Calvinists Err Theologically

No denominational system of theology is without errors, and no denominational system of theology has a monopoly on truth; least of all Calvinism. Furthermore, there are not just two options: Calvinism versus Arminianism. Our systems of theology cannot and must not be our authorities when it comes to doctrine, church practice, family life, and personal holiness; what we believe and practice. Our absolute and final authority must be the Word of God! Neither Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, Baptistism, Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism, Methodism, Adventism, nor Pentecostalism are the answer. The answer is a firm foundation in and upon Scripture—the Word of God!

Calvinists have sanctification out of place. They make an idol out of not making idols, emphasizing things more than the Bible does. You see, God does not need our good works—our neighbours do! All our good deeds, our sanctification, our abilities and skill sets, our responsibilities in various roles, are for the benefit of those around us; our families, our friends, our society, our neighbours, and even our enemies. Our faith makes us righteous with God and it keeps us righteous with God. Our sanctification neither makes us right with God nor keeps us right with God.

Calvinists blur the lines between justification and sanctification. They look to sanctification for assurance that one is right with God. This will do one of two things: (1) It fills us with discouragement for constantly missing the mark, filling us with self-doubt for applying subjective measures to assess our level of sanctification in order to determine our justification; or (2) It fills us with self-righteousness for fulfilling criteria we created, casting judgment upon others who do not meet that criteria.

Calvinists have functionally placed sanctification above justification. They put an emphasis on God with obedience to the Law, which perpetuates an inward focus, which results in the two problems above. Luther, on the other hand, placed the perfect work of Christ Jesus in justification over the incomplete process of sanctification. We are to look extra nos (outside ourselves) toward the righteousness of faith, which is our justification, for our assurance. This is where we find identity, stability, objectivity, and security. My security in the faith has nothing to do with my sanctification.

Martin Luther was truly committed to Sola Fide (by faith alone). His primary emphasis was in serving your neighbour through your vocation (whatever gifts God has given you). This is what the Body of Christ is called to do with each other in order to edify one another (build each other up). This emphasis maintains a distinction between our identity found in our righteousness of faith, which we receive from God (passive righteousness) versus our performance that we live out for the benefit of our neighbour (active righteousness). Christians should be seeking both kinds of righteousness!

We need to guard against our good works becoming the basis for our righteousness before God (as the Catholics practice), but we also need to guard against our righteousness of faith being used to eliminate the need for good works (as many Protestants practice). Our good works have value here on Earth (coram mundo - righteousness in the eyes of the world) but do not justify us before God (coram Deo - righteousness in the eyes of the Lord). These two need to be kept separate.

Three Uses of the Law

1. Civil: It serves as a curb for all of us; fear of punishment for going too far.
2. Condemnatory: It serves as a mirror, accusing and keeping consciences in fear.
3. Didactic: It serves as a guide. This is exclusive to Christians; empowered by the Holy Spirit, showing us how to live in a sinful world with remnants of sin while being forgiven.

The first two uses are coram Deo; God's Law condemns. Even the Christian's best actions before God are sinful. The last use is coram mundo; how to treat neighbours, how to be faithful in our families, and how to live lives of holiness. The second use of the Law crushes us and should drive us to the cross. Jesus carried the load of the Law so that we would not have to! That is the point of the Gospel.

 

For Luther, the second use was the primary, and he is correct. When we share the Gospel with others, we need to use the Law first as a mirror to show them their sinfulness and need for a Saviour. Otherwise the Good News makes no sense. For Calvinists, the third use is primary.

Two Kinds of Righteousness

1. Coram Mundo: righteousness before each other and the world; horizontal; active
2. Coram Deo: righteousness before God; vertical; passive

Sanctified lives will not justify us! That is merely behavioural modification. Justification is a completed work. Sanctification is a partial and incompleted work. Coram mundo is where we are active. Coram Deo is where we are passive; Jesus did it all. Obedience naturally flows after justification. You cannot influence God with/by your works.

A fruit check does not determine whether one has been born again or not. Faith is where the evidence is. If you believed and trusted in Jesus in the past, you will be believing and trusting in Him today, and you will continue to believe and trust in Him in the future. If our faith justifies us and God has saved and baptized us, then we set our gaze outside of ourselves by serving others. We should be serving our neighbour.

When you are struggling with sin or doubting your salvation, you do not look inside yourself at your sanctification for evidence of your justification! You look outside yourself to the Person and work of Christ Jesus! Righteousness is extra nos ("apart from us" or "outside of us").

I have a confession to make, an apology to issue, and forgiveness to ask for. In the past, I have used 1 John as a litmus test for genuine faith. That is not what John wrote this epistle for. John was not trying to give a test to check if our faith is genuine. He was not writing doubting Christians to give them tests to see if they are saved or not. He was writing against anti-nomianism and sending warnings against the heresies of the proto-Gnostics. By using 1 John as a litmus test for genuine faith, preachers (and myself) are ripping the epistle out of context and eisegeting it. First John is not a test of genuine Christianity! Justification is not determined by sanctification.