What is the Abomination of Desolation?

Since I've been pondering some of the aspects of the Premillennial dispensational end times scenario I keep running across elemants of it I think are wrong. I don't know where I'm going to end up but it isn't as if I'm just discovering these elements, they've bothered me for some time but I haven't put my mind to answering them.

I'm thinking here of the Abomination of Desolation that Premill eschatology makes yet future and recalling that I've heard teaching that convincingly places it at the time of the Roman destruction of Jrrusalemt and the temple in 70 AD. Thos4e who had been warned by Jesus to flee when they saw that abomination did in fact flee and were saved from what was a bloody slaughter of such magnitude most of us have no idea. If I find a really good discussion of the historical facts I'll post it but for now I just want to say that I think there is good reason to consider that part of Jesus' prophecy in the Olivet discoverse to have been fulfilled in 70 AD.

In the book of Daniel this abomination of desolluation is referred to some four times and three of those times refer to the Greek period after the breakup of Anexander's army when the Seleucid leader Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Jerusalem temple with swine's blood in 167 BC. He was driven out by the Maccabees who cleansed the temple, there was the miracale of the continuously burning candes, and that is what is celebrated at Hanukkah. The remaining Abomination of Desolation belongs to the Roman period after that, and now I'm 98 percent confinced it was fulfilled in 70 AD.

It has bothered me all along that this futurist eschatology seems to anticipat4e the rebuilding of th4e physical temp0le in Jerusalem as a good thing. It can't be, it's an abomination in itself, a blasphemy against the Lord Jesus whose one-time sacrifice fulfilled and did away with the role of the animal sacrifices that were the main function of the temple. If an Abomination of Desolation was set up in that rebuilt temple it woulde not be an abomination of d4esoluation because the temple itself is the abomination.

And of course I'[ve already d3ealt with the idea that the Antichrist is yet to present himself as God in a physical temple: it was when the Bishop0 of Rome got elevated to Pope and dominated all the other offices of the Christian churches as well as having civil power in a reconstituted version of the Roman Empire, that he, the Antichrist, sat in the temple which is the people of God, declaring himself to be God, which all the titles given the Pope declare of him.

So far so good. I'll probably pare away more from the Premill eschatology, God willing, time permitting, eyesight allowing. I'm still particularly disturbed at the idea of two separate bodies of Chirst, one taken in the Rapture, followed by another that comes through the Great Tribulation. That one I don't yet have a way of resolving.

Two from Richard Bennett: Taking Down the Reformation, and E conomics More Destructive than Marxism

Here's Bennett talking about the neverending efforts of the RCC especially through the Jesuits to destroy Protestantism. Ecumenical agreements b4etween Rome and Protestant churches is one way that is happening today.



Worse than Marx: Pope Francis on economics. There's nothing wrong with stealing, that's the basic mesage, no matter that it's one of the Ten Commandments and the thought of what happens when people just take whatever they want from womenever they want is terrifying. Sounds like the Great Reset to me, and I can't remember if Francis is a member of the WEF, but I know he is associated with them. This insane philsophy also goes back to Aquinas, according to Bennett, it's not just Francis or any particular Pope for that matter. He answers the question about Francis starting about 9.
on

Richard Bennett,, ex Catholic Priest, Shows How the Pope Fits All the Biblical Descriptions of the Antichrist

About Richard Bennett: When I first started my blogs and they settled into categories I felt God wanted me to discuss here, I kept getting divine hints as it were that one of the topics I was to cover was the identity of the Antichrist. I already understood that the Pope had all the qualifications for the role, I'd quit a charismatic organization because they treated the Pope as a brother in Christ, and the derivation of the number 666 from the Roman numberals in one of his titles in Latin had wowed me since my nephew called me up to tell me about it.

But I wasn't expeting to delve into the subject beyond what I already believed. The divine hints, however, led me to listen to teachings on the subject at Sermon Audio and that's whre I found Richard Bennett. Bennett is probably the most scholarly teacher on the subject in our time. Later I got a lot of information from Chris Pinto as well, butI think it is Bennett I would most want evangelicals to study. He died at age 81 two years ago but his website is still up: Berean Beacon.con. some of his talks are on You Tube as well as Sermon Audio.

=======================================
Many Christians naively believe that the Pope can't be the Anticvhrist becaus4e he doesn't fulfill the definition given by the apostle John that the Antichrist denies the Father and the Son, and that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh: 1 John 2:22 and 1 John 4:3

If a Pope assembles together some words that seem to affirm that Christ has come in the flesh this is accepted as sufficient evidence that he can't be the Antichrist. The many blasphemous statements made by Popes that put Mary in the place of Christ and the Pope himself in the place of the Father, also in the place of Christ and the place of the Holy Spirit, are ignored while an empty affirmation is accepted. Since apparently there are many who are deceived along these lines I want to post here the reasoning of an ex Catholic priest, Richard Bennett, who shows the many ways the Popes deny the Father and the Son:


He talks for over an hour about how the Popes are Antichrst but right at the bginning he makes it clear that simply by usurping the titles of the Father and the Son they deny Christ.

Bennett names many who regarded the Pope as Antichrist down through the centuries. He stronly laments our current popular eschatology that puts the Antichrist into the future, ignoring all the historical fulfillments of Antichrist in the papacy.

Instead of 606 AM by the emperor Phocas he holds that it was Justiniah who made the Bishop of Rome universal Bishop and Pope in 538 AD. I've heard this also and I don't know which date is most pertinent. In any case it's clear that the papacy does not go back to the apostles.

He says around 20 that Justinian established a law that gave civil power to the Bishop of Rome and that this power is now law for the European Union as well, which of course we don't hear about from other sources.

The temple of God the Pop0 sits in is identified as the people of God according to Paul's identification of believers as that temple, and then he goes on to quote canon law on the powers of the Pope that clearly "exalt him above everything that is called God.

So. If we are to understand that the Antichirst has already been revealed and that he has been operating in the world for some 1500 years, does that mean we should completely scrap the popular eschatology that puts all this into the future?

At this point I don't think so but it's posible I'll change my mind. I think both can be true and this is the position I've held, that the Antichrist has been revealed as the Pope, all the Popes, but that there will yet be a last Pope who will be THE Antichrist at the end, after the true Church has been raptured and the Roman Church resumes its former political power on a global scale headed by the Antihrist Pope of that time,which will see the reinstatement of the Inquisition against all nonCatholics.

I have other problems with the Premillennial eschatology I hope will be resolved,but I don't see how I could give up the basic eschatology of the seven years Tribulation or Day of the LORD since it so perfectly dovetails with the prophecies in the book of Daniel. If I live long enough maybe I'll have answers to my questions eventually.

=========================================== PS I was thinking of making a separate post on this subject but it's really just a postscript so I'll include it here.

This is a talk by Dennis Prager about the evils of Lefiism and he covers many aspectsw of it but at one point he brings up Pope Francis, identifying him as a Leftist, which he is. He says this is because he comes from Latin America, which has some truth to it but the truth is deeper than that. In fact you could say that Latin America is Leftist because of the Popes, or because of the Roman Church. Francis is a Jesuit and it was a Jesuit who invented the idea of Social Justice. Marx had Jesuit connections as did many Communist and Fascist dictators. It's one of their inventions for the purpose of destroying their hated enemy the Protestant West. You could say that Catholic Latin America is the model for what they want to do to the United States.

What Prager said was that people from Latin America do not share our American values. If they did, he said, they would be rich because they have all the natural resources we have. So they are coming here and bringing their povery-making value system here, which is app0arently what our current Leftist politicians desire for our future. And they are helped by the Catholic Church, surprise surprise.

His remark about their values keeping them from being rich, by which he meant their Leftism of course, reminded me of observations I ran across wh4en I was listing books on my catholicisim blog. I don't know the analyses behind it but more than one writer mentioned that Catholic countries produce poverty and dysfunctional societies. Leftist is certainly one expression of that but apparently it is Catholicism itself that creates such misery. Yep, that's where we're headed under our current administration with the eager help of the Roman Church and myriads of Jesuits whspering in the ears of American leaders, teaching in the universities and so on and so forth.

John MacArthur Reiterates the Popular Doctrine of the Restrainer and I Try to Answer Him

Now I'm put in an uncomfortable ppsition. Just saw a recent excerpt from a John MacArthur sermon -- "Who Is HOLDING BACK the Antichrist?"-- in which he expounds on the identify ot the Restrainer I discussed in the previous post. Since I criticized that interpretation I am put in the position of defending what I just argued.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be--qqpyp94


MacArthur's theme is that the Antichrist himself is being restrained, his power in the world is restrained, not just the revelation of his identity is being restrained, which is how I read it and apparently the Reformers read it. Of course the only one who can restrain the power of the Antichrist, who is Satan, is God himself.

But the passage does not desribe any supernatural restraint of the power of the Antichrist himself, what it describes is the restraint or withholding of his appeaing, the time not being right for that yet, and the revelation of his identity. I see no implication that the time of his revelation implies the time of his great power in the Tribulation period of the book of Revelation:

2 Thess 2:3 ... for [the day of Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself[th4e day of Christ] that he is God.
]
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

The Falling away or apostasy would have been occurring over the years preceding the rise of the Pope/Antichrist, the accumulation of false doctrines that became absorbed into the Roman Church And again, we don't need to wait for some special occasion for the Anticvhrist to exalt himself above God because the very attributes and titles assigned to the Pope usurp the identity of Christ and God the Holy Spirit and God the Father.
Again I emphasize that if Paul was referring to God the Holy Spirit he would have had no reason to speak in such veiled terms, he would have come right out and said what he meant. But he is referring to something he had told them before without naming it, something that had not been put in writing, which implies some danger in naming it.

This refusal to name the Restrainer doesw not fit with the end times scenario that is coming about in our time, but does fit with the Reformers' interpretation that the Antichrist was revealed to be the Bishop of Rome elevated over all the other powers of the Church, which occurred in 606 AD with a decree of the Byzantine empoeror Phocas. This elevation created the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, a leader who had both religious and political power and wielded it over the next thousand years in western Christendom.

He didn't yet wield the ultimate power we expect of him during the Tribulation period, but he certainly functioned as Antichrist. the Popes were notorious for their evil lives, their sexual sins, their greed for power and wealth, their murders. Popes had fifty million true Christians tortured and murdered along with Jews and Muslime and others, he was carianly not restrained in the sense MacArthur is saying. The Roman Antichriwst Church absolutely dominated the Middle Ages. The Pope made kings and he ruled over the kings. The Roman Church grew in the superstitions of the pagan religions and the gospel message got more and more buried under those superstitions. It never completely disappeared so that true Christians remained in the Church although most of them were dissenters outside the Roman institution, such as the Waldensians. Yes the Pope did indeed put himself in the place of the Caesars, continuing the Roman Empire and calling it by that name. Christians used to know all this, many books were written about it, but all that has been lost in our day and we ar4e laboring under a half-baked eschatology concerning the identity of the Antichrist while the true Antichrist still rules over more than a billion lost souls and is jockeying for the top position in the revived Roman Empire Number Four that has been shaping up and will come to power when the Protestants are gone.

Ti ihe Pope was recognized as Antichrist by true believers outside the Roman church He operated as the Antichrist in the "Holy Roman Empire." THAT was the revived Roman Empire people are looking for today. It is already here. Its power rose and fell and just about disappeared after the Protestant Reformation but in fact did continue in the Kaiser and then Hitler's THird Reich. MacAZrthur speaks of the Roman Empire as dead. It was not, it continued as a different sort of "empire" dominated by the Pope. Now we are seeing the struggle to bring it back in the form of the European Union. The Fourth Reich. It never disappeared completely but this would be its final most powerful manifestation in the Great Tribulation period.

He's been revealed to those who understand this history, but of course he will have a more complete revelation after the Church has gone and he comes forward as the leader of the international forces that have been brewing for decades now. He's always been a political as well as a religious figure although this is not well known: the Vatican is a political entity, a sovereign state unto itself.

The true Church is ignorant of history, that's the biggest problem. I only got some inkling of all these things by listening to ex-Catholic priest Richard Bennett and to Chris Pinto who has made himself an expert on the machinations of the Jesuits to destroy the Protestant Reformation in all its forms. They infiltrate churches, they infiltrate governments, they teach their doctrines of devils in the universities and corrupt the youth of a nation, they work tirelessly to restroe the Roman Church as the ruler of the world. Too few have any sense of this and that allows the Roman Church to appear subdued and even to be treated by Protestants as just another denomination.

John MacArthur is a staunch opposer of the Roman Church and yet they fly under his radar too. No, Dr. MacArthur, we are not waiting for the revelation of the Antichrist, he's been revealed, he's been operating in plain sight for centuries AS the Antichrist over the Revived Roman Empire which is largely composed of the Roman Church itself, with all its pagan Roman trappings, weird pagan religious garb, doctrines of devils and superstitions , lying signs and wonders which have always characterized the RCC, and general inheritance of the religion of Babylon, which Alexander Hislop demonstrated in his book The Two Babylons. Not to mention the statue of Nebuchadneazzar's dream of the ssuccession of empires which tites all the heathen nations together with Rome as the ultimate expression of them all.

I have no power to influence anyone of coruse, my blogs are restrained by the censoring powers of the day, but I pray for what I write to get to the people who need to know it. I guess that's arrogant of me but oh well.

Another Spelling Out of the Misunderstanding by Current Popular End Times Bible Interpretation

In my recent post about God's Moral Law I quoted a passage that seems to me to clearly refer to violations of God's Law as showing the lack of knowledge God says causes the destruction of His people, although some teachers identify other kinds of knowledge they think God is referring to. It looks quite clear from the context, and even the last line of the passage is about sins against God's Law. It is hard to understnad how people get differfent ideas out of such apparently clear passages.

One thing I am not, never considered myself to be, is a Bible exegete. I always look to pastors and theologians to clarify the Bible for me, understanding that scripture tells us pastors and teachers are given to us by God for that purpose. We can't all be Bible interpreters although we are all to know the Bible nevertheless.

So I'm always a bit surprised when I come to a different reading from some pastors and teachers I look to, and it does happen from time to time that I do. Well, maybe more often than I want to think. My study of the head covering for women in 1 Corinthians 11: 2-16 led me away from most of the teachers I usually rely on, to the point that I believe the majority of teachers in the Church are leading their peop0le to commit a sin against God's Creation Ordinance, which I think likely accounts for some of the falling away of the churches in areas involving sex roles in particular, even ultimately providing ground for the cultural deviation of gay marraige. I've discussed this here many times.

I am also distressed at the apparent lack of sensitivity in the churches to the chaotic effect of the modern Bible versions, the different translations of well known passages leading to difficult in simply discussing what the Bible means among other things. This is a problem on top of the main problem of the false Greek manuscripts on which those new translations are based, which forces those who recognize this poroblem back to the KJV which has its own difficulties of language although at least its und4erlying manuscripts are reliable.

My preoccupation at the moment is with the way some passages are understood in the Premillennial End Times frame of reference. I've also discussed this before but I keep running across it so I want to get into it here with the relevant quotes. I discussed this in the recent post about End Times Conundrums but I want to try to be more thorough here.

First I'm thinking of the Great Apostasy which is based on First Timothy 4 and interpreted to refer to the very last days before Jesus' return. As I read it I always end up agreeing with the Protestant reformers, Martin Luther in particular, who see it as referring to the rise of the hegemony of the Roman Church and the papady in the seventh century, not to the veryh last days unless of course we can think in terms of a continuing effect or even a double fulfillment, which we do find in scripture for various prophecies.

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

It is particulrly disturbing to hear this passage quoted to support the Premill Pretrib eschatology which puts these events at the very end, which we are now living through, BY LEAVING OUT THE THIRD VERSE which so clearly identifies the Roman Catholic Church's celibate priesthood and the forbidding of meat that Catholics I knew growing up adhered to on Fridays, which made fish the most available meal in most restaurants to accommodate them. It was clearly THESE "doctrines of devils" the passage refers to, among the many others the Romaan Bishop imposed on the Christians who now came under their domination. The Bishop of Rome became the dominating bishop over all other bishops and the whole of western Christendom in 606 AD. THAT was the furture time prophesied in First Timothy, not the very last days. The Reformers knew it and I put up a post a few years ago listing many other Christians who also recognized the Pope as the Antichrist down the centuries to the Reformation. I know there are arguments against the Reformers' interpretaion but I have to reject them. The passage is too clear, and again, it is very disturbing that so many of today's teachers ignore the third verse which puts their own interpretation into doubt. We are clearly in a time of major apostasy in the Church today, but that passage points to the Roman Church as what we call the Great Apostacy. This is all of a piece with other evidence that Rome and the papacy are the Antichrist system. It dominated through the MIddle Ages and is expected to dominate again at the very end, during the Great Tribulation. The fact that this and other passages are not interpreted to identify the RCC explains why they are expecting an unknown to emerge as the final Antichrist, while the real Antichrist is already in international prominence every day.

The other passage that is interpreted to support the Premill Pretrib eschatology that seems pretty clearly instead to refer to the Roman Church as the seat of the Antichrist, is 2 Thessalonians 2:

2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
]
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 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: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

/blockquote>
Acording to the Reformers "that Wicked" was revealed when thne Bishop of Rome became Universal Bishop over all western Christendom in 606 AD. He was rectgonized even at the time as the Anticrhist, and afterward by many others down the centuries, a list of whom was compiled by Christ Pinto, most of which I posted here a few years ago. To interpret this to apply only to the very last days is to complet4ley miss the identity of the Antichrist already known to true Christians and to the Reformers. He's been revealed, he was revealed in the seventh century, and the Antichrist papacy continues today and it will no doubt be a Pope who is THE final ANtichrist.

Guess I should clarify here that the Reformers understood the Pope to put himself in the place of God, tand his title Vicar of Christ says that quite directly. He's considered to be Christ's representative on earth, although Christ sent the Holy Spirit to play that role, making the Pope a usurper of the role of the Holy Spirit. He retains the God-usurping titles today, and one verison of them in Latin adds up to 666 which I've shown before. As for his "sitting in the templer of God showing himself to be God" the Reformers understand the temple to be the people of God which scripture clearly tells us is the case, we all being living stones of that temper. So there is no particular reason to expect him to set himself up in a literal temple in Jerusalem, he's already put himself in the place of God in the true temple of God. It's possible he MIGHT also do that, as Antioches Epiphanes, the precursor and model of the Antichrist desecreated the temple in Jerusalem. But it's not necessary, and since the rebuilding of the physical temple in Jerusalem and the resumption of animal sacrficies there would be extreme blasphemy against Christ whose sufficient sacrifice was the reason for the destruction of that t4emple in 70 AD. They seem to be getting ready to rebuild the temple when it becomes possible in God's Providence but again it's not necessary, the Antichrist has already taken his seat in the true temple.


The one who withholds or restrains the revelation of this person is interpreted today to be the HOly SPirit who supposedly will be4 removed with the CHurch at the Rapture, after which THEN the Antichrist is expected to be revealed. First of all the Holy Spirit can't be removed, He's omnipresent, and He is the cause orf salvation so since they believe an uncountable number will be saved after the reveleation of the ANtichrist He has to be present. Second, and more important for thinking about how to interpret this passage, if it were the Holy Spirit Paul was talking about he would have had no need to speak in such secretive cryptic terms. The reason he spoke that way was that in his time the Caesars were still the rulers and since the Anticrhist was going to come out of the CHurch to supp-lant the Caesars he had to keep from revealing that prophetic fact. The Bishop of Rome was elevated to that seat in the seventh century, well in the future from Paul's time, and the papacy jostled for power with the kings of Europe for the next millennium until the Protestant Reformation. And the Reformation is probably the "wound" to one of the heads of the Antichrist beast in Revelation, which was healed, indicating that the ROCC will have recovered its political power in those very last days still to come.

Again, there would have been no reason whatever for Paul to speak cryptically of the identity of the Restrainer or the identity of the Antichrist if these things did not imply a threat to the Roman emperors. I think that is conclusive for interpreting this passage. That the Roman Empire was continued under the Popes ought to be clear enough from the fact that thed called the overarching coalition of sorts of the European kingdoms the Holy Roman Empire, and you can also see that notion in the use of the title "Caesar" in some of the nations, such as "Czar" and "Kaiser," and in Hitler's dubbing of his Germany as the Third Reich meaning the Third Roman Empire. The EU can be regarded as the burgeoning Fourth Reich or revival of the Roman Empire. The Premill eschatology also looks for a Revived Roman Empire without recognizing that it's been with us in religio-political form under the papacy all along.

So what is to manifest at the very end is a renewed politico-religious "Roman Empire" under the Antichrist Pope, a recovery of the Holy Roman Empire which the various self-identified "Caesars" including Hitler kept trying to revive. A revived "Holy Roman Empire" and a revived Inquisition to slaughter all the "infidels" which means everybody who is not Roman Catholic (or possibly Muslim too since there is reason to include Islam in this revival which I've mentioned elsewhere but won't repeat here.).

You really don't want to be around when this comes down. It will last seven years, most virulently three and a half years which refers both to the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation, and then Jesus will return to claim His rightful title to the planet. Stick it out without capitulating, even to the death, and you will be blessed, but getting there will be the worlst thing anyone has ever had to endure.

==========================================================
NOTE: More Christians and especially pastors and teachers should be more up on the history that supports the Reformation interpretation Two books that I think I first heard about from Chris Pinto though maybe it was Richard Bennet, are Wylie's History of Protestantism, and Dowling's History of Romanism. I think it was Wylie's book that includes a history of the Jesuits and their Counterrefromation efforts to destroy Protestant nations, and it looks to me like they've just about succeeded with America. John Adams warned against them but so did many others a century or so ago. They work in advisory positions to politial leaders, they teach in the universities and turn students away from our true history, they tried to bomb England's parliament and kill their king back in the seventeenth century, they foment wars, they circulate vicious propaganda, they oritginated the concept of Social Justice, but nobody knows that bevcause they always work behind the scenes and keep a low profile.

Mike Lindell's Symposium on Election Fraud

UPDATE noon Thursday: The symposium seems to be down, at least I can't find it, and I got an email saying they were attacked. Lindell was personally attacked last night and so was another person involved in the symposium, electronics seized. Guess he was doing too good a job of proving the election was rigged.
Friday: I think it's all there but it's hard to figure out where you are in it. I don't know how much I've missed but I've seen quite a bit. https://home.frankspeech.com/

========================================================
Been watching Mike Lindell's symposium on voter fraud that began Tuesday night and runs through today. I've missed a lot of it but I suppose it will be repeated, although much of it is over my head technically anyway. He's done a great job, though of pulling together the people who do know what it's all about and I'm impressed with that.
\
As far as I'm concerned, I saw plenty of evidence of voter fraud last Fall, dozens of people swearing out affidavits to what they witnessed of it. What did the majority of the public get but a flat out lie that this was the most secure election in American history . I guess they don't mind lying to the faces to witnesses and witnesses of witnesses as long as they know they can pull the woool over the eyes of those who listen only to the Leftist medial.
\
There were also rumors of fraud built into the computers, but that had to wait until now to get some solid verification, and they appear to have it now. What they are saying is pretty clear only I don't know enough to judge it rigtht now. Maybe I'll get a better grip on it later.

Here I'm going to post a link to the symposium starting with Lindell's opening remarks. Hd spends the first twelve minutes talking about two broad categories of information that came to light that made it possible to recognize the fraud, including how it was programmed into the computers. Most of what he says, however, is about voter fraud in six states, lists of dead people who voted, illegal aliens who voted, people who voted more than once, people who voted in more than one state or county and so on. They have this information for Arizona, Michigan, nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia. He makes it clear what Trump was asking of the Governor of Georgia by the wasy, just to give him the fradulent votes from one or two categories, which would have been enough to push him over the top. FEAUDULENT votes, you understand, a couple of categories of people who voted who should't have, only a couple of categories of those which would e more than enough to restore Trump's legal win.

Does the average Democrat really hate Trump enough to support fradulent elections to keep him out of office and ensure that the country is taken over by the Comkmunists? Really? For that matter, even the Google people and the Facebook people and the Twitter people?: Do they really want to see America destroyed?: Do they really want to be ruled by China? Do they really believe what you have to believe to support the Communist revolution that is happening?

https://home.frankspeech.com/tv/video/absolute-proof-exposing-election-fraud-and-theft-america-enemies-foreign-and-domestic

God's Moral Law Will Have the Last Word

Sometimes I hear the line quoted from the following passage in the book of Hosea, "My people are destroyed for lack of kowledge," followed by different interpretations of what sort of knowledge is being referred to. This has bothered me for some time because the context itself seems clearly enough to d3efine what knowledge is meant.

Hosea 4:1-8
Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land.

2 By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.

3 Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away. 4 Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people are as they that strive with the priest. 5 Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with thee in the night, and I will destroy thy mother.

6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. 7 As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore will I change their glory into shame.

Very earnest Christians, even pastors, will offer ideas of what sort of knowledge is meant, from knowledge about the devil's wiles, to knowledge about diseases and poisons in our environment, to knhowledge about political conspiracies, all things that could certainly threaten our survvival if not recognized and avoided.

But reading the passage as a unit it seems pretty plain to me that God is talking about a lack of knowledge of His Law. He says there is no truthy, mercy or knowledge of God, that there is swearing and lying and killing, stealing and committing adultery. Isn't it clear that He's talkiing about a lack of knowldedge of the consequances of sin here? Isn't it sin that is bringing on them the mourning of the land, the languishing of the people, the taking away of sustenance, causing their falling?

It is sin that destroys us. Scripture says elsewhere "The waes of sin is death." And Romans 5:12 has: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..." It is violations of God's Law that bring every kind of destruction on the humqan race. That's what the Fall was, from which all humanity has been suffering for millennia. We live in a fallen world, which is too often fprgpteem evem by Christians who should khnow it best. Althoughh in the Hosea passage God is talking specifically about His chosen people who lack the knowledge of His law that would keep them from the sin that destroys them, it's true of human beings inb general. All suffering of every kind is the consequence of sin, our own personal sin or sin we inherit from ancestors, our own ancestral lineage as well as our original parents whose Original Sin of disobedience has been passed on to all their progeny.

As I've mentioned before, various cultures and religions also have some knowledge of God'[s Moral Law although it is incomplete or distorted by comparison with the biblical revelation. Lying, stealing, adultury, murder are all identified as basic karmic categories to be avoided in Buddhism for instance. That's four of the Ten Commandments spelled out in the Bible. If you avoid committing these sins you will cut down on your susceptibility to disease, injuries and early death. Of course we can't change what we inherit from our ancestors, all we can do is minimize our own personal sibns and their consequences. Even so we all commmit sins every day because it's built into the fallen nature we are born into.

This is why Christ died. This is the gospel, the "good news" that although we all deserve Hell because we're all sinned against the Law of God, Jesus Christ the God-Man came to pay our sin debt for us. He took on our sins so that we could take on His perfect righteousness and have eternal life. If we believe in His death in our place we are saved. If we refuse His offer we will go to the Hell we have personally deserved.

I remember God's Law lately because of the sins America as a nation has accumulated, and natiobs are also subject to destruction for sin. That's what the Judhment of God is all about. Pass a law calling the killing of the unborn good and the nation comes under God's judgment. Pass a law interpreting Freedom o Speech to include protecting pornography and the nation comes under gOD'S JUDGMENT. Pass a law extending marriage to homosexual couples and the nation comes under God's judgment. God's judgment includdes all kinds of destruction, from violent weather patterns to social unrest, increased in murders, the election of evil people to governing positions, defuncting the police so that crime increases, bringibng foreigners into the country to destroy the economy, spending more monjey than we have which will also destroy the economy. In other words sin increases sin and that in itself is God's judgment. Eventually God's wrath will utterly destroy a nation. He may use our enemmies to destroy us, although they in their turn will also be judgged.

Knowing that God is in chanrge of all these things is what keeps me from being very hopeful that America can recover from our current downward spiral. The Left has the upper hand and they are at the moment the wielders of our destructfion though they will be destroyed in turn for their blatant violations of God's Law. I still see some signs of hope here and there so I haven't given up completely but the general trend of lies and more lies and destructive policies after more destructive policies looks like the main trend with no end in sight.

The only way to prevent it is for the nation to turn back to God in humility, rependance and prayer. I don't see that happening, do you? well, I could add that there are passages in the bible that make it clear God will honor a few righteous even in a predominantly wicked nation. I guess that's a source of hope. Otherwise it looks like it's all downhill to the Great Tribulation from where I sit.