The Fear of the Lord Teaches the Wisdom of Preserving Life and Health By Avoiding Sin

God's Law is one of my revolving topics these days and although I haven't been researching itrelated conceptsw have been turning up here and there, mostly in sermons I'm listening to. I listen to sermons because I want to be inspired and strengthened in my faith. Ideally I'd like to find a sermon or maybe a new preacher I'm not familiar with who teaches in a way that takes me deep into a devotional state of mind. Spurgeon does that at times. But then I often find myself objecting to this or that comment the teacher makes and that's very disappointing. I don't want to be in the position of finding fault with a teacher I appreciate and when it happens I want it to go qaway. But sometimes it raises anissue I've been thinking about anyway and then I have to follow it out and that's happened a few times lately with issues related to the topic of God's Law.

These are my favorite teachers I'm talking about, teachers I love, teachers who do inspire and educate me. I hate disagreeing with them. Who do I think I am? I can hope I'm wrong, but meanwhile I have to pursue this thought that got raised.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," or sometimes it reads "knowlege" instead of "wisdom" I'd pretty much orked out what that meant, or so I thought. Fearing the Lord means fearing the consequences o violating His commendments, His Law. the wages of sin is death. Although Christians are under grace and saved for et unbelievreermninity, in this life we are told we are just as subject to the consequencesw of sin as any unbeliever. The unbeliever has Hell to fear and we don't but we do have temporal consequences of sin which can be pretty painfujl.

That's how I think about fear of the LOrd, an it's hard to think of it any other way. But then I heard a teacher say it really means worship. It does? And another teacher said the book of Proverbs, which is all about the fear of the Lord, the consequencea of sin and the wisdom of obedience, is not about Law. It's not? These are bot5h teachers I love.

Isn't the message of fearing the Lord that if we do fear Him we will avoid committing the sins that bring painful consequences and pursue a path that leads to life and health? Is't that what the book of Provervs says oer and over again? Do this and and life. And isn't that the same the Mosaic Law says? Do this and live.
\THIS ISN'T lAW IN THE HUMAN WORLDLY SENSE. tHIS IS lAW ON THE LEVEL OF lAW, EMBEDDED IN THE STUFF OF THE UNIVERSE, INEXORABVL, INERADICABLE, INESCAPABLE. (this was not supposed to be capitalizI hit something I swhouldn'te and now it's too big a project to undo it, sorry.)

I got on this topic when it hit me that the "knowledge" of Hosea 4 is this same kind of knowledge, whthat, or god says that His people are destroyed for edge. Sin destroys. All sort of things may be instruments of uction but it's sin that is the reason for all destruction. If we were sinless we coudln't be hurt by anything. Jes couldn't die because He w. that's why He was able to die fo, in our place. And why do we need saving?: Beause of the Law. It's all aboutut the Law. We always at odds witht e Lw which condemns us and condemns us and condemns us. ,br>
Am I wrong about this? I keep thinking thta oen't under the Law if we belong to Jesus, but nevertheless the Law is holy and s prepecutally and exactly ahout pause. I thnink we often slighbecause we . No, I don't hink it is legtreat it with respect.

A Voddie Baucham Sermon I Needed to Hear

wHAT A SERMON! i'M RUNG OUT AFTER HEARING IT. this is Vodie Baucham on Romans 8 abd ge;s tajeb ut yo frin a oiubt if vuew u gavebp;t geard before: how dare we question God about His sovereign will. Who do we think we are? The topic is election. The arrogance of the created being in asking the Creator how He could choose some and not choose others for salvation. He doesn't miss a beat, he doesn't miss a relevant point, or so it seemed to me. This is the right answer to all those who dare to judge God, and it's the answer to all of us who complain about our lot. T

br>

John MacArthur on the Antichrist System of the Popes and Roman Catholicism

This sermon by John MacArthur simply showed up at You Tube and it's a very thorough discussion of the Antichrist nature of the papacy so I want to be sure it gets posted here. I think it's a few years old but I can't find a date on it, maybe that's just because I can't see well enough but I don't kbnow when he preached it whatever the reason. It's a powerful and very pointed teaching, MacArethur does not mince words. Catcholicism is destroying people by their false salvation and Catholics need to learn this so they can escape.


The abomination of the elevatio of Mary by the Popes is shown in quotes from a book by Pope John Paul. The lie that Peter was the first Pope is described after Mary is discussed toward the end of the sermon.

I'm just happy I found this video. I've heard lots of good teachings on the subnjeject of the papal Antichrist, but Mac Arthur does a particujlarly good job of it.

Catholics need this teachinjg about over so they can save themselves and leave this abomination of a false church.

The Bible is not Just Another Ancient Book for Scholarly Investigationn, It's the Onlyy True Guide to Reality

Last night's Coast-to-coast radio show hosted by George Noory (he spelled it on air for which I'm grateful) wasn't about the paranormal but about the Dead Sea Scrolls. the guest was a scholar not a believer though he seems to have a sorta kinda belief in something from the jewish point of view. The scrolls are all of the Hebrew Bible, all Old Testament and he mentioned how all the OT books are repesented in teh scrolls, the Isaiah scroll being completely intact which the others are fragments, and that the text is exactly the same text we use today. He has a few opinions about the New testament and jesus too although he is an unbeliever and none of that is represented in the scrolls.

It's always annoying to me how the "scholars" have to refer to the dates involved as BCE and CE for Before Common Era and Common Era, instead of the traditional BC for Before Chirst and AD for Ano DComini or Year of Our Lord. So prissy of them they just have to cancel out any hint of religion although you'd think they'd at ledast resepcdt the fact that the traditional dates are part of the culture of Western Civilization. Amazing how anything that points to the true God has to be expunged although the same people who like to do that are often very zealous to preserve other kids of cultural markers.

Nothing in the show shed any light on recent topics that I could see. My posts about the occult and paranormal emphasize that the BHible is the explanation for all such things, but this show wouldn't relate to that. You have to beleie the Bible for one thing for it to be authoritative about anything such as demons. If you don't believe it you're just going to go onj as mostof Noory's guests do, just wandering around in all sorts of speculations of the human mind, dreaming up extraterrestrials and other dimensions and so on when it seems pretty clear to me that the demons are responsible for all of it. We only really know about demons from the Bible. But you've got to beliee it, you can't just treat it as one of many interesting works about "the other side>'

Which reminds me thta I've heard quite a bit lately from other sources about how so much of today's political ideology is "religious" in nature. Wokeness for instance. A lot of the COVID craziness for instance. I know what they mean of course, they mean it's all held irrationally as a sort of faith without evidence or actually aainst the evidence. ]

That could apply to some political positiohs and some religions botyh, but the way it's getting used it's made to represent all religion and that of course drivesw me crazy. Christianity is not relitgious in that sense. They seem to think that faith is an irrational thing in itself, as in "blind faith," but that was never what is meant by the word in Christianity. Faith is a trust you place in a person or doctrinyou have good reaon to believe is eminently trustworthy, and in the cast of Christian faith the Bible provides the evidence. Of course you have first to beleive the bible is trustworthy and if you don't you'll never have the necessary evidence. As the Deaad Sea Scrolls scholar said, some even doubt that Moses was a real person. Forget eidence of any sort if you are willing to doubt such basic information. The doubts are what is irrational in this case, The doubts are rthe "religion" in the sense I mention above.

If you believe the Bible is the word of God, "God-breathed" as scripture says, then it becoes the door to an amazing world of information you can't get anywhere else. Real information. Knowledge of all kinds of things the fallen mind can't figure out on its own. "Faith is the subtstance of things hoped for, " says the scripture, :the evidence of things unseeen." In the most everyday sense we hve to have faith in all sortgs of things we have no other way to verify by experience and when it comes to the supernatural we hvae to depend on witnesses and that means we have to be satisfied that the witnesses are trustworthy.

Trust it and see glories unimaginable. Don't trust it and get led down all the primrose paths the devil lovs to take you down knowing your fallen mind is attracacted to them.

Discussion of Exorcism by a Catholic Priest on the Coast-to-Coast radio show

George Noori's guest on his Coast-to-Coast radio show last night was a priest, actually an archbishop, who does exorcisms. SHad to listen to that one because I did a recent post on it. Interesting that Noori asked him why it's always Catholic priests who do exorcisms and don't others such as rabbis and Protestant ministers? He did say others do it. And they do. I've read of Protestants who have a ministry of exorcism. there is a man in the Northwest, connected with a football team somehow as I reccall, who deals with demon possession, but it's been a long time since I heard about him.

As I've said, a Catholic priest can't have power over demons because he doesn't have the power of Christ whose power is the only power demons will obey. Nowhere did the priest mention Jesus Christ at all. When he finally did describe his method it turns out to be a series of repetitive prayers which he didn't quote. The Bible says repetitive prayers are uselyess but Catholics don't much care what the Bible says about a lot of things. It's just one of the sources they consider to be authoritative. for a Protestant the Bible is THE authority, it's the voice of God Himself.

The priest called his method a "ritual," and how a ritual could be expected to have influence over a liing intelligent creature I can't imagine. I wonder what is really going on here since it's hard to believe his methods accomplish anyhthing at all. He says he knows when the person has been freed from possession because color comes back into his face and there is a sort of perfume in the air, the smell of roses. That's interesatint but I wonder what it means. Are the demons pretending to leave or what? It occurs to me that since Roman Catholicism is false religion, the Antichrist religion, and they woujld be happy to support such a contradiction of the true religion and God Himslf, if they might really leave to make the priest look good. I wojder a lot of things agbout this.
'\
The priest is right as far as it goes that the demons are motivated to insult God. But they are also motivated to keep people from finding salvation in Christ, which is a major thrwarting of God's power. A lot of the demonic activity that I think is what most of the phenomena on this radio show are really all about, are aimed at interrupting salvation in one way or another. Keeping people from believging in it and seeking it for instance. Since the Catholic Church has a false teaching about salvation it is no threat to the demons, it is working alongside their efforts.To contradict the bible, meaning to contradict God, just as Satan did in Eden when he seduced Eve into disobedience of God, to keep people from salvation, to keep Satan in power over this world as the Prince of tHIE wORLD AND SO ON. tHAT'S THE MOTIVATION OF THE DEMONS. aND THE ROMAN cHURCH AS WELL. .

T

Obsessing about numbers an expression of the current insanity or a therapy for it? maybe both

UPDATE: Added more at bottom, couldn't stop obsessing

Of all two-digist numbers ending in 1, 21 and 81 are not prime, beubg duvusubke by other nubmers than thesmevles and 1.

Of all two-digit numbers that end in 3, 33, 63 and 93 are not prime

Of all the two-digit numbers that end in 7, 27 and 77u are not prime.

Of all the two-digit numbers that end in 9, 39, 69 snf 99 are not prime..

So that's roughly a quarter to a third of numbers in this group that are not prime; all the rest are prime numbers.

If you'd like to work it out for three-digit numbers be my guest. Happy obsessing.

But I kept on obsessing myself.

There are 360 three-digit numbers that end in 1, 3, 7, or 9. If the proportions of prime to nonprime numbers in this group are comparable to the two-digit group, about 100 will be nonprime and 260 will be prime, but this will be discovered by working them out.

ALLTHREE-DIGIT NUMBERS ENDING IN 1:
101, 111, 121,131, 141, 151, 161, 171, 181, 191
202, 211, 221. 231. 241. 251. 261. …
301, 311, 321, 331, 341, …
401, 411, 421, 431, …
501, 511, 521 …
601, 611 …
701 …
801…
901 …

ALL THREE-DIGIT NUMBERS ENDING IN 3
103, 113, 123, 133, 143, 153, 163, 173, 183, 193
203, 213, 223, 233, 243, 253 …
303, 313, 323 …
403…503… 603… 703 …803 … 903 …

ALL THREE-DIGIT NUMBERS ENDING IN 7:
107, 117, 127 …
207 … 307 … 407 … 507 … 607… 707… 807 … 907

ALL THREE-DIGIT NUMBERS ENDING IN 9: 109, 119, 129 …
209 … 309 … 409 etc etc.

In the group ending in 1, those will be nonprime which are divisible by 3, 7 or 9
Here are some of the nonprimes

111 (3x37), 141 (3x47), 171 (3x57) br> 201 (3x67, 231 (3x77 and 7X33), 261 (3x87), 291 (3.97)
321 (3x107)) >br? … and we have a pattern in the diviers too. Fun, huh? ,br> Looks like the percentage is holding up, about a third are noprime

Ukraine deceptions part 2

Sitting here with my mind blown since hearing Chris Pinto's show about Deceptions over the war in Ukraine. Al that carrying on about how evil Putin is and how he's the aggressor and nobod's quite sure what his motivations are in invading but there's lots of speculation about recorering the old Soviety Union or osmething like that, all that may be hot air. What if Putin was simply telling the truth that he's going into Ukraine to Denazify it? Or to protect the Russian community there?

That's dismissed as wrongfully siding with Putin. But you don't have to think Putin is a paragon of virtue or a good guy in any general sense to recognize that he may very well be doing exactly what he said he's doing. In order to consider that, of course, you need to have more facts about the history of the situation than we've been getting on the mainstream media. Facts of the sort Chris Pinto gives on his radio show, about the coup in 2014 that ousted a pro=Russian democratically elected president and brought the government under the control of radical leftists. And Nazis. Both somehow, hard to sort this out but aparently there are real Nazis, or neo-Nazis invovled, who fly the swastika flag. Chris mentions a picture of a group of them 3with their flag together with some NATO representatives.

The big mindblowing fact is that it was actually Ukraine that started this war, not Russia. This comes from the reported Patrick Lancaster who has many videos up at YHou Tube in which he is on the ground in Ukraine going around interviewing the Russians who are being attacked. One of his videos about such an attack was made before the Russian army started to move in . Clearly Ukraine started this, and the Russians they attacked asked Putin to send help. but we are not hearing that are we?

Although Trump was lambasted by the media for sipposedly ssupporting Putin by saying he's smart, I didn't have the impression he was sayinbg he approved of what Putin was doing, far from it, I took it that he was giving an excuse for the invasion that was false and that was clever of him. I don't know if I even got that right, I don't really know what Trump was saying. Since then he seems to have made it very clear that he's no friend of Putin, though, which is what has always been true.

But in this case, without in any way holding hands withP Putin I'm now getting the impression that his story is probably true, he's defending the Russians in Ukraine and fighting the Nazis there, part of the radical govefernment of Ukraine who started by attacking those Russians. The Russians are traditionalists, Russian Orthodox Christians, according to Chris Pinto, who don't want to join the EU with its gay rights and transgender agendas, and the radical Ukrainian groups wan6t to override them.

Well, that's what I get out of this so far. Who knows where it's going to go. But now it's looking to me like we shoujldn't be sending arms to Ukraine but rather to the Russians in Ukraine. Somwethintg like that.

Well, that's not a good idea, but at least it sounds like we shouldn't be supporting Ukraine.

Chris Pinto goes on from there to the role Islam plays in the global agenda. Bringing Muslimjs ihto the west and into Ukraine, and that's another thing the Russians are opposed to. Apparently Putin is on record opposing the gay agenda, even wanting traditional Christian marriage written into their laws, and is also opposed to the Muslim agenda which of course is designed to dest5roy the cultures of the west including Russia and Ukraine. Definitely reasons we should ot be supporting the radical Ukrainian governement.

Chris says his next radio show will be about the interpretation from some prophetic minhistries that this russian action could lead to the invasion of Israel in fulfillment of Ezediel 38. I haven't spent any time on that part of end times prophecy, but it's interesting that as he's putting together that topic, Jan Markell's next radio show on Understanding the Timnes is to be about Ukraine and include how it relates to that prophecy. Her view is what Pinto will be arguing against. Should be an interestingt week.