by Paul Joseph Watson
Documents recently obtained by the ACLU show that the government warned the 9/11 Commission against getting to the bottom of the September 11 terror attacks in a letter signed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet.
In a letter dated January 6, 2004, the Commission was refused permission to question terrorist detainees, with inquiry leaders Hamilton and Kean being told there was “A line that the Commission should not cross,” in the course of its investigation.
A PDF of the letter (page 26) can be read here.
The government urged the Commission, “Not to further pursue the proposed request to participate in the questioning of detainees,” according to the letter, citing the need to “Safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks.”
The warning was just one example of how the Bush administration fiercely struggled to prevent the 9/11 Commission from conducting a deeper probe into the attacks. Bush and Cheney refused to appear before the Commission separately and both refused to testify under oath, instead meeting with panel members informally and in private, with no recordings of the meeting allowed.
“It appears that David Addington took the lead on refusing the 9/11 Commission’s request,” writes the FireDogLake blog. “It appears Addington got the draft of the letter from 9/11 Commission–which was addressed to Rummy and George Tenet. Tenet and Addington clearly had a conversation about how to respond. But it seems that Addington drafted the response, got Condi, Andy Card, and Alberto Gonzales to review it, and then sent it to Tenet (and, presumably, Rummy) to okay and sign the letter.”
As FireDogLake rightly points out, this was part of an attempt to cover-up the systematic torture of detainees which did not fully come to light until the Abu Ghraib scandal was exposed in April 2004.
However, the refusal to allow access to detainees was also undoubtedly so that the Commission members couldn’t later blow the whistle on the fact that the men were nothing more than patsies and goat herders who had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks.
As we have constantly emphasized in the face of establishment media spin that has demonized the mere act of questioning the official 9/11 story, the majority of the 9/11 Commission members themselves have all gone on record to publicly slam the official story as untrue.
The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – said that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.
Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a “national scandal”, stated in a 2003 PBS interview,
“I’m saying that’s deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing… series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked… the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration’s policy was, and its priority was, we’re gonna take Saddam Hussein out.” – More here.
Missing Scripture Found?: Dead Sea Tablet Indicates Christianity Was the Original Religion of the Jews
Dead Sea tablet suggests Jewish resurrection imagery pre-dates Jesus
by Ofri Ilani, Haaretz Correspondent
The premise that the Messiah died and was resurrected after three days is considered the foundation of the Christian faith, one which differentiates it from Judaism. Through the generations, this belief stood at the center of the debate between Christians and Jews. But now, a mysterious tablet from the time of the second temple has led researchers to believe that this premise of messianic resurrection is not unique to Christianity, but rather existed in Judaism years before Jesus was born.
The tablet, which has been dubbed “Gabriel’s vision” because much of its text deals with a vision of the apocalypse transmitted by the angel Gabriel, was discovered eight years ago, but a large part of it is illegible and researchers have had difficulty interpreting its meaning.
Israel Knohl, a professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has offered a new interpretation of this text recently, which has sparked interest in the Christian realm. Knohl’s interpretation could shed light on the history of Jesus and the way Christianity grew out of Judaism.
“Gabriel’s vision,” a previously unknown prophetic text written in the first century B.C.E., was written on a large gray limestone tablet. In the center of the text, which includes quotes from the Bible and prophetic verses, there is an image of the angel Gabriel. The tablet was not discovered in an organized archaeological excavation, therefore the location of its discovery is not clear. Some believe it was found in Jordan on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea.
The New York Times reported recently that the tablet was bought from a Jordanian antiquities dealer by an Israeli-Swiss collector who kept it in his Zurich home. When an Israeli scholar examined it closely a few years ago and wrote a paper on it last year, interest began to rise. There is now a spate of scholarly articles on the stone, with several due to be published in the coming months. – Source. More information
I was wondering if I was the first one to use the phrase, “Proof is relative” which I said in my previous post, and wondering how many people cared enough enough to say it. Using Google I found what seems to be 70 relevant search resultson the first 7 pages (5 were from books.google) and one on the 8th page), the rest of the results seemed to be on other topic. In Google’s record of books I found what are seem to me to be 121 100% relative results, even though some of the content was hidden in some books. It’s good to know I’m not alone in knowing something that is more important to know than most things in this world to think logically, but that only 186 people wrote it down out of many billions both living and dead… I believe it’s a sign of why this world is so “chaotic” and full of strife: people fighting to change another’s views to the point of harm, not realizing that they aren’t necessarily right just because they believe what they do. That doesn’t mean that no one should try to persuade or even harm another person in order to “wake them up”, but that many people try to persuade or harm because they believe they are right merely because they believe it, and not based on any actual evidence they can point to or explain. Many, upon hearing/reading that usually then ask, “And can anyone know that they are absolutely right (that the evidence they believe to be true is absolute evidence?)”. You can know if, 1) you feel the evidence whether in the form of an objec, actiont or statement makes sense and feel no doubt, and not just the feeling alone, but can point out the object, action or statement, and finally, irrefutable evidence comes if God gives you the trust in the evidence himself, also known as “faith”. But how can you know your faith is from God? At the moment, I don’t know, but when if I realize the answer, I’ll edit this entry soon Lord willing.
Here is a fuller truth that I thought of about three minutes ago (while typing out this sentence), that I think everyone must know to live a fully joyful life:
Proof is relative, but truth is absolutely true whether or not a person believes it or not.
And without full logical thinking, I doubt you can have a fully joyful life, so, live logically.
Eurostar: cold weather traps 2,000 in Channel Tunnel
Around 2,000 passengers were trapped in the Channel Tunnel overnight as four Eurostar trains broke down amid freezing temperatures that have brought travel chaos to Britain. More here.
Wonk wonk wonk wooooooooooooooooooooonk. So much for global warming, oh no wait, now it’s just “climate change”. LOL! Global Warmers are such gullible dupes and liars.
Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. (Mark 8:35)
What is the gospel? Is it, “accept Jesus into your heart and be baptized with water for the forgiveness of sins”?
Many deceivers have gone out into the world to mislead people about salvation, either on purpose or by accident. Here I show all the verses that are used most to teach the heresy that baptism is what saves a person or what is necessary to.
One heretical Lutheran church deceptively says,
“Holy Baptism, water applied in the Name of the Triune God according to Jesus’ institution (Matthew 28:19), truly saves (1 Peter 3:21), causes one to be born again (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)”
Notice they don’t quote the verses? On their page they don’t so so, all you have to do is search for the above quote and see that. If baptism is so important for salvation, why don’t they quote the verses? I will:
“and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[a] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21)
Notice it doesn’t say “baptism saves you” as these liars try to make it appear? It says, “this water symbolizes baptism“. How did they “miss” that word? And notice they didn’t reference the verses that came before that? Why not? It’s because it showed that this verse wasn’t talking about being saved by water. The verse, in context clearly shows that:
“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous [man died] for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism” (1 Peter 3:18-21).
Notice that this passage, 1 Peter 3:18-21, is talking about Christ’s death to save us, and his preaching to SPIRITS in Hell? Can spirits be baptized? No, because water is material and water doesn’t atone for sin, Christ taking God’s anger upon himself for the sins of those he came to save is what atoned for it, not having water sprinkled on you or going under it. And how was Noah saved or any of the Christians who lived before John the Baptist of Christ was born? Noah didn’t immerse himself in water nor did any of his family according to Scripture, they avoided the rain and flood by getting in the ark, which symbolized Christ’s body. The ark shielded them from the water and kept them from going into it. So not only does that negate the claim that you must go under water to be saved, it negates the claim that you have to be baptized at all to be saved. Just like Peter said, it’s symbolic. None of those before John the Baptism came needed baptism, so why would it would be needed when Christ was born?
More obviously symbolic language concerning baptism:
“for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Galatians 3:27)
When a person is baptized do they suddenly have the body of Jesus on them like clothing?
That Lutheran church also quotes Matthew 28:19, which says,
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”
Does that say baptism saves? No. If it did and was required, then God, speaking through the apostle Paul would not have said,
“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1 Corinthians 1:17).
Another verse they used is,
“I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” (John 3:5)
Would this church like to explain how you can be “born of water”? If they can’t, why do they claim it’s talking about baptism? Again they fail to accept that Jesus didn’t always speak literally. Water symbolizes God’s word:
Just three chapters later after John 3:5, Jesus said,
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)
And what came before John 3:5?:
“For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.” (John 3:34)
So, the Lutherans took God’s WORD out of context again. And here is where God make it clear that water represents his word:
“He sends his word and melts them; he stirs up his breezes, and the waters flow.” (Psalm 147:18)
“The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters, but the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.” (Proverbs 18:4)
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:25-27)
Does God literally want husbands to take pages from the Bible or pieces of paper with verses on it and to rub them against their wives? Obviously not. The Bible also symbolizes Christ as the future husband of the of church, and once as the husband of Israel, which represent the true church.
“Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16)
Ironically this verse is used by those who believe in baptism as one of two key verses that are evidence that we must be baptized to be saved. But notice that the second half of what Jesus said leaves out baptism as being a requirement. I imagine however that it could be argued that Jesus was merely emphasizing the importance of faith, and that it’s more important that baptism, because baptism alone is useless, however that’s not the only verse on baptism as I’ve shown here. Furthermore, Jesus did not say even in this passage that baptism is necessary to be saved, anymore than Jesus said, “Unless you obey God’s Law you cannot be saved” which many false Christians of all types teach, except Calvinists types (which is twisted from the verse, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21). Ironically, many Lutherans realize that that verse isn’t teaching that you can be saved by obeying God’s laws or doing good deeds, and realize that Jesus was saying that obedience is evidence that you have been saved, why then do they fail to see that baptism is also evidence, especially when they quote 1 Peter 3:21, which again, says, “…symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.” For the person who goes through baptism it is evidence to them that they are saved especially, since they know their own heart, but those judges on the outside, only have their words and behavior to go through, and can’t feel what another person feels.
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”, said by Peter.
Notice that neither Jesus nor Peter did not say “with water”? Notice that Jesus didn’t say, “but whoever is not baptized” let alone, “ but whoever is not baptized with water“? No, the emphasis instead was on faith. For, “without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6).
The Lutheran liars also reference Titus 3:5, which ironically refutes that baptism is necessary, it says,
“he saved us, not because of righteous things we have done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”
First, where does that verse say, “water” anywhere? And how is “rebirth” a word for “water”? Rebirth is an action, a verb, not an object or a noun. Second: He is talking about the action of the Spirit entirely: it says that the rebirth and renewal is by the Holy Spirit, not, “rebirth by water baptism and renewal by the Holy Spirit“. Third: How in the world did they miss the first part of that verse!?: “he saved us, NOT BECAUSE OF THE RIGHTEOUS THINGS WE HAVE DONE, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS MERCY”. How hard is it to understand “things we have done” unless you are severely spiritually blind to the truth, so blind you can’t figure out how to be saved? Or are there any Lutherans or anyone else who would like to argue that baptism isn’t a “righteous act”? Putting words in God’s mouth is a sin, it’s like adding to his word words which aren’t there.
Another key passage used by those who believe that baptism is necessary is the first verse of this passage:
“Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ Jesus replied, ‘Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.” (Matthew 3:13-15)
The problem is that Jesus didn’t need to be saved, and that is what baptism is for according to baptism-for-salvation-believers (b.s.b.’s). So then why did Jesus get baptized?: Jesus said, “for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness”; in order for us to be saved someone perfect had to obey all of God’s laws perfectly. If God had commanded God-followers to be baptized, and that seems to be the case since John the Baptism was baptizing many, and even Jesus went to be baptized, then it would make sense that Jesus was fulfilling this law in order to cover any Christians who had failed to be baptized or perhaps, Christians who when being baptized, weren’t having pure thoughts at the time. So, Jesus was fulfilling a law in the place of those he came to save, just as he fulfilled the law of a thanksgiving sacrifice or sacrifices, observing the Passover, and other obsolete Old Testament laws.
Also, it seems as if John the Baptism was saying he wasn’t baptized, if this is the case, how could an unsaved man be baptizing others? And if he had been baptized, and was already saved, why would he need Jesus to baptize him? So it makes no sense that baptism is a requirement for forgiveness/salvation.
If that still doesn’t convince you, here is one verse that should at least make you seriously doubt it:
“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” – 1 Corinthians 1:17
In context, Paul was saying that it was wrong for the Corinthians to boast about who baptized them or seek I suppose, to be baptized by a certain person. Someone might argue that that is why Paul said what he did, not because baptism wasn’t necessary to be saved, but, notice Paul did not say, “For Christ did not send me to baptize in my name or anyone elses name…”, he simply implied that it was the gospel that saves unlike baptism. And suppose someone argues that it was “understood” that Paul meant “not baptize in my name or some other mere human”, I believe they would be wrong, because, “God is not the author of confusion”, and I think he would be, if that is what he meant, but did not say it. I believe God is the author of simple, medium, and hard to understand things, but not confusion.
And for whoever believes that water baptism is required for eternal life (including you anti-Trinitarians), even though the Bible never states that it is, why then don’t you believe the Bible when it does state, and emphatically,
“Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.'” (John 6:53)?
Why do you accept one part which is not plainly stated, and reject the other that is, and with great emphasis on it being true? If Jesus clearly here is not being literal, why can’t you accept then that neither he nor the his disciples or apostles ever said that you must touch or go under water for eternal life?
And in what verse does it say that Jesus baptized Mary when she cried at the feet of Jesus? Instead he forgave her right after wards, to the anger the Pharisees. And in what verse does it say that Jesus baptized the blind men he healed after they called out to him for sight? What verse says that Jesus while crucified baptized the thief that turned to him who was also crucified? If baptism was necessary for salvation, so much so that even Jesus needed to be baptized, then he condemned to eternal death those he forgave without baptizing them. So then the people who teach that baptism are necessary are not healed of their sins, but still blind and off to the side of the path of life.
The gospel is:
“How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!'” (Isaiah 52:7)
“Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
”The Spirit of the Lord is on me,because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.'” (Luke 4:14-19/Isaiah 61:1-2)
“Like cold water to a weary soul is good news from a distant land.”
According to the Bible, God controls all things, and indirectly controls our will through our emotions (heart). But since he does not directly control our will, we are still responsible for our emotions. It’s like when you get an animal to move in the direction you want by leading it with food.
“The king’s heart is in the hand of Yahweh; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.” – Proverbs 21:1
“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’
Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you might say to me:
‘Then why does God still blame us? For who [can] resist his will?’
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?” – Romans 9:17-21
When the Pagan Romans began mass murdering the Christians of Rome, and later when these Pagans started becoming Catholic making a pagan Christianity, they began to dominate the world, at what little true Christians were left they tried to kill too. I’m not saying that they knew who the true Christians were, but that because of their ignorance, or misundertanding, and Satan’s influence of their heart (God controls the heart of Satan), they would end up killing Christians who were truly forgiven by God. This went on for hundreds of years, and whether or not there were any true Christians left, I don’t know, or whether over the years there would be some Catholics, who when they read the Bible, become a true Christian, I don’t know, because for hundreds of years there is no record of any Christian who wasn’t a heretic. Even Martin Luther, when he understood the Bible more correctly, even he did not seem to be forgiven, and I say this because he thought that you must be baptized to be forgiven, which is what people who don’t understand the Bible correctly on the subject of salvation tend to believe, or always believe. People who believe you must be baptized to be forgiven also usually believe you must earn your salvation/forgiveness, and according to the Bible, no one can earn salvation, and those who try are only angering God more, because God requires perfect obedience.
“In regard to baptism, [Luther] taught that it brought justification only when conjoined with [faith in God], but that it contained the foundation of salvation even for those who might later fall.” – http://www.tlogical.net/bioluther.htm
In other words he thought that belief in the Bible being God’s word, and that God existed and had the power to save and could save, combined with being baptised, would save you, and that even if you later lost faith in these things, that baptism somehow kept you forgiven of your sins.
“Further, we [Lutherans] say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid…
Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does NOT become invalid…” – The Large Catechism (Infant Baptism), Martin Luther
About John Calvin:
“Calvin taught two sacraments: baptism and the Lord’s supper. He differed from sacramentalists [like Luther] who believed that the sacraments were a means of receiving justifying grace. Rather, they are the badges, or marks, of Christian profession, testifying to God’s grace.” – http://www.theopedia.com/John_Calvin
Another biography of Calvin: http://www.tlogical.net/biocalvin.htm
Calvinism is the teaching that (though we all start out sinless) that we sin and become more sinful from then on, becoming more and more addicted to disobeying God and hardened against the truth, and that we can’t break free from this unless God changes our heart and enables us to understand how to truly be forgiven of our sins (the key being that we must trust that Jesus obeyed God’s laws perfectly in our place, that Jesus suffered and died for all of our past and future sins, including the sin of disbelief in God or rejecting him in anger – and rejecting him is always an act of anger, and trusting that you are forgiven forever and will never end up in Hell or be punished forever in any way then.)
Calvin did not say exactly those things as I said them, but he did in his own way, and it’s because of the Bible, and God’s work through him, that there are many true Christians today.
Martin Luther, the German Refonner, was born at Eisleben (23 m w. of Halle) Nov. 10, 1483, and died there Feb. 18, 1546. His father, Hans, was a miner, formerly living at Mohra, while his mother, Margarete (nee Ziegler), came from a family of the middle clans. …
Calvin’s teaching’s are:
1) That humanity is totally morally corrupted. Due to the Fall, the original relationship that Adam and Eve enjoyed with God was severed by sin. This affected the entire human race, corrupting the heart, mind, and will of every person born.
In other words he meant that no human whom God has not forgiven and whose heart he has not changed, is considered good by God (no one can feel love for God till God changes their heart, so any attempt to obey God will always fall short of being pure/good). That is a Biblical teaching:
“All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” – Psalm 14:3
Now whether or not Calvin needed to say, “Totally” or “Completely” corrupt, I don’t know, since it seems to mean that a person if unforgiven can’t do anything right at all, but the Bible doesn’t teach that. I don’t think most Christians, even Calvinists, believe that a person if not saved/forgiven, can’t do anything right, but we believe that the unsaved/unforgiven will always fail by not loving God when they obey him, like a child who obeys a parent, but hates the parent.
Psalm 53:2-4 (New International Version)
“God looks down from heaven on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
ny who seek God:
Everyone has turned away,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Will the evildoers never learn—
those who devour my people as men eat bread
and who do not call on God?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered.
“No one is good—except God alone.”
Jesus didn’t mean that he wasn’t good, he was speaking in a riddle, saying that he was God, and that God is the source of moral perfection, and is really the only one who is good because he does not need anyone to keep him good, but is by nature good.
“You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” – Romans 5:6-8
2) Calvin taught “unconditional election”. That is the teaching that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon foreseen faith (especially a mere decisional faith). God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation. This is based on various verses, including these ones:
[the children of the Jewish Christian Rebekah] had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. – Romans 9:10-16
3) Calvin taught “limited atonement” which is the doctrine/teaching that Jesus only died for all the sins of a limited number of people, and not every human ever born.
This is based on the verses which teach that some will go to Hell, and suffer for their sins. If Jesus had died for the sins of all, then then it wouldn’t make sense for anyone to suffer for them, because Jesus already did so God would not get angry again after having already satisfied his justice. For God to punish someone for what Jesus already suffered for, would be unjust and would mean that Jesus suffered for no logical reason, since God knowsthe future and so did Jesus, so then why would Jesus suffer for someone who wouldn’t need it? It’s unbelievable. Here is a verse which shows that Jesus did not obey God/suffer/die for everyone:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven [which are the true Christians whoses hearts God changed]. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'” – Matthew 7:21-23 and,
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the [most lowly of those in need], you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” – Matthew 25:44-46 and,
“there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people… if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.” – 2 Peter 2:1-9
4) Calvin taught “irresistible grace” which is the teaching that:
a) God’s love for a person, and
b) the Holy Spirit allowing them to understand the knowledge given to them of how to be forgiven – knowledge given to them by someone preaching to them – and
c) the Spirit changing their heart to be sorrowful and regret disobeying God, and
d) the Spirit causing them to decide to stop disobeying God (which is called repenting of sin), and
e) the Spirit causing that person to call out to God for forgiveness with
d) trust that Jesus suffered and died for all their sins and that they have eternal life.
I don’t know if it also means that a person will from then on obey God throughout their life and forever, but that’s what will happen. It’s also the teaching that a person will be unable to not be able to resist God’s changing their heart and mind to do these things, but can only be saved once God starts and continues to change them.
5) Calvin also taught “perseverance of the saints”, which is teaching that those “called” by God to come to him and be saved, and justified by Christ’s obedience and sacrifice, will be permanently exalted in status above those who are condemned, will be beautified, and that their bodies will be made immortal.
The Bible refers to “saints” as anyone whom God loves, it’s not what Catholics twisted it to mean, which is a “a miracle-worker”.
So these five things are what Calvin taught, and what he considered the most important things to know in order for a person to be saved, not lose faith and to an obedient life to God. Because if we have no belief that God will save us from our addiction to sin, from sinning, from pain and death, if we believe that we can defeat God’s will, and that we will be treated no different from those God does not love, whom he has not forgiven, then how can we behave and think no differently from them, from those going to Hell? Without trust in God’s abiity to save and keep his promises, we will fail.
Earth Can’t Be At the Center of the Universe Says Scientist, Cuz, “It Doesn’t Seem Physically Relevant”
Dark Energy, Dark Minds, and the Center of the Universe
Mathematicians Blake Temple and Joel Smoller have come up with a mathematical formula that makes dark energy an unneeded component in explaining the supposed expansion of the universe. It is arbitrary in that it requires the Big Bomb propaganda even though anyone could just as easily explain the energy needed by simply saying God supplied it (no one has any evidence that a Big Magical Bomb From No Where went off billions of years ago).
Discovered in 1998 with the finding that exploding stars in distant galaxies are spreading away from us at an increasing speed, dark energy has puzzled cosmologists for a decade, unable to understand a force that acts across vast distances to push stars apart. Physicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago famously said that the only thing really known about dark energy is its name. You can read their formula here, in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science.
They claim that instead of magical dark energy causing the universe to expand, that it was the magical Big Billions of Years Old Bomb That Exploded Billions of Years Ago. (13.7 billion years ago). U.S.A. Today, manned by Darwinist God-haters at the editorial helm, try to make this seem like a bad thing since it requires that Earth be at the center of the universe, which would make the Bible look true, and the God of the Calvinists appear to be the real God. The USA Today blogger who announced this finding, tried to spin this finding into something that couldn’t be true by finding a Darwinist Head-banged Up physicist for a comment against the COU formula:
The only problem is that for the equations to work, we must be “literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual,” says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe. “I think this is plausible mathematics, but it doesn’t seem physically relevant.”
That’s word salad if you hadn’t noticed, from both the U.S. Today blogger and everyone else in this story but God.
This morning on Coast to Coast AM a self-called skeptic (who uses a what I consider to be a misdefinition of the word, by using the misdefinitions in dictionaries), and who is a professional photographer, shared his testimony about his experiences with ghosts. He said that EVPs were the greatest evidence of ghosts (in his opinion) and I think vainly played down photographic evidence, no doubt to appear to be a true skeptic, and so showing that he was denying it’s modern definition or rather true definition (which is a person who doubts anything extraordinary for no logical reason). About the EVPs he recorded, he said to George Noory the host, "They come to us in a tongue in cheek way… almost as if they we’re mocking us." George then asked a few seconds later, something like, "Do you ever get EVPs that try to scare you?" Part of the guest’s reply was that (at least one) EVP he recorded was, "Leave us alone" and he said that "it breaks my heart that they view us as intruders".
A while later, the guest talked about how he was trying to record EVPs at a cemetery, and found that he kept stepping on fire ant mounds. When he said, "Oh great, more fire ant mounts" (hardly a complaint), a "ghost" almost instantly replied, "Be nice." Hmmm: A human lightly shows his annoyance with FIRE ants which scar you and cause you great pain with their stings and possibly kill you if you’re allergic to them or stay to long at a FIRE ant mount, and a "ghost" almost instantly shows it’s annoyance at your annoyance at this? Is that a typical human response? And notice the FIRE ants were in a cemetery, a place associated with death? To me this is obviously a demon that considers the ants it’s pets and loves them for tormenting humans, and loves them more for tormenting them when they try to honor or show their love for those who died; a sadistic demon that is so demented that even a weak slight at it’s vicious pets instantly annoys it.
For those of you who aren’t stupid kids, is it really that hard to figure out?
Update (2:04 A.M.): Just before C2C ended a caller said that while he was listening to the show in his car, he could hear a voice repeatedly asking him to turn something, I forget what, so he did, but then turned it back, and the voice repeatedly started using foul language at him and telling him to turn whatever again. The caller said he told his son and his son said to go back to the area he had heard the voice at and he told his son no. George and the guest then laughed about it.
"I’d rather talk about the swine flu. People are dying from it, it’s getting out of control, did you know that?" – Michael Savage, 8/14/09. Thanks for spreading "Big Pharma’s" propaganda Mike. Here’s the truth: book 1, book 2, a website.
About a minute ago I hypothesized that if God had created the universe that the same types of animals separated by huge distances would be found on Earth, which would be evidence that land masses of Earth were once joined like the Bible says it was, and that humans, having been at least 1000 years advanced in wisdom with genetically superior brains, would have been able for a while after the flood to travel great distances over the still joined land, transplanting one type of animal in two remote places far far apart, like perhaps in Timbuktu and some a Himalayan forest, on purpose or without realizing it. When I then searched for a story like that on a search engine, I came up with even more dramatic evidence, and once again, ironically from Darwinsts trying to make themselves appear to be wise and oh so scientific:
Same Species Found at Both Ends of Earth
Scientists have determined that at least 235 species live in both polar seas.
Scientists have determined that at least 235 species live in both polar seas despite the 8,000 miles (13,000 km) between the ends of the Earth.
How some of the creatures wound up at the top and bottom of the planet is a mystery. Distance and habitat divisions — such as warm water between the two regions — are among the things that can separate creatures and lead to new species. A DNA analysis is underway to confirm if the like species are in fact identical, the researchers announced today
If it’s something that someone made up it would have lasted an hour and a half. – Hypnotherapist, author, and reincarnation believer, Dr. Bruce Goldberg, Coast to Coast AM Radio Show, 10:26 P.M., 6/22/2009.
Well thanks Dr, Golderg for telling everyone that the Bible is 100% true. George Noory, who was hosting the show, didn’t even hint that Dr. Goldberg was wrong. Just one problem George and Dr. Bruce:
Later Dr. Bruce said we could "control and customize our destiny".
Dr. Bruce repeated that a new idea would be gone quickly if it was false. The teaching that doing wrong, Dr. Karma-Believing Bruce, to get your way in life, and that there is no karma or Hell or Heaven or universal right or wrong has been taught for thousands of years. Yet he and would have us believe then that’s it’s a true teaching.
Dr. Bruce emphatically called himself a scientist at 10:43 P.M., a few minutes later implied that all major religions were dogmatic when a Christian woman implied past memories from another life were from Satan, unlike what he was teaching about reincarnation and the soul, yet he repeatedly referred to scientists proving him right. Yet another false teacher who repeatedly forgets the differences between evidence, proof, facts, opinions, doctrine, and dogma.
Then he said, at 10:57 P,.M., "Any kind of gift is a terrible thing to waste." when George asked him how an allegedly eleven-year-old reincarnated boy should proceed in life. George Noory replied, "Good advice Bruce." What gift? The boy knows some things about certain aircraft, so what?
Then at about 12:50 A.M., according to the mother of the supposedly reincarnated child – when she asked him what she always wanted to know, if God was a man or a woman, he replied, "he isn’t a man or a woman, he’s whoever you want him to be at the moment." That’s a contradiction (it would mean he could be a man or a woman if you wanted him to be), and according to that answer God can also be prostitute approving of whatever you want to do, a pimp or Satan (and George’s reply, no surprise, was "Right answer.") How is it the mother and father could be bothered to check out the child’s false memories to see if reincarnation was true, yet couldn’t be bothered to read the Bible for the answer she always wanted to know nor check to see if their child’s answer was in accordance with God’s own word? So the question she always wanted to know wasn’t, "Does God love me," or "Where will I end up when I die," "Is the Bible true," or "Can God help me to understand what his word truly says and to get me to love it even if it displeases my body’s desire to do wrong?", but instead, a question of sex-pride? What an evil shallow careless attitude! What nonsense, disgusting, hateful. And George, though saying to Dr. Bruce and the rest of the world that "Western religion is far behind the other religions" (uh George, Christianity is the oldest religion, and it’s not a European creation, duh), he then when talking to the parents about how reincarnation affected their Christian beliefs, pandered to them when they said it strengthened their faith, by saying, it was compatible with it. What spineless leaf in the wind he is. All the contradictions and lies reminded me of something God said thousands of years ago to Israel:
"these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions. All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a spot without filth. Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast? For it is: "Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there." Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, ‘This is the resting place, let the weary rest'; and, ‘This is the place of repose’—but they would not listen. So then, the word of Yahweh to them will become:
Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule;
a little here, a little there—
so that they will go and fall backward,
be injured and snared and captured.
Therefore hear the word of Yahweh, you scoffers who rule this people in Jerusalem. You boast, ‘We have entered into a covenant with death, with the grave we have made an agreement. When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by, it cannot touch us, for we have made a lie our refuge and falsehood our hiding place. So this is what the Sovereign Yahweh says:
‘See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who trusts in him will never be dismayed.’"