This interview was done before the election last Fall so they are probably even more alarmed now. John O'Sullivan, President of the Danube Society in Budapest, interviews Marion Smith, at that time President of Victims of Communism Foundation Memorial Society, now founding President of the Common Sense Society.
I heard Marion Smith on the Lars Larsen* talk show recently, in which he talked very knowledgeably about the protests in Cuba, which he sees as the Cuban people taking advantage of a current weakness in the government to fight for freedom from Communism. They are also taking a great risk and are being subjected to horrendous mistreatment by the govenrnment. We've been getting propaganda teling us that it's about wanting vaccinations!!!! As Larson pointed out, "Libertad" does not mean "vaccination" in Spanish.
So I looked up Marion Smith and found this interview by the Danube Society. The interviewer framed the conversation with the observation that there has been a recent upsurge in the popularity of Marxism and Communism in America, which is alarming considering the genocidal history of all Communist regimes.
Smith is also involved with the National Civic Art Society which is about the effect of styles of architecture on the cultural mindset. Interesting, I think. that the motto of the Common Sense Society is Liberty, Prosperity and Beauty. The word "beauty" in that list was startling but I was happy to see it. I gather it relates particularly to architecture, but when I first read it I was reminded of my own recent preoccupation with art and how I despise modernism for its ugliness as Anti-Art, and want art to be beautiful above all else. For the sake of the human soul, the stability of society and culture, etc. etc. etc.
so many ways the culture has been undermined over the last century, politically, morally, culturally, and the degeneration of art is one that is usually overlooked. .
But I digress. The interview is about Communism.
=======================================================
* Not sure now if it was Lars Larson. Might have been Jim Bohannon. Even Sebastian Gorka. I lose track.
Sunday, July 25, 2021
Saturday, July 24, 2021
Just a Little Opinion Piece
All political leaders and medical institutions, authorities and personnel who have authorized or contributed to the ban on, or refused to prescribe or administer the life-saving antivirals Hydroxychloroquine and Ivewmectin to COVID patients, and other helpful drugs as well, should be sued by the family members of all those who have died of COVID.
All political leaders, university professors and activists and rioters and school boards that promote the racist doctriness of Marxism and Critical Race Theory should be sued by all their victims, and tried for treason against the United States.
Most of the Democratic Party and Biden's administration should be tried for treason for most of their evil anti=Constitutional policies that will destroy the country if they get away with them.
Or the rest of us should write a new Declaration of Independence and secede from the Union.
All political leaders, university professors and activists and rioters and school boards that promote the racist doctriness of Marxism and Critical Race Theory should be sued by all their victims, and tried for treason against the United States.
Most of the Democratic Party and Biden's administration should be tried for treason for most of their evil anti=Constitutional policies that will destroy the country if they get away with them.
Or the rest of us should write a new Declaration of Independence and secede from the Union.
Friday, July 23, 2021
Larry Elder for California Governor!
It was alarming to tune into Larry Elder's radio show and find somebody else had taken over the time slot. But then I found this interview of him by Tucker Carlson. Looks like he quit to run for Governor of California. Wow, he'd be a great governor for that benighted state if only he can get through the usual leftist obstructions. Here's the interview:
Thursday, July 22, 2021
How Art Became Anti-Art
somehow I lost this post.
Update: Turns out I have a hard copy of it, which I make of some of my posts, and if I can see well enough to retype it later I'll do that.
Tuesday, July 20, 2021
Jon Voight, Another Victim of Demonic Manipulation. Tucker Carlson too.
Tucker Carlson interviewed Jon Voight who described an interesting experience he had when he heard a voice in his ear that changed his life. The headline calls this his "faith." It's no such thing. He's fallen for a demonic manipulation. The effect on him was similar to the effrect on those who have had near-death experiences, experiences of "heaven" and so on. this is all demonic manipulation but you have to be a Bible believer to recognize it. Looks like the demonic world wants to make humanity comfortable with the supernatural for some reason, besides, of course, leading whomever they can as far away from the gospel as possible.
'
Of course the intrusion of these invisible beings convinces their victims of the other world, which they then take as proof of God assuming the experience came from God. A message from heaven. It changed his life, he is now motivated to be a better person. Like all those with the heaven experiences. They havve no idea that their souls are in dire danger though they are now lulled into complacency, sure that they will have a happy afterlife.
Tucker Carson doesn't seem to know any better either. No idea of the gospel of salvation, that we are all sinners destined for Hell unless we put our faith in the death of Christ for our salvation from our sins. The demons won't preach the gospel of course.
Interseiting that they seem to be constructing some kind of illusion as we approach the end times. These people they are manipulating would probably not find the gospel anyway but they seem to want to create some kind of false religoin around these experiences they are giving people. Probabgly to contribute to the end times global religion
'
Of course the intrusion of these invisible beings convinces their victims of the other world, which they then take as proof of God assuming the experience came from God. A message from heaven. It changed his life, he is now motivated to be a better person. Like all those with the heaven experiences. They havve no idea that their souls are in dire danger though they are now lulled into complacency, sure that they will have a happy afterlife.
Tucker Carson doesn't seem to know any better either. No idea of the gospel of salvation, that we are all sinners destined for Hell unless we put our faith in the death of Christ for our salvation from our sins. The demons won't preach the gospel of course.
Interseiting that they seem to be constructing some kind of illusion as we approach the end times. These people they are manipulating would probably not find the gospel anyway but they seem to want to create some kind of false religoin around these experiences they are giving people. Probabgly to contribute to the end times global religion
Monday, July 19, 2021
There Are Different Sorts of Pleasure to be had from Art, but There's Really Only One That Interests Me.
To escape from the anxieties of the times I've been on an art kick. My eyes are pretty bad but I can make out the general form of a painting and can read material that's presented in certain ways, so I've been able for the most part to collect information on the subject. I've collected enough by now for a small book but I'm not going to write a small book and I don't even want to write a long post. I'd just like to sketch out the framework of my thoughts about art from what i've been reading and looking at and thinking about.
It's pretty simple once I get it boiled down. What I want from art is the aesthetic emotion Clive Bell wrote about as the essence of art. I want to be blown away by the kind of beauty that can be found in some art. Bell makes a distinction between natural beuaty, such as a beautiful face or a beautiful flower or butterfly wintgs, and the beauty that is a particular property of art. He had arrived at the conclusion that there is one quality in what he considered to be art worthy of the name, amounting in his view to the very definition or essence of art, and that he identified as Significant Form.
Bell's book "Art," which was published in 1913, and a book by philosopher Susanne K. Langer, "Feeling and Form" published in the 50s, together educated my eyes to the aesthetic experience of art. It was an experience I had had, and I believe it's what I always sought in art, but there are so many different ways of experiencing art that this one most important way is easily lost. Those two books cleared away all the irrelevant stuff that is so distracting and allowed me to see what mattered most to me, the experience of the special kind of beauty that art can give
There are many directions to go in this conversation but I want to stick to the bare bones if I can. I don't want to take a position on Bell's claim that significant form IS art and that's what art is, even if I am sympathetic to that view. Art can be whatever you want to it to be, I just want to say that the aesthetic experience is the whole point for me and nothing else enters into it. I may like different kinds of pictures for different reasons, but the ones I am inclined to call art are the ones that bring me that pecular pleasure called aesthetic. I don't know if Bell is ritght that Significant Form is the essencew of art and the only means to the aesthetic experience but I'm willing to entertain the idea. But it woujld take more research than I'm going to do in order to arrive at my own conclusion about that. Nevertheless, as he presents the idea in his book it so focused the experience of art for me that I shed a lifetime of irrelvant baggage and could finally identify in art what I'd always been looking for and hadn't found until then, until his book and Langer's.
Over the last few days I've been updating my knowledge of the art world, watching videos of lectures by today's reigning art critics, as well as interviews with them, did a google search for names of today's most prominent artists and skimmed through pages and pages of thumbnails of their paintings. Here and there I see something that sort of almost provokes an aesthetic emotion, but for the most part it is an amazing wasteland as far as aesthetic experience goes. It is as if they've turned Bell's concept upside down. What we are getting is all the very content he called inessential to art and none of the art itself according to his definition. In his frame of refrence on the other hand a work of art could contain much that is inessential to the aesthetic experience and yet also contain the significant form that provokes that experience. Today's art hits my eye as absolutely devoid of any shred of aesthetic interest whatever. And yet Bell is supposed to have been a major influence toward modern art.
If there is a true aesthetic experience to be had in this modern wasteland someone who has experienced it would have to walk me through it so i could see it for myself. All I can say is that I don't. I find i repugnant. Almost all of it with few exceptions Whatever people enjoy about this kind of art, it isn't beauty.
It may well be that if I understood better what Bell means by Significant Form that much of it wouldn't move me at all. I grant his superior sensitivity to such experiences and assume I'm the deficient one, but all I can do is like what I like. And it is an experience of the ecstatic sort that I've stumbled onto from time to time that makes me think he has the key to it since he speaks of his own ecstasies over art. He attributes them to Significant Form. He may be right.
It's pretty simple once I get it boiled down. What I want from art is the aesthetic emotion Clive Bell wrote about as the essence of art. I want to be blown away by the kind of beauty that can be found in some art. Bell makes a distinction between natural beuaty, such as a beautiful face or a beautiful flower or butterfly wintgs, and the beauty that is a particular property of art. He had arrived at the conclusion that there is one quality in what he considered to be art worthy of the name, amounting in his view to the very definition or essence of art, and that he identified as Significant Form.
Bell's book "Art," which was published in 1913, and a book by philosopher Susanne K. Langer, "Feeling and Form" published in the 50s, together educated my eyes to the aesthetic experience of art. It was an experience I had had, and I believe it's what I always sought in art, but there are so many different ways of experiencing art that this one most important way is easily lost. Those two books cleared away all the irrelevant stuff that is so distracting and allowed me to see what mattered most to me, the experience of the special kind of beauty that art can give
There are many directions to go in this conversation but I want to stick to the bare bones if I can. I don't want to take a position on Bell's claim that significant form IS art and that's what art is, even if I am sympathetic to that view. Art can be whatever you want to it to be, I just want to say that the aesthetic experience is the whole point for me and nothing else enters into it. I may like different kinds of pictures for different reasons, but the ones I am inclined to call art are the ones that bring me that pecular pleasure called aesthetic. I don't know if Bell is ritght that Significant Form is the essencew of art and the only means to the aesthetic experience but I'm willing to entertain the idea. But it woujld take more research than I'm going to do in order to arrive at my own conclusion about that. Nevertheless, as he presents the idea in his book it so focused the experience of art for me that I shed a lifetime of irrelvant baggage and could finally identify in art what I'd always been looking for and hadn't found until then, until his book and Langer's.
Over the last few days I've been updating my knowledge of the art world, watching videos of lectures by today's reigning art critics, as well as interviews with them, did a google search for names of today's most prominent artists and skimmed through pages and pages of thumbnails of their paintings. Here and there I see something that sort of almost provokes an aesthetic emotion, but for the most part it is an amazing wasteland as far as aesthetic experience goes. It is as if they've turned Bell's concept upside down. What we are getting is all the very content he called inessential to art and none of the art itself according to his definition. In his frame of refrence on the other hand a work of art could contain much that is inessential to the aesthetic experience and yet also contain the significant form that provokes that experience. Today's art hits my eye as absolutely devoid of any shred of aesthetic interest whatever. And yet Bell is supposed to have been a major influence toward modern art.
If there is a true aesthetic experience to be had in this modern wasteland someone who has experienced it would have to walk me through it so i could see it for myself. All I can say is that I don't. I find i repugnant. Almost all of it with few exceptions Whatever people enjoy about this kind of art, it isn't beauty.
It may well be that if I understood better what Bell means by Significant Form that much of it wouldn't move me at all. I grant his superior sensitivity to such experiences and assume I'm the deficient one, but all I can do is like what I like. And it is an experience of the ecstatic sort that I've stumbled onto from time to time that makes me think he has the key to it since he speaks of his own ecstasies over art. He attributes them to Significant Form. He may be right.
Saturday, July 17, 2021
The COVID Gulag Isn't Just Censorship and Threats and PC Opprobrium, it's Stupid Arguments
Bret and Heather are back temporarily on You Tube for a response to a really stupid critical article about their position on the vaccines and ivermectin.
Trying Not to Get Bulldozed by the Left
ABC News just reported that the Biden administration has been rolling back all the Trump policies on the border "because they are inhumane." They've said that before but this time I started crying and couldn't stop, crying and screaming. If the neighbors heard they don't care anyway. I needed to cry and scream. Too much as been coming at me from the insane Left, I couldn't take any more. They are letting in people some of whom are no doubt drug runners, human traffickers, rapists and murderers and other criminals. And that is what they consider to be humane. Same with letting BLM and Antifa destroy the businesses of law-abiding citizens without consequences. Same with letting criminals out of prison to repeat their crimes againt law-abiding citizens.
Same also with threatening to take away the guns of law-abiding citizens so they can't project themselve sagainst the criminals, the looters and burners. I think it was Chris Pinto who reported on a recent radio show that they actually did take away guns from some law-abiding citizens in New Orleans after Katrina. He played some audio of people protesting that they were law-abiding citiziens wnd this action against them was wrong, that they were now being left with no protection against the looters. This is "humane" according to the Left. Not that I think most of them even believe that themselves, it's just an excuse to take power away from the people. Unbelievable though that they actually did it and got away with it, in New Orleans. Even this degree of evil and denial of Constitutional rights is not beneath them.
Also earlier today -- oh way too much happening, no wonder I ended up screaming -- was listening to an inteview of New York art critic Jerry Saltz who doesn't try to contain his political views. I've been listening to some current art critics because I want to do a post about art from my admittedly inadequately educated understanding, and I don't want to come off TOO stupid, since I think I have something of value to say within my own limited experience. All the art critics I've heard, three now I think, are leftists who want to let you know they are leftists and in fact the doctrines of the left appear to permeate the whole world of contemporary art criticism, and in fact the art itself in many cases.
Did you know, for instance, that there was an exhibition of photographs of clouds the import of which was supposed to be that they were taken in Ferguson during the riots by Black Lives Matter? To his credit, Saltz, who reported this also objected strenuously to it, saying, No, those are photographs of CLOUDS. Nevertheless we can see that in 2018 in the New York City art world the lies of BLM continue uncorrected.
Then the interviewer read part of an article about a blunder this critic had made in extolling a work of art that some considered to be feeding a taste for pedophilia or something like that. He said that connotation had escaped his notice because he was responding to it purely as art, but that he now agrees that he was in the wrong. Anyway, it's 2018 and this article starts out with this: "In a time when American politics is being profaned by the purely personal whims of one white man the celebration of another doing the same in the arts raises some red flags for me." I'm glad a leftist gets some of the same treatment we on the right get, but of course what bugs me about this quote is the stab at Trump. They are obsessed with Trump. Oh and his race must be central. In fact in one way or another all the videos I listened to about a current art critic made race central. Marxist CRT is running the show on the Left wherever you look these days. Saltz apologizes for being white from time to time.
This starts about 38:28 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk-7JtLINA
In another case the political statement came from the woman who interoduced the critic, who was going to interview Luchita Hurtado, a 97-year old woman artist oridinally from Venezuela. She introduced the artist as one of those immigrants who made America great" and got applause from her leftist audience who of course recognized it as a slam against Trump who as usual is being slandered as objecting to immigrants, which of course is nothing but the usual lying propaganda. Does the woman have eve a smidgen of a suspiciou of that? She seems sincere, so I asume she really believes the lie.
Yesterday I was upset about the craziness coming out of the Biden administration about how there is all this supposed "misinformation" about the vaccines that people are believing that they feel this need to censor. Not answer, which is the American way of dealing with wrong ideas, no, they must censor it, which is the totalitarian fascist Communist way of dealing with what they disagree with. I was inwardly screaming at that, since I know that those who are suspicious of the vaccines are basing it on the scientific considerations of people who know what they are talking about. Doctors with impeccable credentials for instance. IMPECCABLE. But even if they weren't so highly qualified to speak on the subject, it is anti-American to shut people up for their sincere opinions. Wrong opinions are to be answered. They have no answsers, all they have is their propaganda: vaccines good, if you don't agree you deserve to be shut up and subjected to all kinds of mistreatment, as a Biden spokesman said so very clearly recently She actually said they have to make it as uncomfortable as possible for those who reject vaccination. But that's OK with liberals, right? No more civil discourse in America. The Left is right about everything and that is that.
So I didn't start screaming until the last straw hit this afternoon with that ABC news report about how the Biden administration is rolling back all the Trump policies about the border because they are "inhumane."
They are still attacking the man. And by extension all those of us who voted for him. And everything they have against him is a lie. He did not say white supremacists are good people, he denounced them a dozen times at least, he did not mock a man for his physical hanidcap, had mocked dozens of others in exactly the same way, he is not against immigration at all, only against illegal immigration, he is not a racist etc etc etc. But those lies and all the rest of them are apparently believes by those on the left. I have my own problems with Trump. I think his Operation Warp Speed was dangerous, pushing an untested vaccine on us that has already casues thousands of deaths and various injuries, and i don't understand why he couldn't do something to stop the rioting that hs abeen going on for months in major cities. He was the Presdient, the President has that kind of power. How do we explain that it wasn't used?
Added next day: If I'm going to be making a list of current evils I don't want to leave out their accusation of supporters of voter ID and other measures to protect the integrity of elections, calling them racists who want to reinstate Jim Crow. This ought to set us all screaming. When you have no argument and your aim is to run the show, just call your opponents by some hateful name. Call their opinion "misinformation," call them racists and white sepremacists and so on. This is the essence of totalitarianism. You rule by character assassination, by lies, by censorship and ultimately by force. You take away their guns so they can't do what the second amendment was for: defend themselves against the government as well as violence from any direction.
And of course it's "misinformation," which seems to be the crime du jour of the Right, if you noticed the documented instances of fraud in the 2020 election. Off to the concentration camp for you.
And of course they keep harping on the January 6th "insurrection which from what I've seen is the most pathetic excuse for an insurrection in human history. One baseball bat, one knife found in the possession of two people in the building? One person might have had, or had access to, a gun, funny how that's not clear. None of these weapons was used. But they go on and on about this worst incident in the history of the country? Meanwhile rioting continued for months and months and months in Portland and other cities, looting, burning and destroying property, but that's not an insurrenction and nobody has been punished for it. Except the cops.
Do liberals REALLY want this to happen to the country? Really?
There are so many evils looming on the horizon these days it is hard to justify doing anything but trying to prevent them. I need a break from it all from time to time so I've been thinking about art as a relief from it. Sometimes I go on music binges as my relief. sometimes I binge on animal videos, sometimes I watch a movie, but perhaps we can't aford to take breaks in this current time.
Same also with threatening to take away the guns of law-abiding citizens so they can't project themselve sagainst the criminals, the looters and burners. I think it was Chris Pinto who reported on a recent radio show that they actually did take away guns from some law-abiding citizens in New Orleans after Katrina. He played some audio of people protesting that they were law-abiding citiziens wnd this action against them was wrong, that they were now being left with no protection against the looters. This is "humane" according to the Left. Not that I think most of them even believe that themselves, it's just an excuse to take power away from the people. Unbelievable though that they actually did it and got away with it, in New Orleans. Even this degree of evil and denial of Constitutional rights is not beneath them.
Also earlier today -- oh way too much happening, no wonder I ended up screaming -- was listening to an inteview of New York art critic Jerry Saltz who doesn't try to contain his political views. I've been listening to some current art critics because I want to do a post about art from my admittedly inadequately educated understanding, and I don't want to come off TOO stupid, since I think I have something of value to say within my own limited experience. All the art critics I've heard, three now I think, are leftists who want to let you know they are leftists and in fact the doctrines of the left appear to permeate the whole world of contemporary art criticism, and in fact the art itself in many cases.
Did you know, for instance, that there was an exhibition of photographs of clouds the import of which was supposed to be that they were taken in Ferguson during the riots by Black Lives Matter? To his credit, Saltz, who reported this also objected strenuously to it, saying, No, those are photographs of CLOUDS. Nevertheless we can see that in 2018 in the New York City art world the lies of BLM continue uncorrected.
Then the interviewer read part of an article about a blunder this critic had made in extolling a work of art that some considered to be feeding a taste for pedophilia or something like that. He said that connotation had escaped his notice because he was responding to it purely as art, but that he now agrees that he was in the wrong. Anyway, it's 2018 and this article starts out with this: "In a time when American politics is being profaned by the purely personal whims of one white man the celebration of another doing the same in the arts raises some red flags for me." I'm glad a leftist gets some of the same treatment we on the right get, but of course what bugs me about this quote is the stab at Trump. They are obsessed with Trump. Oh and his race must be central. In fact in one way or another all the videos I listened to about a current art critic made race central. Marxist CRT is running the show on the Left wherever you look these days. Saltz apologizes for being white from time to time.
This starts about 38:28 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk-7JtLINA
In another case the political statement came from the woman who interoduced the critic, who was going to interview Luchita Hurtado, a 97-year old woman artist oridinally from Venezuela. She introduced the artist as one of those immigrants who made America great" and got applause from her leftist audience who of course recognized it as a slam against Trump who as usual is being slandered as objecting to immigrants, which of course is nothing but the usual lying propaganda. Does the woman have eve a smidgen of a suspiciou of that? She seems sincere, so I asume she really believes the lie.
Yesterday I was upset about the craziness coming out of the Biden administration about how there is all this supposed "misinformation" about the vaccines that people are believing that they feel this need to censor. Not answer, which is the American way of dealing with wrong ideas, no, they must censor it, which is the totalitarian fascist Communist way of dealing with what they disagree with. I was inwardly screaming at that, since I know that those who are suspicious of the vaccines are basing it on the scientific considerations of people who know what they are talking about. Doctors with impeccable credentials for instance. IMPECCABLE. But even if they weren't so highly qualified to speak on the subject, it is anti-American to shut people up for their sincere opinions. Wrong opinions are to be answered. They have no answsers, all they have is their propaganda: vaccines good, if you don't agree you deserve to be shut up and subjected to all kinds of mistreatment, as a Biden spokesman said so very clearly recently She actually said they have to make it as uncomfortable as possible for those who reject vaccination. But that's OK with liberals, right? No more civil discourse in America. The Left is right about everything and that is that.
So I didn't start screaming until the last straw hit this afternoon with that ABC news report about how the Biden administration is rolling back all the Trump policies about the border because they are "inhumane."
They are still attacking the man. And by extension all those of us who voted for him. And everything they have against him is a lie. He did not say white supremacists are good people, he denounced them a dozen times at least, he did not mock a man for his physical hanidcap, had mocked dozens of others in exactly the same way, he is not against immigration at all, only against illegal immigration, he is not a racist etc etc etc. But those lies and all the rest of them are apparently believes by those on the left. I have my own problems with Trump. I think his Operation Warp Speed was dangerous, pushing an untested vaccine on us that has already casues thousands of deaths and various injuries, and i don't understand why he couldn't do something to stop the rioting that hs abeen going on for months in major cities. He was the Presdient, the President has that kind of power. How do we explain that it wasn't used?
Added next day: If I'm going to be making a list of current evils I don't want to leave out their accusation of supporters of voter ID and other measures to protect the integrity of elections, calling them racists who want to reinstate Jim Crow. This ought to set us all screaming. When you have no argument and your aim is to run the show, just call your opponents by some hateful name. Call their opinion "misinformation," call them racists and white sepremacists and so on. This is the essence of totalitarianism. You rule by character assassination, by lies, by censorship and ultimately by force. You take away their guns so they can't do what the second amendment was for: defend themselves against the government as well as violence from any direction.
And of course it's "misinformation," which seems to be the crime du jour of the Right, if you noticed the documented instances of fraud in the 2020 election. Off to the concentration camp for you.
And of course they keep harping on the January 6th "insurrection which from what I've seen is the most pathetic excuse for an insurrection in human history. One baseball bat, one knife found in the possession of two people in the building? One person might have had, or had access to, a gun, funny how that's not clear. None of these weapons was used. But they go on and on about this worst incident in the history of the country? Meanwhile rioting continued for months and months and months in Portland and other cities, looting, burning and destroying property, but that's not an insurrenction and nobody has been punished for it. Except the cops.
Do liberals REALLY want this to happen to the country? Really?
There are so many evils looming on the horizon these days it is hard to justify doing anything but trying to prevent them. I need a break from it all from time to time so I've been thinking about art as a relief from it. Sometimes I go on music binges as my relief. sometimes I binge on animal videos, sometimes I watch a movie, but perhaps we can't aford to take breaks in this current time.
Sunday, July 11, 2021
Saturday, July 10, 2021
Some End Times Conundrums: Israel and the Church
Watching another episode of Understanding the Times radio, with guest Israeli Christian Amir Tsarfati, I realize I have more than one problem with premillennial dispensationalism, which is the eschatology of that ministry. In this case I don't have a clearly worked-out point of view, but rather some questions that remain even as I embrace the basic outlines of the pre-trib premillennial scenario.
These questions come up in the context of a fairly extreme polarization between the Premillennial Dispensational and the Reformed theological camps, as to the place Israel has in the end times. The Reformed position can be as extreme as denying that Israel has any place at all, the people of God are all one people in Christ and the fact that there is now a Jewish state of Israel which hadn't existed for millennia is meaningless, biblically irrelevant, a trivial historical accdient. On the other hand to the premill pretrib eschatology it is the central fact around which all the end times events revolve. I have sympathies in both camps and some unanswered questions.
First, the fact that there is now a state of Israel where for the most of the two previous millennia there had been nothing but wilderness is hardly something to wave away as a mere accident of history. For one thing how does a Christian wave away any part of history, since we understand history to be His Story, in which everything is in God's plan? How do you so cavalierly ignore the fact that the people of the Old Testament have reclained their ancestral land and made it into a thriving state over the span of a mere century? There are prophecies that can be pointed to but the fact itself should be enough to astonish, and how could God not be in such an event?
It certainly seems to be a major part of the stage setting for the final act of Planet Earth.
The main or general question is how there can be two separate groups of saved people, the Church and the Jews. I've come to accept the general idea based on a chronological literal reading of the book of Revelation, starting with the fact that the book of Revelation in itself seems to be a return to Old Testament prophetic imagery and language, suitable for a return to dealing with the Jews apart from the Church. Then, since the Church (meaning Christian believers) is not specifically mentioned from Revelation 6 to Revelation 19, which is the period identified as the Great Tribulation or Day of the LORD, which is God's judgment on the whole earth, and it also apprears to be what is referred to as "The time of Jacob's trouble," again focusing on the Jews or today, the nation of Israel. < br>
. The apparent absence of the Church is easily explained as the fulfillment of Jesus' promise that faithful beliers would not experience God's wrath, which is not the usual persecution the Church does experience but the Great Tribulation which is God's judgment.
The book of Revelation also seems pretty clearly to be a fulfillment of much of the book of Daniel, which otherwise has no fulfillment. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel's prophecy that counts down to the coming of the Messiah comes to an end after 69 of the week-years, on the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey. After that there is no seventieth week, which then has to be understood to be held for a time of future fulfillment. The seven-year Tribulation period fulfills it to perfection, especially with its echo of the "time, times and half a time" of Daniel's prophecy. This connection alone gives an Old Testament frame of reference to this final book of the Bible. The Old Testament elements and the apparent absence of the predominantly Gentile Church strongly support the premillenial pre-trib interpretation of its specific relevance to Israel and the Jewish people apart from the Church
Neverteless there remains a conflict in my mind about there bgeing two separate bodies of saved people. Since the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ as the Savior of all, the Jews having been chosen to be the carriers of that gospel to the world, that the pre-mil pre-trib system overemphasizes ethnic Israel, or hasn't found the right framework for its place. The Church in the specific meaning of believers in Christ as opposed to the Gentil Church, MUST be the ONE body of Christ; how can there be two bodies of Christ? It seems pretty clear from what I point out above that there is yet to come a final dealing with the Jews, but often this is described as if there were really two completely different peoples of God, which makes no sense to me. Certainly there are passages in the Old Testament that refer to Israel as Israel and not in any sense as the Church, but there are also passages that DO refer to Israel as the Church in the sense of the body of believers and not any ethnic group. I haven't sorted this out yet and I get the impression that no particular system as yet has found the right perspective either.
. Abraham was called to be the father of many nations:
I also have a specific question that comes from Revelation 20 where the "first resurrection" seems to describe those who came through the Tribulation, those martyred in particular during that time, and the first thought I have is why the Rapture isn't mentioned. How do the Raptured saints fit in here? There is no hint that they even exist. It's always seemed odd to me anyway that the martyrs under the altar are treated as such a special group although the supposedly raptured Church would have been full of martyrs, especially martyrs of the Roman Catholic Inquisition in the millions, and in my view the Antichrist of the Tribulation is going to bring about a renewed Inquisition. Meanwhile the raptured martyred ones would also not have been avenged, not merely those martyred in the Tribulation period. But if the pre-trib interpretation is true at least the raptured Church should be the first resurrection, or if the first resurrection occurs in stages, as some understand it, then they should certainly be mentioned as the first stage of that number. Instead the way it is so emphatically said, "This is the first resurrection" I for one am left wondering about the raptured saints. This passage even seems to suggest that there was no Rapture yet And my own ponderings here lead me to that conclusion as well. I know they are subsumed under the first resurrection but that's only because the Rapture is assumed for starters, not because there's anything in the scripture here to support the idea. At the very least I need to see a discussion of this question and although I've been looking I haven't yet found it mentioned.
Nevertheless I do keep coming back to the seventieth week of Daniel and the yet-unfulfilled Day of the LORD as so nicely synonymous, and the times described, the 42 months, the "time, times and half a time" that also come from the book of Daniel in relation to the seven-year period yet unfulfilled. I don't know how to put all this together. The Amillennialists, the Reforjed, just ignore all the references to Daniel, which makes zero sense biblically, and yet I agree with their basic view of the Church as composed of all beleivers in Christ as one and not two separate groups and not two separate covenants. I can accept that the Tribulation period revolves around Israel and the Jewish people, that seems to fit with the Old Testament and Daniel referneces, but in accepting that I don't know what to do with the Raptured Church. It doesn't fit into its allotted place as well as is claimed by the premill pretrib camp. I can't resolve this yet so it's going to remain a question.
There are also still questions about the identity of the Antichrist that I might as well revisit here, as there is one candidate I don't think I've discussed before, though I may have mentioned it. Revelation 13 describes the beast that rises from the sea followed by the beast that rises from the earth. The first beast has seven heads and ten horns and the characteristics of Babylon, the lion, Medo-Persia, the bear, and Greece, the leopard, of Daniel's vision of the successive empires down to the Roman Empire of Jesus' time. This beast embodies all that in one and also shares the characteristics of the dragon of the previous chapter, which is Satan himself.
The beast from the earth has two horns like a lamb and the mouth of a dragon. He causes the world to worship the first beast, to make a statue of him which he then has the power to bring to life. It is the second beast, known as the False Prophet because he causes everyone to worship the first beast, who also requires everyone to take a mark in forehead or hand, without which nobody can buy or sell. This mark is the name or number of the beast which is 666. Years ago I was shown by a family member that the title of the Pope in Latin contains Roman numerals that add up to that number. Vicarivs Filii Dei, or Vicar of the Son of God. The title itself, even "Vicar of Christ" is blasphemy and synonymous with "Antichrist." This may even be the "name of blasphemy" on the heads of the beast. Since Latin contains its own numbers in its letters unlike other languages, the derivation of this number from the name has a particularly organic force not found in the usual gematria or numbering systems often applied to the 666 based on other alphabets. It's a peculiarly satisfying correspondence between the name and the number 666, besides not being just a person's name but the title that actually defines Antichrist. It's hard to imagine a more satisfying solution to the puzzle of the 666 than that.
So those who sugest that a Pope might be the False Prophet instead of the Antichrist himself seem to me to be completely misguided. The Pope has credentials upon credentials for the role.
I've pondered how anyone else could possibly have more claim to the title of Antichrist than the Pope and it's as good as impossible to come up with other possibilities. The man would have to have an even better claim to the number 666. His title would have to be in Latin, no other numbering system could outdo the one for the Pope.
The only possibility that sometimes crosses my mind is the Roman Catholic version of the "Virgin Mary." I think it was Alexander Hislop who concluded that she must be the beast. She certainly has the basic qualifications according to her veneration in the Roman Church, as some of the titles given to her quite specifically usurp the role of Christ, such as "Co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix" and "Advocate." Scripture clearly calls Christ our Redeemer, our Mediator and our Advocate with the Father, it takes a lot of scripture-twisting to apply any of those terms to His mother. She was a good woman but she was a fallen human being, not divine, certainly not the Queen of Heaven or any of the other titles the Roman Church bestows on her.
The persona who emerges from all those titles belongs to the religion of Babylon that spread to many other cultures, as laid out in Hislop's book, The Two Babylons. The image of Mother and Child that came to characterize so much of Roman Catholic imagery comes down from the religion of Nimrod and his mother Semiramis. That imagery shows up in Asian religions and in the worship of Krishna in Hinduism as traced by Hislop. Mother and Child pictures can be found in these other religions. in Roman Catholicism it elevates the role of Mary over her divinely conceived Son. Many Popes have particularly venerated her. Pope John Paul had the motto "Mary I am all yours." Not all Christ's, but all Mary's. He also elevated the apparition at Fatima, taking "her" words as prophecy to be followed.
So the false Mary who usurps so much of the role of Jesus Christ in Roman theology, certainly has qualifications for the role of Antichrist. Since "she" has appeared in the air so many times to Catholics it gives her a divine aura, though there can be no doubt that the apparitions are demonic fabrications. People walk on their knees around statues of Mary. Dave Hunt describes this in his book "A Woman Rides the Beast" and it's also described in accounts of the apparition at Medjugorje. Mary over Christ. If she is the Antichrist and the Pope the False Prophet it is easy to imagine the False Prophet commanding that an image of her be made and that all peoples should worhip her as Revelation 13 describes. She would also have the characteristics of Satan as a demonic impersonation, tying her to the dragon of Revelation 12.
But if she were the Antichrist, to outdo the qualifications of the Pope for that role she would have to have a name or title in Latin that adds up to 666. There is a Wikipedia article that lists an emormous number of titles given to Mary in Latin, but I found none that come close to 666. I couldn't find the Latin for Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix or Advocate but just guessing at the Latin equivalents of those titles I don't see how they would fit the requirement either. "Advocate" comes closest, D+V+C adding up to 605 while the other two have the letter "M" in them which takes them over a thousand. Besides "Advocate" is only one of Jesus' attributes and not the most central one of Redeemer or Savior. So at least at this point I don't see that the demonic "Virgin Mary" is going to be the Antichrist of the Tribulation period.
That leaves me as usual with the Pope. And again, this Pope in particular has come on the scene with his own personal peculiar signs, the date and time, the seagull sitting on the chimney and so on. If a better candidate should show up his credentials would have to be quite amazing. Satan may yet pull it off of course as he is always in the business of inventing antichrists. Wait and see.
Back for a moment to the radio show there's just one other issue I'd mention. The oppoents to the Premillennial Disepnsationist eschatology are often characterized as anti-semitic for their denial of the importance of Israel in the last days. Two examples were given and one of them might fairly be called anti-semitic because he goes on about how the Jews have too much power in Washington. But the other is Hank Hanegraaf who is simply representing the Reformed eschatology which insists on the unity of Jew and Gentile in the Church in a way that leaves no place for the state of israel. That is, his position is theology-driven rather than an attitude of anti-semitism.
I like the quote I put up earlier of Cornelis Venema because it doesn't go to either extreme of the eschatalogical conflict since I have sympathies as well as problems with both sides. I don't think it makes biblical sense to ignore or allegorize the Old Testament reerences in the Book of Revelation, especially all its extremely specific numbers, and i also think Amillennialism, which is the Reformed interpretation of the end times, makes no sense at all.
Nevertheless they maintain what seems to me to be a much more consistent reading of how the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New, than the Premillennial Dispensationalists do. To call the Reformed view "Replacement Theology" always grates on me for that reason. They aren't replacing Israel with the Church, they see the Church as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies, Jesus Himself being the main subject of them all. One New Covenant in His blood, not two covenants, not two separate peoples. (There is now no more Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus.") A return nevertheless to Old Testament themes in dealing with the Jews seems to be the case, a tying up of many loose ends, a fulfillment of many prophecies, and I don't know how to reconcile these things.
Just a few questions that remain unanswered for me.
These questions come up in the context of a fairly extreme polarization between the Premillennial Dispensational and the Reformed theological camps, as to the place Israel has in the end times. The Reformed position can be as extreme as denying that Israel has any place at all, the people of God are all one people in Christ and the fact that there is now a Jewish state of Israel which hadn't existed for millennia is meaningless, biblically irrelevant, a trivial historical accdient. On the other hand to the premill pretrib eschatology it is the central fact around which all the end times events revolve. I have sympathies in both camps and some unanswered questions.
First, the fact that there is now a state of Israel where for the most of the two previous millennia there had been nothing but wilderness is hardly something to wave away as a mere accident of history. For one thing how does a Christian wave away any part of history, since we understand history to be His Story, in which everything is in God's plan? How do you so cavalierly ignore the fact that the people of the Old Testament have reclained their ancestral land and made it into a thriving state over the span of a mere century? There are prophecies that can be pointed to but the fact itself should be enough to astonish, and how could God not be in such an event?
It certainly seems to be a major part of the stage setting for the final act of Planet Earth.
The main or general question is how there can be two separate groups of saved people, the Church and the Jews. I've come to accept the general idea based on a chronological literal reading of the book of Revelation, starting with the fact that the book of Revelation in itself seems to be a return to Old Testament prophetic imagery and language, suitable for a return to dealing with the Jews apart from the Church. Then, since the Church (meaning Christian believers) is not specifically mentioned from Revelation 6 to Revelation 19, which is the period identified as the Great Tribulation or Day of the LORD, which is God's judgment on the whole earth, and it also apprears to be what is referred to as "The time of Jacob's trouble," again focusing on the Jews or today, the nation of Israel. < br>
. The apparent absence of the Church is easily explained as the fulfillment of Jesus' promise that faithful beliers would not experience God's wrath, which is not the usual persecution the Church does experience but the Great Tribulation which is God's judgment.
Neverteless there remains a conflict in my mind about there bgeing two separate bodies of saved people. Since the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ as the Savior of all, the Jews having been chosen to be the carriers of that gospel to the world, that the pre-mil pre-trib system overemphasizes ethnic Israel, or hasn't found the right framework for its place. The Church in the specific meaning of believers in Christ as opposed to the Gentil Church, MUST be the ONE body of Christ; how can there be two bodies of Christ? It seems pretty clear from what I point out above that there is yet to come a final dealing with the Jews, but often this is described as if there were really two completely different peoples of God, which makes no sense to me. Certainly there are passages in the Old Testament that refer to Israel as Israel and not in any sense as the Church, but there are also passages that DO refer to Israel as the Church in the sense of the body of believers and not any ethnic group. I haven't sorted this out yet and I get the impression that no particular system as yet has found the right perspective either.
. Abraham was called to be the father of many nations:
In the Reformed understanding of the history of redemption, therefore, there is no ultimate separation between Israel and the church. The promise God made to Abraham in the formal ratification of the covenant of grace (Gen. 12; 15; 17), namely, that he would be the father of many nations and that in his “seed” all the families of the earth would be blessed, finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The seed promised to Abraham in the covenant of grace is Jesus Christ, the true Israel, and all who through faith are united to Him and, thus, heirs of the covenant promises (Gal. 3:16, 29). In the Reformed view, the gospel of Jesus Christ directly fulfills the promises of the covenant of grace for all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles. Israel and the church are not two distinct peoples; rather, the church is the true Israel of God, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Peter 2:9).----------Cirbekus Vebena, https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/the-church-and-israel-the-issue/
I also have a specific question that comes from Revelation 20 where the "first resurrection" seems to describe those who came through the Tribulation, those martyred in particular during that time, and the first thought I have is why the Rapture isn't mentioned. How do the Raptured saints fit in here? There is no hint that they even exist. It's always seemed odd to me anyway that the martyrs under the altar are treated as such a special group although the supposedly raptured Church would have been full of martyrs, especially martyrs of the Roman Catholic Inquisition in the millions, and in my view the Antichrist of the Tribulation is going to bring about a renewed Inquisition. Meanwhile the raptured martyred ones would also not have been avenged, not merely those martyred in the Tribulation period. But if the pre-trib interpretation is true at least the raptured Church should be the first resurrection, or if the first resurrection occurs in stages, as some understand it, then they should certainly be mentioned as the first stage of that number. Instead the way it is so emphatically said, "This is the first resurrection" I for one am left wondering about the raptured saints. This passage even seems to suggest that there was no Rapture yet And my own ponderings here lead me to that conclusion as well. I know they are subsumed under the first resurrection but that's only because the Rapture is assumed for starters, not because there's anything in the scripture here to support the idea. At the very least I need to see a discussion of this question and although I've been looking I haven't yet found it mentioned.
Nevertheless I do keep coming back to the seventieth week of Daniel and the yet-unfulfilled Day of the LORD as so nicely synonymous, and the times described, the 42 months, the "time, times and half a time" that also come from the book of Daniel in relation to the seven-year period yet unfulfilled. I don't know how to put all this together. The Amillennialists, the Reforjed, just ignore all the references to Daniel, which makes zero sense biblically, and yet I agree with their basic view of the Church as composed of all beleivers in Christ as one and not two separate groups and not two separate covenants. I can accept that the Tribulation period revolves around Israel and the Jewish people, that seems to fit with the Old Testament and Daniel referneces, but in accepting that I don't know what to do with the Raptured Church. It doesn't fit into its allotted place as well as is claimed by the premill pretrib camp. I can't resolve this yet so it's going to remain a question.
There are also still questions about the identity of the Antichrist that I might as well revisit here, as there is one candidate I don't think I've discussed before, though I may have mentioned it. Revelation 13 describes the beast that rises from the sea followed by the beast that rises from the earth. The first beast has seven heads and ten horns and the characteristics of Babylon, the lion, Medo-Persia, the bear, and Greece, the leopard, of Daniel's vision of the successive empires down to the Roman Empire of Jesus' time. This beast embodies all that in one and also shares the characteristics of the dragon of the previous chapter, which is Satan himself.
The beast from the earth has two horns like a lamb and the mouth of a dragon. He causes the world to worship the first beast, to make a statue of him which he then has the power to bring to life. It is the second beast, known as the False Prophet because he causes everyone to worship the first beast, who also requires everyone to take a mark in forehead or hand, without which nobody can buy or sell. This mark is the name or number of the beast which is 666. Years ago I was shown by a family member that the title of the Pope in Latin contains Roman numerals that add up to that number. Vicarivs Filii Dei, or Vicar of the Son of God. The title itself, even "Vicar of Christ" is blasphemy and synonymous with "Antichrist." This may even be the "name of blasphemy" on the heads of the beast. Since Latin contains its own numbers in its letters unlike other languages, the derivation of this number from the name has a particularly organic force not found in the usual gematria or numbering systems often applied to the 666 based on other alphabets. It's a peculiarly satisfying correspondence between the name and the number 666, besides not being just a person's name but the title that actually defines Antichrist. It's hard to imagine a more satisfying solution to the puzzle of the 666 than that.
So those who sugest that a Pope might be the False Prophet instead of the Antichrist himself seem to me to be completely misguided. The Pope has credentials upon credentials for the role.
I've pondered how anyone else could possibly have more claim to the title of Antichrist than the Pope and it's as good as impossible to come up with other possibilities. The man would have to have an even better claim to the number 666. His title would have to be in Latin, no other numbering system could outdo the one for the Pope.
The only possibility that sometimes crosses my mind is the Roman Catholic version of the "Virgin Mary." I think it was Alexander Hislop who concluded that she must be the beast. She certainly has the basic qualifications according to her veneration in the Roman Church, as some of the titles given to her quite specifically usurp the role of Christ, such as "Co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix" and "Advocate." Scripture clearly calls Christ our Redeemer, our Mediator and our Advocate with the Father, it takes a lot of scripture-twisting to apply any of those terms to His mother. She was a good woman but she was a fallen human being, not divine, certainly not the Queen of Heaven or any of the other titles the Roman Church bestows on her.
The persona who emerges from all those titles belongs to the religion of Babylon that spread to many other cultures, as laid out in Hislop's book, The Two Babylons. The image of Mother and Child that came to characterize so much of Roman Catholic imagery comes down from the religion of Nimrod and his mother Semiramis. That imagery shows up in Asian religions and in the worship of Krishna in Hinduism as traced by Hislop. Mother and Child pictures can be found in these other religions. in Roman Catholicism it elevates the role of Mary over her divinely conceived Son. Many Popes have particularly venerated her. Pope John Paul had the motto "Mary I am all yours." Not all Christ's, but all Mary's. He also elevated the apparition at Fatima, taking "her" words as prophecy to be followed.
So the false Mary who usurps so much of the role of Jesus Christ in Roman theology, certainly has qualifications for the role of Antichrist. Since "she" has appeared in the air so many times to Catholics it gives her a divine aura, though there can be no doubt that the apparitions are demonic fabrications. People walk on their knees around statues of Mary. Dave Hunt describes this in his book "A Woman Rides the Beast" and it's also described in accounts of the apparition at Medjugorje. Mary over Christ. If she is the Antichrist and the Pope the False Prophet it is easy to imagine the False Prophet commanding that an image of her be made and that all peoples should worhip her as Revelation 13 describes. She would also have the characteristics of Satan as a demonic impersonation, tying her to the dragon of Revelation 12.
But if she were the Antichrist, to outdo the qualifications of the Pope for that role she would have to have a name or title in Latin that adds up to 666. There is a Wikipedia article that lists an emormous number of titles given to Mary in Latin, but I found none that come close to 666. I couldn't find the Latin for Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix or Advocate but just guessing at the Latin equivalents of those titles I don't see how they would fit the requirement either. "Advocate" comes closest, D+V+C adding up to 605 while the other two have the letter "M" in them which takes them over a thousand. Besides "Advocate" is only one of Jesus' attributes and not the most central one of Redeemer or Savior. So at least at this point I don't see that the demonic "Virgin Mary" is going to be the Antichrist of the Tribulation period.
That leaves me as usual with the Pope. And again, this Pope in particular has come on the scene with his own personal peculiar signs, the date and time, the seagull sitting on the chimney and so on. If a better candidate should show up his credentials would have to be quite amazing. Satan may yet pull it off of course as he is always in the business of inventing antichrists. Wait and see.
Back for a moment to the radio show there's just one other issue I'd mention. The oppoents to the Premillennial Disepnsationist eschatology are often characterized as anti-semitic for their denial of the importance of Israel in the last days. Two examples were given and one of them might fairly be called anti-semitic because he goes on about how the Jews have too much power in Washington. But the other is Hank Hanegraaf who is simply representing the Reformed eschatology which insists on the unity of Jew and Gentile in the Church in a way that leaves no place for the state of israel. That is, his position is theology-driven rather than an attitude of anti-semitism.
I like the quote I put up earlier of Cornelis Venema because it doesn't go to either extreme of the eschatalogical conflict since I have sympathies as well as problems with both sides. I don't think it makes biblical sense to ignore or allegorize the Old Testament reerences in the Book of Revelation, especially all its extremely specific numbers, and i also think Amillennialism, which is the Reformed interpretation of the end times, makes no sense at all.
Nevertheless they maintain what seems to me to be a much more consistent reading of how the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New, than the Premillennial Dispensationalists do. To call the Reformed view "Replacement Theology" always grates on me for that reason. They aren't replacing Israel with the Church, they see the Church as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies, Jesus Himself being the main subject of them all. One New Covenant in His blood, not two covenants, not two separate peoples. (There is now no more Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus.") A return nevertheless to Old Testament themes in dealing with the Jews seems to be the case, a tying up of many loose ends, a fulfillment of many prophecies, and I don't know how to reconcile these things.
Just a few questions that remain unanswered for me.
Friday, July 9, 2021
Here Come the Not-Really-Unidentified Flying Demoncraft With their Doctrines of Delusion.
And another one by Understanding the Times radio on UFOs, in response to the recent release of the now-declassified government report on UFO sightings. They beliee as I do that these phenomnena are demonic, but of course the unbelieving world thinks they are extraterrestrials, or something else they think can be explained by science.
They do mention that even some UFO scientists such as Jacques Vallee regard them as spiritual beings, and quote him at one point saying that their treatment of abductees (which really happens) is similar to Medieval occult (satanic) rituals of initiation. This i late in the video, around 45 or so.
Starting about 23 they discuss the Vatican's interest in UFOs, the fact that they've been studying the sky with high-powered telescopes for many years. They quote Pope Francis saying he'd like to baptize one of them although the Roman Church also speculates that they may not have experienced a Fall and are therefore sinless, so shouldn't need to be baptized. If they are that pure then they will become the teachers of human beings. And of course this whole delusional scenario will provide a very handy explanation for the Rapture of the Church as an abduction event, as well as an explanation why the Pope and Catholics as well as other "Christians" didn't get Raptured.
This revelation of the government reports on such phenomena suggests that we must be very close to the playing out of the End Times drama. I'm thinking that such "spooky" phenomena wouldn't be made public e earlier in the approach to the end. But so much of the stage is already set it's time to take it down to the wire. Slowly still, surely there is more to come as poor humanity gets used to the idea in baby steps first.
Yes the Name of Jesus will scare them away. Which is evidence that they ARE demons. But if you're going to use it don't leave it at that, He paid for your sins on the cross so you don't have to spend eternity in the lake of fire: give yourself wholly to Him.
They do mention that even some UFO scientists such as Jacques Vallee regard them as spiritual beings, and quote him at one point saying that their treatment of abductees (which really happens) is similar to Medieval occult (satanic) rituals of initiation. This i late in the video, around 45 or so.
Starting about 23 they discuss the Vatican's interest in UFOs, the fact that they've been studying the sky with high-powered telescopes for many years. They quote Pope Francis saying he'd like to baptize one of them although the Roman Church also speculates that they may not have experienced a Fall and are therefore sinless, so shouldn't need to be baptized. If they are that pure then they will become the teachers of human beings. And of course this whole delusional scenario will provide a very handy explanation for the Rapture of the Church as an abduction event, as well as an explanation why the Pope and Catholics as well as other "Christians" didn't get Raptured.
This revelation of the government reports on such phenomena suggests that we must be very close to the playing out of the End Times drama. I'm thinking that such "spooky" phenomena wouldn't be made public e earlier in the approach to the end. But so much of the stage is already set it's time to take it down to the wire. Slowly still, surely there is more to come as poor humanity gets used to the idea in baby steps first.
Yes the Name of Jesus will scare them away. Which is evidence that they ARE demons. But if you're going to use it don't leave it at that, He paid for your sins on the cross so you don't have to spend eternity in the lake of fire: give yourself wholly to Him.
More on the Dangers of the COVID Vaccines
Dr. Stephanie Seneff interviewed by Dr. Mercola on her paper investigating the dangers of the vaccines, and some things vaccinated people can do to mitigate the problems. The language is heavily scientific but I think the main points come through.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/egSYQF6mjTc9
What you can do is keep up the immune system supports of vitamins C and D, plus "organic" diet high in sulfur-rich foods, and Mercola likes saunas. There wasn't a mention of Ivermectin or the zinc-quercetin therapies but I would go that direction myself.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/egSYQF6mjTc9
What you can do is keep up the immune system supports of vitamins C and D, plus "organic" diet high in sulfur-rich foods, and Mercola likes saunas. There wasn't a mention of Ivermectin or the zinc-quercetin therapies but I would go that direction myself.
Tuesday, July 6, 2021
Pope Francis Discussed on Understanding the Times Radio Show
Although I have a problem with parts of the Pre-Trib Pre-Millennial eschatology, I agree with most of it, and they usually do a good job on the Roman Church in general too, such as in this program on Pope Francis on Jan Markell's Understanding the Times radio show:
The Pope is not considered by them to be the Antichrist, as the Reformers thought, but probably the False Prophet, which is represente by the other beast in Revelation 13, the one with the two horns of a lamb.
This is a poissibility and there are reasons to prefer it to the Antichrist interpretation, except, in myh opinion, for the fact that the Pope has quite a collection of credentials for the role of Antichrist. For instance,666 is the number of the Antichrist, not the False Prophet, the very title "Vicar of Christ" is synonymous with "Antichrist," usurping His role; the Pope was identified as the Anticrhrist by many down the centuries, eventually including the Protestant Reformers; the Popes presided over the Holy Roman Empire. What makes it Roman at all, in fact, is that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and regarded that poition as head of the new Roman Empire. The Popes continue to seek the international spotlight. The Jesuits work tirelessly to return the papacy to world power. The Roman Church can be shown to be the heir of the pagan religion of Babylon, Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth, and no doubt more. Since all the false religions derive from Babylon so did the religion of Dagon mentioned in the Bible, and according to Hislop the priests of Dagon wore tje fishhead-shaped headgear that is now worn by Roman Catholic Bishops. (Otherwise it's hard to explain that odd thing isn't it?)
And this current Pope, Francis, was elected to the role under some auspicious circumstances, such as the time and date of 3/13/13 at 7:06 PM which can be written 6:66. A seagull sat on the chimney where the smoke annnounces a new Pope, the seagull being an unclean bird, that in some superstitions is considered to be a messenger of changing times. There was also the strange event some time afterward when he released two doves from the window of the basilica that were immediately attacked by a raven and a seagull and nearly killed, interesting symbolism again since the doves are biblicall clean birds and the raven and seagull are unclean.
The radio show is good on this Pope and on the Roman Church in general, however, although I always want to add my own different viewpoint as above.
The Pope is not considered by them to be the Antichrist, as the Reformers thought, but probably the False Prophet, which is represente by the other beast in Revelation 13, the one with the two horns of a lamb.
This is a poissibility and there are reasons to prefer it to the Antichrist interpretation, except, in myh opinion, for the fact that the Pope has quite a collection of credentials for the role of Antichrist. For instance,666 is the number of the Antichrist, not the False Prophet, the very title "Vicar of Christ" is synonymous with "Antichrist," usurping His role; the Pope was identified as the Anticrhrist by many down the centuries, eventually including the Protestant Reformers; the Popes presided over the Holy Roman Empire. What makes it Roman at all, in fact, is that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and regarded that poition as head of the new Roman Empire. The Popes continue to seek the international spotlight. The Jesuits work tirelessly to return the papacy to world power. The Roman Church can be shown to be the heir of the pagan religion of Babylon, Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth, and no doubt more. Since all the false religions derive from Babylon so did the religion of Dagon mentioned in the Bible, and according to Hislop the priests of Dagon wore tje fishhead-shaped headgear that is now worn by Roman Catholic Bishops. (Otherwise it's hard to explain that odd thing isn't it?)
And this current Pope, Francis, was elected to the role under some auspicious circumstances, such as the time and date of 3/13/13 at 7:06 PM which can be written 6:66. A seagull sat on the chimney where the smoke annnounces a new Pope, the seagull being an unclean bird, that in some superstitions is considered to be a messenger of changing times. There was also the strange event some time afterward when he released two doves from the window of the basilica that were immediately attacked by a raven and a seagull and nearly killed, interesting symbolism again since the doves are biblicall clean birds and the raven and seagull are unclean.
The radio show is good on this Pope and on the Roman Church in general, however, although I always want to add my own different viewpoint as above.
The Left Dominates Wikipedia Too
I more ore less knew that anyway, so I don't use it for political information. Even the information I do get from them is probably biased but at least not to the extent I'd expect political issues to be biased. I apprecaite Wikipedia a great deal for the availabilty of all kinds of information that's easy to find there, so I always send them a few dollars whenever their fundraising pleas come up.
Maybe I shouldn't though. Maybe I'll rethink that policy because of this article in the Epoch Times:
https//www.theepochtimes.com/wikipedia-co-founder-warns-wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever_3887650.html?utm_source=pushengage
Maybe I shouldn't though. Maybe I'll rethink that policy because of this article in the Epoch Times:
Wikiipedia Co-founder Warns: ‘Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever’ BY JACK PHILLIPS July 5, 2021 Updated: July 6, 2021 biggersmaller Print Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia, warned that the online encyclopedia is “more one-sided than ever” in light of the website’s entries for Black Lives Matter, the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump’s two impeachments, and other contentious topics.The article continues at:
Sanger, in particular, took issue with how some Wikipedia entries are sourced.
“In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources—and sources friendly to globalist progressivism—are permitted,” he wrote in an article on his website.
https//www.theepochtimes.com/wikipedia-co-founder-warns-wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever_3887650.html?utm_source=pushengage
Monday, July 5, 2021
The End Times Antichrist, Mystery: Babylon the Great, and the Revived Roman Empire, Probably Not What the Premillennialists Think
I listen to the premillennialist prophecy people who are expecting the Rapture at any time followed by the Great Tribulation, or Day of the LORD, of seven years before the second coming of Jesus. I'm generally persuaded of this end times point of view, but I do have some problems with it.
As they understand the Antichrist who is to come and reign over the whole earth in the Tribulation period, he is someone who will not be revealed until after the Rapture so he is a mystery to us now. This is how they understand what Paul said about him in 2 thessalonians 2:7-9:
Or according to other translations, he who restrains will restrain until he is taken out of the way. This is interpreted to mean that this wicked one, or the Antichrist, will not be revealed until this one who restrains is taken out of the way, and that one is interpreted to be the Holy Spirit who would not be present after the Church is raptured. So, after the Rapture then the identity of the Antichrist can be known.
The final Antichrist is understood to be the beast that rises out of the sea in Revelation 13,
The beast of Revelation 13 has the features of three of the beasts in the vision described in Daniel 7, a lion, a bear and a leopard. The beast of Revelation 13 has the characteristics of all three. Daneil 7:8 describes the "little horn" that rises up among the ten horns of the fourth beast of his vision:
The beast of Revelation 13 also "speaks great things:"
So we have a potrait of the Antichrist first foreshadowed in the little horn of the fourth beast of Daniel's vision, the fourth beast being understood to be the Roman Empire yet far in the future from Daniel's time, and that portrait shows up in Revelation 13 in slightly different form, one beast with the characteristics of all the beasts in Daniel's vision, and the mouth that speaks great things. The beasts of Daneil's vision clearly represent the succession of kingdoms from Babylon, the lion with eagle's wings, through Medo-Persia, the bear risen up on one side, through Greece under Alexander the Great that splitgs into four under four of his generals, the leopard with four heads. The fourth beast is "great and terrible" with iron teeth, devouring the whole world, and that has to be the Roman Empire which followewd the Hellenistic empire of Alexander the Great. The final Antichrist represented by the beast in Revelation 13 represents the final or fourth empire, the Roman empire which dominated the world in the time of Christ and didn't come to its end until 476 AD.
In 606 AD the Bishop of Rome was made Universal Bishop by the Byantine emperer Phocas, displacing three other bishops of the Christian church of the day, and this elevantion prompted Pope Gregory to recognize him as the Antichrist. After that elevation hundreds of others also recognized him as the Antichrist, and finally so did Luther and the other Protestant Reformers. I have a post listing many of those who recognized the Pope as Antichrist even before the Reformation. a list I got from Chris Pinto's ministry. I'll try to find it and post the link.
I wasn't expecting to include so much background information in this post but it seems necessary to be clear about where we get the idea of a coming Antichrist and other parts of the picture that add up to the whole end times scenario anticipated by the premillennialists. . Luther and the other Protestant Reformers understood Paul in 2 Thessalonians to be speaking of the rise of he rise of the papacy in 606 AD, and the Pope to be the Antichrist. All the Popes, but the very last Pope would be the final Antichrist of Revelation 13. They understood Paul's statement to refer to the fulfillment of the prophet Daniel's prophecy of the "little horn" that would rise up out of the Roman Empire. They also understood the description of the Antichrist as presenting himself in the temple of God as God himself, to be fulfilled in his claim to be the Vicar of Christ who sits among the people of God, who are called the Temple of God in the New Testament. The premillennialists are expecting that to happen during the Tribulation too, a literal sitting in the literal rebuilt physical temple in Jerusalem. I'm not saying that couldn't yet ALSO happen, but the Reformers' interpretation is sufficient without that.
If the Reformers's view is accepted, there is no reason to think of the Antichrist as yet to be revealed after the Rapture. In fact the idea that the Holy Spirit would be the Restrainer who is taken out of the way in order for him to be revealed doesn't really make sense. Both Paul and Jesus used cryptic language to talk about the coming of the Antichrist, suggesting some danger in revealing his identity at that time. If he is the Pope who rose to head a new version of the Roman Empire after the end of the line of Caesars, then it makes sense that it was Caesar who restrained his revelation and had to be taken out of the way first. Which is what the Reformers understood to be the case. There is no reason for his identity to be withheld by the Holy Spirit that I can think of. But if the Antichrist is a Pope he has been revealed over and over by many Protestants already. That knowledge has been suppressed again in the last century unfortunatly, but there was one very interesting event when pastor Ian Paisley stood up in the parliament of the European Union to denounce Pope John Paul as the Antichrist when the Pope was speaking there. Few there are these days who are willing -- or knowledgeable enough -- to take such a stand.
WHAT IS "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT?
This is another piece of the puzzle that premillennialists may have wrong. This is the title on the forehead of the Harlot in Revelation 17. There are all sorts of speculations about what Babylon the Great means, some thinking it even refers to the United States, or maybe New York City. Jan Markell and her recent guest pastor ark Hitchcock, think it refers to the original ancient Babylon as the mother of all the false religions in the world. I think this is true too but I think what they miss is that the Roman Church is today's Babylon the Great, having inherited many of its superstitious religious practices from there. Nimrod was the first Antichrist and the religion that grew up ar4ound him and his mother Semiramis passed into many of the pagan religions of the world, ending up particularly embodied in the Roman Catholic Church. All this is spelled out in Alexander Hislop's book "The Two Babylons." There is every reason to associate the Harlot of the book of Revelation with the Roman Church and her title that also associates her with Babylon connects the two.
REVIVED ROMAN EMPIRE
The premillennialists are also looking to a Revived Roman Empire to fulfill the end time prophecies, which they talk about as a revival of the empire of the Caesars which has been dead since the fifth century.
Just as they overlook the rise of the papacy as fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist, they overlook the fact that the Pope became the religious head of a revived Roman Empire in the Middle Ages, known as the Holy Roman Empire which lasted a thousand years from the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 AD to the end of Emperor Napoleon in 1806. it wasn't a particularly cohesive organization but cohesive enough to be called an empire in which all its various kingdomes were all headed by Roman Catholic kings. I ran across a quote from Voltaire somewhere who said it wasn't an empire, wasn't Roman and certainly wasn't holy. Nevertheless it had that title and the Roman Chruch insisted on that designation:
From the Wikipedia article on "The Holy Roman Empire" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Formation_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire --
As scripture says about the Roman Empire of the last days, it is to be "diverse" or different from other empires or kingdoms, which seems to be a reasonable way to describe the Holy Roman Empire. It wasn't exactly an empire and it was presided over by a religious figure, the Pope, and since the Roman Chruch continues even after the death of Napoleon, there is a sense in which the end times Roman Empire continues to exist, and good reason to think the Roman Empire of the Tribulation period will be the resumption of the Holy Roman Empire with the Pope/Antichrist at its head, wielding a powerful Inquisition against all who refuse to submit to it.
It does seem to me that the Pope's credentials for the role of Antichrist are impeccable, but on the other hand there have been Antichrist precursors who were political leaders who had a messianic religious aura about them. Hitler* was one, but there was also Antioches Epiphanes who was a king of the Seleucids that rose out of Alexander the Great's Greece and persecuted the Jews, desecrating their temple. He is also propesied in the vision of Daniel 7. He and Hitler both are Antichrist figures and there are no doubt others but they stand out. The Pope is also a political leader since the Vatican is a sovereign state in its own right, but the current Pope is elderly and hard to fit into the scenario of a political or military leader. Nevertheless, not only is the papacy well identified as the Antichrist in many ways, including the number 666 which his title as Vicar of Christ in Latin adds up to (Vicarivs Filii Dei) and this current Pope took office amid some very interesting signs that seem to give him a special status among the Popes. I have a post on it I'll link if I can find it.
For the most part I accept the premillennial eschatology, the Rapture coming first followed by the seven year Tribulation period followedc by Jesus' second coming, then the Millennium, before the final Eternal state. So far I haven't found a reason to challenge that basic scenario. But I do continue to disagree with their view of the Antichrist and the Revived Roman Empire. It hink one of the big errors of today's Protestant churches is that they aren't Protestant any more, and many of them embrace the Roman church as just another denomination, which is the same thing as embracing the Antichrist. Not that there aren't many Catholics who have nothing to do with that, but they too need to wake up and "Come out of her, My people" as the Lord says to them.
==============================================================
*The title "Third Reich" is a claim to the title of Holy Roman Empire. ========================================================== This post could have been three times as long but I can't go that long in one sitting these days and I hate leaving a long post unfinished for later because that usually means I'll never get it finished. I wanted to get into more about the Third Reich, and I wanted to get into the statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2 which is also about the four empires starting with Babylon. Also more on Hislop's study of the Two Babylons, and a section on the European Uniobn which is the latest attempt to revive the Roman Empire and probably the one that will be in place during the Tribulation. Guess I can only do what i can do.
As they understand the Antichrist who is to come and reign over the whole earth in the Tribulation period, he is someone who will not be revealed until after the Rapture so he is a mystery to us now. This is how they understand what Paul said about him in 2 thessalonians 2:7-9:
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders
Or according to other translations, he who restrains will restrain until he is taken out of the way. This is interpreted to mean that this wicked one, or the Antichrist, will not be revealed until this one who restrains is taken out of the way, and that one is interpreted to be the Holy Spirit who would not be present after the Church is raptured. So, after the Rapture then the identity of the Antichrist can be known.
The final Antichrist is understood to be the beast that rises out of the sea in Revelation 13,
The beast of Revelation 13 has the features of three of the beasts in the vision described in Daniel 7, a lion, a bear and a leopard. The beast of Revelation 13 has the characteristics of all three. Daneil 7:8 describes the "little horn" that rises up among the ten horns of the fourth beast of his vision:
I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
The beast of Revelation 13 also "speaks great things:"
(Revelation 13:5) And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months
So we have a potrait of the Antichrist first foreshadowed in the little horn of the fourth beast of Daniel's vision, the fourth beast being understood to be the Roman Empire yet far in the future from Daniel's time, and that portrait shows up in Revelation 13 in slightly different form, one beast with the characteristics of all the beasts in Daniel's vision, and the mouth that speaks great things. The beasts of Daneil's vision clearly represent the succession of kingdoms from Babylon, the lion with eagle's wings, through Medo-Persia, the bear risen up on one side, through Greece under Alexander the Great that splitgs into four under four of his generals, the leopard with four heads. The fourth beast is "great and terrible" with iron teeth, devouring the whole world, and that has to be the Roman Empire which followewd the Hellenistic empire of Alexander the Great. The final Antichrist represented by the beast in Revelation 13 represents the final or fourth empire, the Roman empire which dominated the world in the time of Christ and didn't come to its end until 476 AD.
In 606 AD the Bishop of Rome was made Universal Bishop by the Byantine emperer Phocas, displacing three other bishops of the Christian church of the day, and this elevantion prompted Pope Gregory to recognize him as the Antichrist. After that elevation hundreds of others also recognized him as the Antichrist, and finally so did Luther and the other Protestant Reformers. I have a post listing many of those who recognized the Pope as Antichrist even before the Reformation. a list I got from Chris Pinto's ministry. I'll try to find it and post the link.
I wasn't expecting to include so much background information in this post but it seems necessary to be clear about where we get the idea of a coming Antichrist and other parts of the picture that add up to the whole end times scenario anticipated by the premillennialists. . Luther and the other Protestant Reformers understood Paul in 2 Thessalonians to be speaking of the rise of he rise of the papacy in 606 AD, and the Pope to be the Antichrist. All the Popes, but the very last Pope would be the final Antichrist of Revelation 13. They understood Paul's statement to refer to the fulfillment of the prophet Daniel's prophecy of the "little horn" that would rise up out of the Roman Empire. They also understood the description of the Antichrist as presenting himself in the temple of God as God himself, to be fulfilled in his claim to be the Vicar of Christ who sits among the people of God, who are called the Temple of God in the New Testament. The premillennialists are expecting that to happen during the Tribulation too, a literal sitting in the literal rebuilt physical temple in Jerusalem. I'm not saying that couldn't yet ALSO happen, but the Reformers' interpretation is sufficient without that.
If the Reformers's view is accepted, there is no reason to think of the Antichrist as yet to be revealed after the Rapture. In fact the idea that the Holy Spirit would be the Restrainer who is taken out of the way in order for him to be revealed doesn't really make sense. Both Paul and Jesus used cryptic language to talk about the coming of the Antichrist, suggesting some danger in revealing his identity at that time. If he is the Pope who rose to head a new version of the Roman Empire after the end of the line of Caesars, then it makes sense that it was Caesar who restrained his revelation and had to be taken out of the way first. Which is what the Reformers understood to be the case. There is no reason for his identity to be withheld by the Holy Spirit that I can think of. But if the Antichrist is a Pope he has been revealed over and over by many Protestants already. That knowledge has been suppressed again in the last century unfortunatly, but there was one very interesting event when pastor Ian Paisley stood up in the parliament of the European Union to denounce Pope John Paul as the Antichrist when the Pope was speaking there. Few there are these days who are willing -- or knowledgeable enough -- to take such a stand.
WHAT IS "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT?
This is another piece of the puzzle that premillennialists may have wrong. This is the title on the forehead of the Harlot in Revelation 17. There are all sorts of speculations about what Babylon the Great means, some thinking it even refers to the United States, or maybe New York City. Jan Markell and her recent guest pastor ark Hitchcock, think it refers to the original ancient Babylon as the mother of all the false religions in the world. I think this is true too but I think what they miss is that the Roman Church is today's Babylon the Great, having inherited many of its superstitious religious practices from there. Nimrod was the first Antichrist and the religion that grew up ar4ound him and his mother Semiramis passed into many of the pagan religions of the world, ending up particularly embodied in the Roman Catholic Church. All this is spelled out in Alexander Hislop's book "The Two Babylons." There is every reason to associate the Harlot of the book of Revelation with the Roman Church and her title that also associates her with Babylon connects the two.
REVIVED ROMAN EMPIRE
The premillennialists are also looking to a Revived Roman Empire to fulfill the end time prophecies, which they talk about as a revival of the empire of the Caesars which has been dead since the fifth century.
Just as they overlook the rise of the papacy as fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist, they overlook the fact that the Pope became the religious head of a revived Roman Empire in the Middle Ages, known as the Holy Roman Empire which lasted a thousand years from the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 AD to the end of Emperor Napoleon in 1806. it wasn't a particularly cohesive organization but cohesive enough to be called an empire in which all its various kingdomes were all headed by Roman Catholic kings. I ran across a quote from Voltaire somewhere who said it wasn't an empire, wasn't Roman and certainly wasn't holy. Nevertheless it had that title and the Roman Chruch insisted on that designation:
From the Wikipedia article on "The Holy Roman Empire" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Formation_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire --
The Empire was considered by the Roman Catholic Church to be the only legal successor of the Roman Empire during the Middle Ages and the early modern period. Since Charlemagne, the realm was merely referred to as the Roman Empire.[23] The term sacrum ("holy", in the sense of "consecrated") in connection with the medieval Roman Empire was used beginning in 1157 under Frederick I Barbarossa ("Holy Empire"): the term was added to reflect Frederick's ambition to dominate Italy and the Papacy.[24] The form "Holy Roman Empire" is attested from 1254 onward.[25] In a decree following the Diet of Cologne in 1512, the name was changed to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nat
As scripture says about the Roman Empire of the last days, it is to be "diverse" or different from other empires or kingdoms, which seems to be a reasonable way to describe the Holy Roman Empire. It wasn't exactly an empire and it was presided over by a religious figure, the Pope, and since the Roman Chruch continues even after the death of Napoleon, there is a sense in which the end times Roman Empire continues to exist, and good reason to think the Roman Empire of the Tribulation period will be the resumption of the Holy Roman Empire with the Pope/Antichrist at its head, wielding a powerful Inquisition against all who refuse to submit to it.
It does seem to me that the Pope's credentials for the role of Antichrist are impeccable, but on the other hand there have been Antichrist precursors who were political leaders who had a messianic religious aura about them. Hitler* was one, but there was also Antioches Epiphanes who was a king of the Seleucids that rose out of Alexander the Great's Greece and persecuted the Jews, desecrating their temple. He is also propesied in the vision of Daniel 7. He and Hitler both are Antichrist figures and there are no doubt others but they stand out. The Pope is also a political leader since the Vatican is a sovereign state in its own right, but the current Pope is elderly and hard to fit into the scenario of a political or military leader. Nevertheless, not only is the papacy well identified as the Antichrist in many ways, including the number 666 which his title as Vicar of Christ in Latin adds up to (Vicarivs Filii Dei) and this current Pope took office amid some very interesting signs that seem to give him a special status among the Popes. I have a post on it I'll link if I can find it.
For the most part I accept the premillennial eschatology, the Rapture coming first followed by the seven year Tribulation period followedc by Jesus' second coming, then the Millennium, before the final Eternal state. So far I haven't found a reason to challenge that basic scenario. But I do continue to disagree with their view of the Antichrist and the Revived Roman Empire. It hink one of the big errors of today's Protestant churches is that they aren't Protestant any more, and many of them embrace the Roman church as just another denomination, which is the same thing as embracing the Antichrist. Not that there aren't many Catholics who have nothing to do with that, but they too need to wake up and "Come out of her, My people" as the Lord says to them.
==============================================================
*The title "Third Reich" is a claim to the title of Holy Roman Empire. ========================================================== This post could have been three times as long but I can't go that long in one sitting these days and I hate leaving a long post unfinished for later because that usually means I'll never get it finished. I wanted to get into more about the Third Reich, and I wanted to get into the statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2 which is also about the four empires starting with Babylon. Also more on Hislop's study of the Two Babylons, and a section on the European Uniobn which is the latest attempt to revive the Roman Empire and probably the one that will be in place during the Tribulation. Guess I can only do what i can do.
Sunday, July 4, 2021
The Genocidal Insanity and/or Stupidity of Critical Race Theory
James Lindsay, probably the one with the most knowledge on Critical Race Theory today, gives its history and an an analysis if CRT and Wokeness.
Saturday, July 3, 2021
Dealing with the Dangers of the Vaccines; and Dr. Zelenko Needs to Change His Diet to Cure His Cancer
Most of my sources on COVID, the vaccines, antivirals and so on, are now scattered all over the internet, some in pieces, and I'm not going to get them all together for some time. I can name the participants at least so others can track them down. Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Steve Kirsch, Dr. Richard Fleming, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko. There are others.Most of these are warning about the vaccines and objecting to the suppression of information about their dangers and about the efficacy of treatments such as HCQ and Ivermectin.
In this post I'm mainly reacting to a long interview of Dr. Zelenko by Dr. Mercola. The whole thing is interesting in my opinion, but probably the most imporant part is the advice for people who have had the vaccines, to protect against possible health problems as a result. That's discussed from roughly about 41 for the next fifteen or so minutes. The same protocols recommended for prevention of the virus itself and for early treatment of it are also effective for this purpose: HCQ or Ivermectin and if you can't get those then at least get zinc, quercetin, vitamin C and Vitamin D3.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HrBxKWxB8dkZ
Since I like to follow some of the health gurus online, although I can't say I'm good at taking their advice -- at least I pretty much know what their advice is -- I get a bit upset hearing that Dr. Zelenko has been suffering from cancer and has had a recent recurrence and all he does is the standard treatment of chemo and what4ever else is recommended. He's lost a lung to the cancer already. At least he continues to survive and is grateful to God, but oh how I wish HE paid attention to these health gurus because I am convinced that the right diet can cure cancer. A totally plant-based mostly raw diet.
At least a quart and a half of carrot juice every day, plus lots of raw fruits and veggies, tons of greens, plus nuts and seeds. There's a lot more but that's the basics and probably in most cases enough. (Check out "Chris Beat Cancer.")
In this post I'm mainly reacting to a long interview of Dr. Zelenko by Dr. Mercola. The whole thing is interesting in my opinion, but probably the most imporant part is the advice for people who have had the vaccines, to protect against possible health problems as a result. That's discussed from roughly about 41 for the next fifteen or so minutes. The same protocols recommended for prevention of the virus itself and for early treatment of it are also effective for this purpose: HCQ or Ivermectin and if you can't get those then at least get zinc, quercetin, vitamin C and Vitamin D3.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HrBxKWxB8dkZ
Since I like to follow some of the health gurus online, although I can't say I'm good at taking their advice -- at least I pretty much know what their advice is -- I get a bit upset hearing that Dr. Zelenko has been suffering from cancer and has had a recent recurrence and all he does is the standard treatment of chemo and what4ever else is recommended. He's lost a lung to the cancer already. At least he continues to survive and is grateful to God, but oh how I wish HE paid attention to these health gurus because I am convinced that the right diet can cure cancer. A totally plant-based mostly raw diet.
At least a quart and a half of carrot juice every day, plus lots of raw fruits and veggies, tons of greens, plus nuts and seeds. There's a lot more but that's the basics and probably in most cases enough. (Check out "Chris Beat Cancer.")
Friday, July 2, 2021
American Liberty Versus Marxist Tyranny: Who's Winning?
I was still half asleep from my afternoon's long nap -- can't sleep at night much any more so the daytime gets wiped out as I sleep through most of it -- anyway I woke up in time to hear Mark Levin reading from his book that's due out on the 13th, "American Marxism." He read from various drafts of the Declaration of Independence and from various state constitutions, all of which used different language to say the same thing that ended up in the Declaration. It really helps to give a perspective when you hear the different ways of saying the same thing. He also read from Paine's "Common Sense." Knowing more about these thigns should improve our understanding of what the founding of America was really all about.
Then he read from some early American Marxists. Scary stuff. Aggressive intent to overthrow the American government, denigration of the framers, promotion of the utopian dream that has murdered hundreds of millions, and yet people are still attracted to this stuff. Right now the country is already undergoing the first phases of a Marxist revolution, pushed by the Democratic Party and not very well opposed by most on the conservative side either. We're a bunch of ignoramuses about all these things.
I've still got the words of a friend going around in my head from a few months ago, when I asked her opinion of the censorship of conservatives on the social media. Well I don't remember her exact words but the gist of her answer was that she doesn't think "misinformation" should be given a public platform. Something like that. About that same time she asked me if I'm a white supremacist which was a real punch in the stomach, knocked the bottom out of our friendship. I forgave her, I tried hard for the next few weeks to keep the friendship intact, but I couldn't overcome the effect of her remarks. The friendship had died and there was nothing I could do about it.
She was just echoing the leftist propaganda which has been pumped into liberal minds for years now. They don't even know it's Marxism and radically opposed to everything America was meant to be. Ideas have consequences and Marxism is the most pernicious ideology in force right now, bringing down everything good in this country. And they think they are doing a good thing apparently. When all the conservatives are gone they'll think utopia can now thrive? it will kill them too because they don't understand what it is, they have no idea what they are doing.
Marx's thinking was influenced by an important Jesuit in his time, a connection that is common but hardly ever noticed in the lives of Marxists. Chris Pinto is the one I'm aware of who has the most to say about this kind of connection. The Roman Church is behind the world class murderous doctrines of the last century, all the genoicdes, which I've pointed out here and there in my posts.* Mark Levin can trace the Marxist indoctrination behind them, but Pinto gets beneath that to the Jesuits. The average Catholic knows nothing about all this so they can keep up their false Christian facade, but the papacy is still waiting for its chance to bring back the Inquisition, which is what all the political genoides have been based on. it will certainly be the centerpiece of the seven-year Tribulation period that will follow the Rapture, or disappearance of the Church.
We know Who wins in the end but getting there is going to hurt those who have to go through it. <
=============================================================
* The Roman Catholic connection to the genocides. I put up a list of books on my Roman Catholicism blog, some of which have titles directly related to this claim. "Hitler's Pope" for instance. I've mentioned the role of a Catholic Bishop whose radio talks incited the Hutus to slaughter the Tutsis in Rwanda by calling the Tutsis "cockroaches" and generally using the same kind of propaganda against them that Hitler used against the Jews. Character assassination is the main Marxist modus operandi but obviously that includes all forms of fascism which could be shown to have the same ideological root. That's what they are doing to conservatives in America, calling us racists and white supremacists and xenophobes and so on and so forth, just because they don't like our politics and want us silenced so their politcs can control everybody. That's what they did to Donald Trump from the moment he declared his candidacy, and are still doing to him, not one iota of which he deserves.
Other clues to this connection include the use of the dunce cap in Mao's takeover of China, to humiliate dissenters. I didn't know it but found out that the dunce cap originated with the Inqauisition. Another connection was the use of a version of the iron maiden torture device that was used against dissenters in Ceaucescu's Romania. This was shown in the film about the imprisonment of Richard Wurmbrand I saw recently, Tortured for Christ, based on Wurmbrand's book. He was held in an underground prison for fourteen years for the crime of being a Christian. Anyway, the film pointed out the use of a wooden box about the size of a casket in which prisoners were forced to stand for hours trying to avoid being punctured by the hundreds of nails that line the inside of the box. The iron maiden was a torture tool of the Inquisition. That connection wasn't mentioned in the film, it's just something most of us know and one source of this information is the ex Catholic priest richard Bennett, whose website is still up as far as I know.
Then he read from some early American Marxists. Scary stuff. Aggressive intent to overthrow the American government, denigration of the framers, promotion of the utopian dream that has murdered hundreds of millions, and yet people are still attracted to this stuff. Right now the country is already undergoing the first phases of a Marxist revolution, pushed by the Democratic Party and not very well opposed by most on the conservative side either. We're a bunch of ignoramuses about all these things.
I've still got the words of a friend going around in my head from a few months ago, when I asked her opinion of the censorship of conservatives on the social media. Well I don't remember her exact words but the gist of her answer was that she doesn't think "misinformation" should be given a public platform. Something like that. About that same time she asked me if I'm a white supremacist which was a real punch in the stomach, knocked the bottom out of our friendship. I forgave her, I tried hard for the next few weeks to keep the friendship intact, but I couldn't overcome the effect of her remarks. The friendship had died and there was nothing I could do about it.
She was just echoing the leftist propaganda which has been pumped into liberal minds for years now. They don't even know it's Marxism and radically opposed to everything America was meant to be. Ideas have consequences and Marxism is the most pernicious ideology in force right now, bringing down everything good in this country. And they think they are doing a good thing apparently. When all the conservatives are gone they'll think utopia can now thrive? it will kill them too because they don't understand what it is, they have no idea what they are doing.
Marx's thinking was influenced by an important Jesuit in his time, a connection that is common but hardly ever noticed in the lives of Marxists. Chris Pinto is the one I'm aware of who has the most to say about this kind of connection. The Roman Church is behind the world class murderous doctrines of the last century, all the genoicdes, which I've pointed out here and there in my posts.* Mark Levin can trace the Marxist indoctrination behind them, but Pinto gets beneath that to the Jesuits. The average Catholic knows nothing about all this so they can keep up their false Christian facade, but the papacy is still waiting for its chance to bring back the Inquisition, which is what all the political genoides have been based on. it will certainly be the centerpiece of the seven-year Tribulation period that will follow the Rapture, or disappearance of the Church.
We know Who wins in the end but getting there is going to hurt those who have to go through it. <
=============================================================
* The Roman Catholic connection to the genocides. I put up a list of books on my Roman Catholicism blog, some of which have titles directly related to this claim. "Hitler's Pope" for instance. I've mentioned the role of a Catholic Bishop whose radio talks incited the Hutus to slaughter the Tutsis in Rwanda by calling the Tutsis "cockroaches" and generally using the same kind of propaganda against them that Hitler used against the Jews. Character assassination is the main Marxist modus operandi but obviously that includes all forms of fascism which could be shown to have the same ideological root. That's what they are doing to conservatives in America, calling us racists and white supremacists and xenophobes and so on and so forth, just because they don't like our politics and want us silenced so their politcs can control everybody. That's what they did to Donald Trump from the moment he declared his candidacy, and are still doing to him, not one iota of which he deserves.
Other clues to this connection include the use of the dunce cap in Mao's takeover of China, to humiliate dissenters. I didn't know it but found out that the dunce cap originated with the Inqauisition. Another connection was the use of a version of the iron maiden torture device that was used against dissenters in Ceaucescu's Romania. This was shown in the film about the imprisonment of Richard Wurmbrand I saw recently, Tortured for Christ, based on Wurmbrand's book. He was held in an underground prison for fourteen years for the crime of being a Christian. Anyway, the film pointed out the use of a wooden box about the size of a casket in which prisoners were forced to stand for hours trying to avoid being punctured by the hundreds of nails that line the inside of the box. The iron maiden was a torture tool of the Inquisition. That connection wasn't mentioned in the film, it's just something most of us know and one source of this information is the ex Catholic priest richard Bennett, whose website is still up as far as I know.
Thursday, July 1, 2021
The COVID Gulag Again.
Saw my Primary Care person yesterday. She rather snapped at me about keeping my mask up since I'm not vaccinated (it's hard to breathe in that thing and I'd dropped it to my chin while there was nobody in the room but me). We went through the reasons I was there, she put through an order for lab work. She didn't push the vaccine on me exactly but she did say it 100% "prevents death." Huh? I'm not good at thinking fast in conversation --that's why I write -- or I might have pointed out that 6000 deaths due to the vaccines have been reported to the official NIH site by medical people, and that must be just a drop in the bucket of the real number. Not to mention the injuries from it which can be pretty debilitating, including convulsions.
But I did say I would like to be prescribed Ivermectin because I am convinced it both prevents COVID and treats it effectively and should be regarded as just as good as being vaccinated as far as protection of self and others goes. She said she's read the studies and it's not very effective. My answer to that should have been, Well we know it's safe and can't hurt because of decades of use on billions of people and I can point you to many doctors who have used it very successfully. I don't know about those studies but there were so many stupid studies of HCQ this must be the same sort of thing. Doctors who USE the drug KNOW it works and studies are often based on misusing it, prescribing it too late to help or in the wrong dosage, and so on.
I've now heard MANY doctors testifying to its effectiveness and the criminality of its suppression. And of course those testimonies have been censored by nonmedical politically motivated watchdogs who must have some sort of vested interest in vaccines and against effective treatments. Killing us off perhaps? Sometimes these testimonies get moved to less restrictive sites but I've been finding it hard to navigate those other sites. What I find is often just parts of a program, not the whole thing. I don't know why, seems odd if the site is supposed to be a freer source of information.
I'd like to get some Ivermectin and I do have some possible sources so maybe I will. But because of my eyes I do need help navigating application forms and that sort of thing. However, two things: what I take should be pretty effective anyway, the zinc-quercetin combo plus some immune-boosting vitamins, AND I think I may have had COVID. Yes, although I've been pretty totally isolated for a long time, seeing only my brother who does my shopping and takes out the garbage once a week, who has not been sick and is now vaccinated, I got a mild "cold" a few months ago, no idea how I coujld have but I did, very mild, just a runny nose basically, the usual week, but what makes me think it might have been COVID is that I absolutely could not taste the dill weed I put on a cucumber salad. I didn't make the connection at the time and I didn't notice if other foods didn't have much taste, only that one because dill weed is a pretty strong flavor and I couldn't taste it at all though I kept adding more and more of it. I thought maybe the cold interfered with tasting it which I guess can happen, but not to that extent. Was it old and dead or what? No, because I'd been using it for weeks and could taste it fine. Funny it didn't occur to me at the time that it could have been COVID. It was some time afterward that it occurred to me.
I forgot to mention it to my Primary Care lady. Alas.
There have been two or three discussions about ivermectin and the problem of censorship that I thought I'd eventually post here, that have disappeared. This stuff is scary. Do liberals care if the liberal social media censor us conservatives or the doctors who object to vaccines and believe HCQ and Ivermectin could have saved lives? If my Primary person is so heavily propagandzied I know most people out there are too. Sad state of affairds. The country is disintegrating before our eyes. Shouldn't even the liberals care or are they really into having a Communist revolution and destroying the Constitution and everything that made America great?
O happy happy.
But I did say I would like to be prescribed Ivermectin because I am convinced it both prevents COVID and treats it effectively and should be regarded as just as good as being vaccinated as far as protection of self and others goes. She said she's read the studies and it's not very effective. My answer to that should have been, Well we know it's safe and can't hurt because of decades of use on billions of people and I can point you to many doctors who have used it very successfully. I don't know about those studies but there were so many stupid studies of HCQ this must be the same sort of thing. Doctors who USE the drug KNOW it works and studies are often based on misusing it, prescribing it too late to help or in the wrong dosage, and so on.
I've now heard MANY doctors testifying to its effectiveness and the criminality of its suppression. And of course those testimonies have been censored by nonmedical politically motivated watchdogs who must have some sort of vested interest in vaccines and against effective treatments. Killing us off perhaps? Sometimes these testimonies get moved to less restrictive sites but I've been finding it hard to navigate those other sites. What I find is often just parts of a program, not the whole thing. I don't know why, seems odd if the site is supposed to be a freer source of information.
I'd like to get some Ivermectin and I do have some possible sources so maybe I will. But because of my eyes I do need help navigating application forms and that sort of thing. However, two things: what I take should be pretty effective anyway, the zinc-quercetin combo plus some immune-boosting vitamins, AND I think I may have had COVID. Yes, although I've been pretty totally isolated for a long time, seeing only my brother who does my shopping and takes out the garbage once a week, who has not been sick and is now vaccinated, I got a mild "cold" a few months ago, no idea how I coujld have but I did, very mild, just a runny nose basically, the usual week, but what makes me think it might have been COVID is that I absolutely could not taste the dill weed I put on a cucumber salad. I didn't make the connection at the time and I didn't notice if other foods didn't have much taste, only that one because dill weed is a pretty strong flavor and I couldn't taste it at all though I kept adding more and more of it. I thought maybe the cold interfered with tasting it which I guess can happen, but not to that extent. Was it old and dead or what? No, because I'd been using it for weeks and could taste it fine. Funny it didn't occur to me at the time that it could have been COVID. It was some time afterward that it occurred to me.
I forgot to mention it to my Primary Care lady. Alas.
There have been two or three discussions about ivermectin and the problem of censorship that I thought I'd eventually post here, that have disappeared. This stuff is scary. Do liberals care if the liberal social media censor us conservatives or the doctors who object to vaccines and believe HCQ and Ivermectin could have saved lives? If my Primary person is so heavily propagandzied I know most people out there are too. Sad state of affairds. The country is disintegrating before our eyes. Shouldn't even the liberals care or are they really into having a Communist revolution and destroying the Constitution and everything that made America great?
O happy happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
