[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets Status: Not Logged In; Sign In The Establishments war on Donald Trump See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles Title: Why I like Trump Source: the7lastplagues.com URL Source: http://the7lastplagues.com Published: Oct 15, 2016 Author: Barry Midyet Post Date: 2016-10-15 23:38:44 by interpreter Keywords: None Views: 5741 Comments: 62 Many of you have guessed, because I am predicting him to win, that I like Trump. And that is basically a true assumption, except I do criticize him for his anti-science stance on global warming. The main thing I like about Trump is his foreign policy which is correct in every way. We should indeed ban all Muslims, and I suggest going one step further, and making the ban permanent. You never know when a "peaceful" Muslim will turn on us and kill as many Christians as he can. This will of course require that the "Immigration Reform Act of 1965 that LBJ, a false prophet, pooped out --- which let Muslims in for the first time (legally). I think Trump should repeal that Act within his first hundred days, and also Obamacare, and Roe vs. Wade all the other bad things that the Democrats have enacted since the days of Johnson. (In my view, Kennedy was last "good" Democratic president). But we do need to keep the recent Paris agreement, which Trump has also threatened to veto. But I'm pretty sure he will change his mind when he sees all of his water-front property (including his campaign headquarters) going underwater, making most of his real estate investments , now worth $10 billion he says, worth about 10 cents. Otherwise, if he doesn't keep the Paris agreement, he wont have a dime left to leave his children. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 61. #3. To: interpreter (#0) Roe v Wade was not enacted by Democrats. It was imposed in 1973, during Richard Nixon's second term, by a Republican-majority Supreme Court. It was further extended in 1986, during Reagan's second term, by a Republican-dominated Supreme Court. Mitt Romney, Republican governor of Massachusetts, imposed his "Romneycare", which included public financing of abortion, and Obamacare is patterned on that. Obamacare, with its public financing of abortion, was challenged and went to the Supreme Court, where a Republican majority could have shot it down. Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts, a W appointee, sided with the Democrat minority to give Obamacare judicial sanction. Looking back to 1973, it is the Republican Party, not the Democrats, that imposed Roe v Wade, then expanded it, then ensured public financing of abortion. In the first three cases, it was Republican ACTIVISM that imposed it. In the final case, it was the Republicans refusal to assert their power to prevent it. The Republicans have played a good game at deceiving conservatives for decades, focusing conservative eyes on the fact that Democrats enthusiastically support Roe. Truth is, the Democrat didn't impose Roe on the country, and haven't been the ones to protect Roe, keep it alive and extend it. It has been the Republicans, through their control of the Supreme Court. They have been decisive. Unfortunately, this gets lost in the weeds behind Republican rhetoric. Trump is the first Republican candidate to say he is pro-life, and to ALSO accompany that statement with a list of conservative judges from which he will choose his Supreme Court appointments. So, with Trump we actually have a Republican President who will DO something about Roe judicially (which is the only place it can be struck down). As far as the global warming bit, sea levels have been steadily rising 3 millimeters per year since we started keeping track of this in the 1800s. It's not rising faster. At that rate, the sea level will rise 1 foot in a hundred years. Trump's waterfront buildings won't be underwater for 10,000 years. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-16   8:48:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: Vicomte13 (#3) Well, I will double-check when I have the time, but I'm pretty sure most of the justices who voted for Roe vs Wade were Democrats. Anyhow, Trump says he will reverse it (by appointing pro-life justices). That's another reason I like Trump. And scientists predict that, if Trump shoots down the Paris agreement and nothing is done about global warming, sea levels will rise by up to 22 feet in about a hundred years or so. Maybe not in Donald's lifetime, but in his children's lifetime. That will flood half of Florida and all of Manhattan (where 90 % of Trump's properties are). So I'm pretty sure he will soon change his mind about global warming. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-16   9:42:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: interpreter (#4) Well, I will double-check when I have the time, but I'm pretty sure most of the justices who voted for Roe vs Wade were Democrats. The Supreme Court was controlled by the Republicans in 1973. And every year since. The court has been entirely replaced since then, also, by Republican Presidents who all claimed to be pro- life, and yet they did not put a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court, not ever. Whenever they put up a pro-lifer, they then put one or two pro-choicers - consistently. The Republicans gave us Roe, they extended Roe, and they made sure that a pro-choice majority stayed on the court. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-16   16:40:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Vicomte13 (#5) The Supreme Court was controlled by the Republicans in 1973. And every year since. The court has been entirely replaced since then, also, by Republican Presidents who all claimed to be pro- life, and yet they did not put a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court, not ever. Whenever they put up a pro-lifer, they then put one or two pro-choicers - consistently. The Republicans gave us Roe, they extended Roe, and they made sure that a pro-choice majority stayed on the court. Even if what you say is true, it makes no difference whatsoever. Trump will repeal (or reverse) Roe vs Wade irregardless of who is responsible for the abomination. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-17   10:08:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: interpreter (#8) Even if what you say is true, it makes no difference whatsoever. Trump will repeal (or reverse) Roe vs Wade irregardless of who is responsible for the abomination. "Irregardless" is not a word. You meant "regardless". Trump cannot "repeal" or "reverse" Roe. Only the Supreme Court can do that. Trump can appoint justices to the Supreme Court whom he expects to do that, when a case comes up, but he cannot enforce it. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-17   11:16:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: Vicomte13 (#10) "Irregardless" is not a word. You meant "regardless". Trump cannot "repeal" or "reverse" Roe. Only the Supreme Court can do that. Trump can appoint justices to the Supreme Court whom he expects to do that, when a case comes up, but he cannot enforce it. Irregardless is a good Texas word and we Texans use it a lot. Let me define it for you. It basically means "There's no way in hell you're right." And irregardless of what you say, Trump is going to reverse Roe vs Wade one way or another. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-17   13:18:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: interpreter (#12) And irregardless of what you say, Trump is going to reverse Roe vs Wade one way or another. If he wins, you're right. If he doesn't, then nope. For my part, I hope he wins. I support his plan for peace with Russia. I support his protectionism. I support his plans to throttle illegal immigration. I expect he will convert Obamacare to single-payer, which he used to support. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-17   13:29:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: Vicomte13 (#14) (Edited) If he doesn't, then nope. For my part, I hope he wins. I support his plan for peace with Russia. I support his protectionism. I support his plans to throttle illegal immigration. I expect he will convert Obamacare to single-payer, which he used to support. Well blow me down. If you actually support Trump, I will have to take back most of the stuff I said about you. My apologies. And as for what University I am going to end up getting a degree in Theology from, I really have no clue at this juncture. Basically I want to obtain a degree of some sort in Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew without having to study someone else's theology (because I have my own and generally speaking, I do not agree with anyone else's except perhaps the conservative wing of the Episcopal/Anglican Church). interpreter  posted on  2016-10-17   13:48:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: interpreter (#15) If you actually support Trump, I have supported Trump since the beginning, since way back last year, because I agree with his policies: Stop illegals at the border, end the free trade nonsense, make peace with Russia to fight the Muslim terrorists, and appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court (who will, among other things, overturn Roe v Wade). That's why I support Trump. It's also why I don't care about his sex life. I'm not marrying him, I'm hiring him to advance an agenda. His agenda is essentially opposed to everything that the Republican Party has stood for (or done behind the scenes, in the case of abortion) for a long time. I don't like Republicans. Their economics are stupid and they plunge us into wars we lose. I don't like Democrats: they're babykillers. But I DO like Trump, because he's a nationalist, protectionist who would end the Cold War. And he's pro-life. That's why I've supported him - to the point that I will very grudgingly vote for a Republican, even after I said "No Mas" after holding my nose and voting for Romney in the last election. If Trump loses, Hillary gets the court and with it, the Republicans never win another election...which will be time to say "Fuck it" and move to France where the food is better and living is easier. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-17   14:44:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Vicomte13 (#18) (Edited) I have supported Trump since the beginning, since way back last year, because I agree with his policies: Stop illegals at the border, end the free trade nonsense, make peace with Russia to fight the Muslim terrorists, and appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court (who will, among other things, overturn Roe v Wade). That's why I support Trump. It's also why I don't care about his sex life. I'm not marrying him, I'm hiring him to advance an agenda. His agenda is essentially opposed to everything that the Republican Party has stood for (or done behind the scenes, in the case of abortion) for a long time. I don't like Republicans. Their economics are stupid and they plunge us into wars we lose. I don't like Democrats: they're babykillers. But I DO like Trump, because he's a nationalist, protectionist who would end the Cold War. And he's pro-life. That's why I've supported him - to the point that I will very grudgingly vote for a Republican, even after I said "No Mas" after holding my nose and voting for Romney in the last election. If Trump loses, Hillary gets the court and with it, the Republicans never win another election...which will be time to say "Fuck it" and move to France where the food is better and living is easier. I agree with everything you said, except perhaps for a little minor detail, and it has to do withe the "illegal" Mexican immigrants. First of all, most of them are not rapists or whatever Trump said. Most of them are actually very devout Roman Catholics and would't harm a flea. And secondly, it is mostly American farmers who hire them and they badly need them to harvest their crops, because as a general rule, no American wants to do it So I think Trump should let all the Mexicans who want to come into America at harvest season (after they are properly vented as he likes to say) and make all the money they want to legally. And after the harvest season, send them home to their families. And I'm not going to France if Hilary wins. I'm going to Mexico where I like both the food and the women, and it also helps that the cost of living is very cheap there. Gonna have to brush up on my Spanish though. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-17   16:59:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: interpreter (#20) because as a general rule, no American wants to do it Americans will do that work for the appropriate wage. Wages have to be living wages. That means that the price of food will have to go up. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-17   20:45:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: Vicomte13 (#23) Americans will do that work for the appropriate wage. Wages have to be living wages. That means that the price of food will have to go up. I for one don't want the price of food going up. That's because I live on a very limited fixed income and I'm getting less than a 1% increase in my SS check and cant afford to pay more for food. I say bring in the Mexicans, all who want to come. May the Lord bless them. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-18   11:16:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: interpreter (#24) I for one don't want the price of food going up. That's because I live on a very limited fixed income and I'm getting less than a 1% increase in my SS check and cant afford to pay more for food. I say bring in the Mexicans, all who want to come. May the Lord bless them. If we're going to let in the Mexicans, then I say they get minimum wage and exactly the same labor protections and social welfare as everybody else. Human beings are human beings, and we have no right to force them to raise their children in poverty, working in this country for cheaper food. If paying everybody a living wage forces the prices up, then I say that Social Security must be fully increased to cover the cost differential, and food stamps or other means found to make it possible for you to eat healthy while the people all the way down the food chain to the bean picker below you ALSO gets paid a living wage. That will mean, inevitably, that profit concentration will have to be taxed at the top, and redistributed downward. And that is the very reason why Democrats are the majority party in America over time - because their economics are that of a living wage for all, while Republicans stubbornly refuse to care about the people at the bottom, and pretend that there is a way they can live without having to be paid more. Well, there isn't. There isn't a way for you to do it, and there isn't a way for the Mexican illegals to do it either, without living in squalor without health care or protection. Anybody living on the soil of the United States is entitled to live at a basic level of dignity. We can do that either by a guaranteed wage from government, or through private wages, or a combination of the two. But we cannot exploit illegal Mexican beanpickers and make them live little better than slaves to keep the cost of our food low. That is evil and immoral and it must be stopped. Republicans have never been willing to face the truth of economics, which is why they find it harder and harder and harder to win elections in a country filling up with poor people on account of their policies. We already have a social safety net, paid for by wealth redistribution through taxes. That net will get thicker and more protective, and there will be more wealth redistribution. If we don't want taxes too high, then we have to STOP the foreign military adventures and imperialism that devour about 30% of our money (taxed and borrowed). IF we want to continue to be big swinging dicks on the world stage, then we have to accept higher taxes on the top. Republicans want to be big swinging dicks on the world stage AND to not have wealth redistribution sufficient to have a social safety net. That's why Republicans are losing the country: it's a ridiculous and unsustainable set of beliefs. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-18   11:30:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: Vicomte13 (#25) Sorry but I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders or socialism like you espouse. And Mexicans make far more money in the US than they can at home, and they are perfectly happy with their wages. And my family, my cousins in the valley, happen to pay the Mexicans very well thank you and they are not mistreated in any way. And right now they need orange and grapefruit pickers if you are willing to go there and work for the minimum wage. No? I thought not. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-18   12:57:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: interpreter (#26) Sorry but I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders or socialism like you espouse. And Mexicans make far more money in the US than they can at home, and they are perfectly happy with their wages. And my family, my cousins in the valley, happen to pay the Mexicans very well thank you and they are not mistreated in any way. And right now they need orange and grapefruit pickers if you are willing to go there and work for the minimum wage. No? I thought not. Ok, then: be stubborn about it and continue to lose your country. Hillary will probably win. I don't want her to, but she probably will. Democrats have the innate advantage in American politics because of the social safety net. Hillary will grant amnesty and a path to citizenship to the illegals, and then you will have beanpickers earning minimum wages and unionizing - with government support - and you'll have all of those millions of new Democrat voters voting to redistribute the wealth. If Hillary wins this election, you will never again see a Republican President. It's over. And the REASON it's over is that the Republicans have been resisting the social safety net since FDR, and over time they have lost the electorate. As long as there was ANOTHER issue - the Cold War - to keep them in the game the Republicans could occasionally eke out a win, but they never were able to unravel the social safety net, despite talking about doing so and making runs at it. Let Hillary run the place with a Democrat Supreme Court, and the world changes quickly and permanently. I'm fine with it. Import 11 million Catholics and let's see what happens. The country comes to meet me more. But you're not going to be fine with it. You've painted yourself into a corner. There's no way out. You better hope that Trump wins, as I do. If he loses, I'll be fine. You'll see the pillars of your world, your belief systems, crumble around you BECAUSE those beliefs were not founded on the bedrock of truth. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-18   13:13:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: Vicomte13 (#27) (Edited) I can make the same argument for Trump. If Hillary looses the election, you will probably never see another Democratic President because their lies they've been telling ever since LBJ will all be debunked once and for all. Christians are ordained to rule the earth, and not Muslims and atheists. The end of the world as we now know it is now upon us, never to be heard from again because "politically incorrect" Christians like Trump will rule the earth's politics for the next 1000 years. The US election is part of the final battle between good and evil. Hilary is the evil one (working for Satan) and Trump is clearly the "good" one working for Christians and everything that is good. It is like the difference between night and day, and it is as obvious as the nose on your face. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-18   16:42:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: interpreter (#28) I can make the same argument for Trump. If Hillary looses the election, you will probably never see another Democratic President because their lies they've been telling ever since LBJ will all be debunked once and for all. Christians are ordained to rule the earth, and not Muslims and atheists. The end of the world as we now know it is now upon us, never to be heard from again because "politically incorrect" Christians like Trump will rule the earth's politics for the next 1000 years. The US election is part of the final battle between good and evil. Hilary is the evil one (working for Satan) and Trump is clearly the "good" one working for Christians and everything that is good. It is like the difference between night and day, and it is as obvious as the nose on your face. Republicans gave us Roe v Wade and Casey. Republicans are opposed to social welfare and quite cold to the plight of the poor. Republicans plunged us into disastrous forever wars in the Middle East (Democrats did that in Korea and Vietnam, but Republicans continued Vietnam for twice as long as the Democrats). The notion that Republicans are more moral than Democrats is risible. I'm voting for Trump because he opposes free trade, which I also hate, because he wants to control the Border, which I also want done, and because he wants to make peace and alliance with the Russians - the very opposite of what EITHER the Democrats OR Republicans want to do. That's why I support Trump, and it'll be a shame if he loses. But even if he wins, the Democrats won't be finished for good, because the Republicans still, as a party, oppose the social safety net, and with the huge Hispanic population here already, having children who are born citizens, the weight of Democrat demographics becomes heavier and heavier on one side of the scale. Trump has said he will try to reverse that, but while Clinton can move by Executive Orders, Trump can't - he'll be constrained by Congressional Republicans, and THEY have always connived at open borders, precisely for the reason you like them: cheap labor. I recognize, too, that if Trump loses you're going to have an existential crisis of faith, so for your sake I hope he wins. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-18   17:47:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Vicomte13 (#29) (Edited) I disagree completely with your basic premise. It is up to the Churches to care for the needy, not the government. According to the Bible, the only job of the "king" (or president, whatever) is to defend the Church and to conquer on its behalf. (and of course that involves assessing taxes to support the military and police). Other than that, the government has no other function in the proper marriage between Church and State, period, no exceptions or ifs, ands, or buts. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-18   21:40:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: interpreter (#30) "According to the Bible..." I have heard that tripe from many Republicans. It is false. Read Exodus again. Read about the tithe. Read the Prophet Amos and the Prophet Malachi. Read the accusations by God against the kings of Israel for not taking care of the poor, the sick, the widow and the orphan. You have gotten the Bible wrong. So many Republicans have. And the net result of your getting it wrong is that you justify callous indifierence to the poor by the government. Republicans have systematically opposed the social welfare state since the 1930s. The end game of that evil stance may well be the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton and the end of the Republican Party as a viable force. I still want Trump to win, but if he doesn't, there is plenty about what Hillary will do that is decent and reasonable. She will do it in a dicatorial manner, and not bother to try to bring you in using Christian logic. But the Biblical logic is certainly THERE. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-18   21:47:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: Vicomte13 (#31) (Edited) I can guarantee you that I have not gotten anything in the Bible wrong because I have been studying it since I was knee-high to a duck (2 years old). Dad taught me how to read by reading the King James Bible to me. And before I could say Mommy and Daddy I could say "God is love." And I have been studying that particular verse for 67 years now, and I've come to the conclusion that yes God is love, but His love is a very tough love. And, although 99 % of preachers wont say this anymore (because it is considered to be politically incorrect) anyone who does not accept God's love is going to hell, and that's a very tough love if you ask me. And as for the bible criticizing any Hebrew king for not helping the poor, I am not aware of any such incidence anywhere in the Bible (because that was not his job). His only job was to conquer the holy Land and protect the Israelites from harm. Maybe you are reading another Bible. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-18   22:20:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: interpreter (#32) So, then, do you want me to take you through the Bible to show you what you missed, to show you that the Social Security upon which you depend for life is not some sort of sinful apparatus that should, instead, be provided by private Christian charity? I can. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-19   8:19:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: Vicomte13 (#39) So, then, do you want me to take you through the Bible to show you what you missed, to show you that the Social Security upon which you depend for life is not some sort of sinful apparatus that should, instead, be provided by private Christian charity? I can. LOL. I need to take you through the Bible and show you what you missed. And I can easily do that. As for Social Security, in the old days, and for about 1800 years the Church did indeed take care of the elderly and all the needy, and the system worked pretty good if you ask me. Besides, the government is not "giving" me my SS check. It is basically my money that I worked hard for and the gov is just repaying me. That is not a sin, but the socialism you propose is (IMHO). interpreter  posted on  2016-10-19   10:31:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: interpreter (#42) As for Social Security, in the old days, and for about 1800 years the Church did indeed take care of the elderly and all the needy, and the system worked pretty good if you ask me. Besides, the government is not "giving" me my SS check. It is basically my money that I worked hard for and the gov is just repaying me. That is not a sin, but the socialism you propose is (IMHO). That system did not, in fact, work all that well at all. In truth, old people were primarily cared for by their FAMILIES, on the FARM (where there was always food and shelter). Old women without families were apt to be burnt by the Church as witches during certain key periods of history. We no longer have the family farm. With the industrial revolution, people migrated to cities, moved into small and expensive apartments, and no longer have the shelter to provide to elderly parents, nor the food out of the fields, nor the excess income to feed them. What worked more or less throughout agricultural history - which was primarily FAMILY taking care of their own, not the Church (there is no Church to speak of in China or other traditional Asian societies, and yet this "care for the old on the farm" theme has been a staple of ALL agricultural societies, not just Christian ones) stopped working and does not work in the modern age of city dwelling. There's no farm. There's no space. There's no food. And there's no excess income. The capital base of the family farm is gone. There was no Social Security or Welfare to speak of in the first half of the Great Depression. There was just "the Church", and it did not provide nearly enough: the numbers of poor were too massive and the suffering too dire. Social Security and unemployment benefits quite dramatically stabilized that. You get much more out of Social Security and Medicare than you ever put into it. And were there no Social Security or Medicare, you would not be able to replace what they provide with private insurance and investment. I will be happy to go through the Bible with you, front to back. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-19   11:18:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: Vicomte13 (#43) That system did not, in fact, work all that well at all. In truth, old people were primarily cared for by their FAMILIES, on the FARM (where there was always food and shelter). Old women without families were apt to be burnt by the Church as witches during certain key periods of history. We no longer have the family farm. With the industrial revolution, people migrated to cities, moved into small and expensive apartments, and no longer have the shelter to provide to elderly parents, nor the food out of the fields, nor the excess income to feed them. What worked more or less throughout agricultural history - which was primarily FAMILY taking care of their own, not the Church (there is no Church to speak of in China or other traditional Asian societies, and yet this "care for the old on the farm" theme has been a staple of ALL agricultural societies, not just Christian ones) stopped working and does not work in the modern age of city dwelling. There's no farm. There's no space. There's no food. And there's no excess income. The capital base of the family farm is gone. There was no Social Security or Welfare to speak of in the first half of the Great Depression. There was just "the Church", and it did not provide nearly enough: the numbers of poor were too massive and the suffering too dire. Social Security and unemployment benefits quite dramatically stabilized that. You get much more out of Social Security and Medicare than you ever put into it. And were there no Social Security or Medicare, you would not be able to replace what they provide with private insurance and investment. I will be happy to go through the Bible with you, front to back. Well, Jesus commanded the Church as a whole to take care of the widows, and not just their children -- just like the God of the Old Testament commanded all the Israelites to do. And no widows were burnt at the stake for God's sake. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-19   12:34:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: interpreter (#44) And no widows were burnt at the stake for God's sake. The people who were doing the burning thought they were burning "witches" for God's sake. The burnings were preceded by witch trials. Elderly women, widows, were the chief victims. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-19   14:35:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: Vicomte13 (#45) (Edited) The people who were doing the burning thought they were burning "witches" for God's sake. The burnings were preceded by witch trials. Elderly women, widows, were the chief victims. Well, I saw the movie, and the "witches" looked pretty young to me. Irregardless, Jesus told us to take care of the widows, not kill them. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-19   18:11:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: interpreter (#46) rregardless, Jesus told us to take care of the widows, not kill them. Yes, he did. As did YHWH before him. Jesus and YHWH both recognized that women without support - young or especially old (as women outlive men substantially), will always need help, and they both gave commandments to do so. With YHWH there was the commandment to honor father and mother, the tithe by which the Levites were to minister aid to the poor, the forgiveness of debt, the requirement to lend to the poor who asked, the prohibition on interest, and the reversion of land. Jesus specifically referred to the commandment to honor parents by denying that a religious gift could substitute for the requirement that children spend money to take care of their parents. Indeed, Jesus said that to give the money as "korban" as opposed to spending it on the parents, as required to honor them, was sin. Jesus vastly expanded the scope of individual responsibility for poverty relief, without, however, relaxing the communal requirements of YHWH. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-19   18:37:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: Vicomte13 (#47) Yes, he did. As did YHWH before him. Jesus and YHWH both recognized that women without support - young or especially old (as women outlive men substantially), will always need help, and they both gave commandments to do so. With YHWH there was the commandment to honor father and mother, the tithe by which the Levites were to minister aid to the poor, the forgiveness of debt, the requirement to lend to the poor who asked, the prohibition on interest, and the reversion of land. Jesus specifically referred to the commandment to honor parents by denying that a religious gift could substitute for the requirement that children spend money to take care of their parents. Indeed, Jesus said that to give the money as "korban" as opposed to spending it on the parents, as required to honor them, was sin. Jesus vastly expanded the scope of individual responsibility for poverty relief, without, however, relaxing the communal requirements of YHWH. I agree with everything you say here 100 % with the exception of the last sentence in which you sneakily substitute the word "communal" for the word Church and/or Levites. The Levites were basically the Jewish "Church." That is, they were the priests and they were responsible for taking care of the widows. Knowing you, by substituting the word "communal" you are trying to imply the State had something to do with it which is not true at all. According to the Bible, the State has its job to do, and the Church/Levites have their job to do. So why do you keep insisting on mixing the two separate entities together? interpreter  posted on  2016-10-20   2:25:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: interpreter (#48) According to the Bible, the State has its job to do, and the Church/Levites have their job to do. THERE IS NO STATE SEPARATE FROM THE LEVITES AND PRIESTS IN EXODUS. You keep saying "The Bible says". Open it and read Exodus and Leviticus and Numbers and Deuteronomy - you say "the state" - WHAT State? Where is there any State mentioned AT ALL, OTHER THAN the priests and Levites? ALL Law was given by God to the Hebrews. He gave them NO legislature, and the only executive he gave them was the promise of a prophet to lead them in time of risk. HE gave ALL of the law, of everything, DIRECTLY, and he forbade them from making any additional laws, or subtracting any laws. The government he provided, to enforce the law, were the Levites and priests - they were the JUDGES of Israel, of the law, God provides not just the laws, he also provides a table of JUDGMENTS - how the Judges must JUDGE the cases. At no point in God's law of Israel, given at Sinai and in the tent in the desert, does he ever leave any discretion, at all, to the judgment of the Israelites. He gives them no ability to legislate for themselves, no ability to set rules. He is the God-King - and says so explicitly to Samuel when the Israelites call for a king - he says that the Israelites are rejecting HIM, and as God-King, he gives ALL of the law, and gives his people NO power to make any law. Moses, on his father-in-law's advice, creates a judicial structure by numbers, but then God provides all the law, and all of the judgments that the judges must give. And he provides that the Levitical priests - the term for them in Hebrew means "administrator" are to collect the tithe (this is a tax, for payment of Levite expenses and for poverty relief, it is a law, mandatory, not optional, and if not paid will be imposed by the judgment of the Levitical judges), and they are to use it to live, and to support the poor, the orphan, the widow and the sick. This IS government. This IS the state. There is NO OTHER STATE anywhere in the Law. The human kings of Israel were a REJECTION of God and God's law, and God said, through Samuel, from the very beginning of the monarchy that the kings would squeeze the people, exploit them and, ultimately, be corrupt. That's precisely what happened. Saul was a terrible king. David was successful militarily, but he was actually a pretty bad king overall: he did not leave a stable Israel. Solomon started out wise but ended up a terrible king. And after that, the unity of Israel was destroyed forever. The Israelite monarchy was NOT the state that God set up. It was set up CONTRARY to the will of God, and God made that very clear - for the Israelites to have a King was a REJECTION of God, not God's intention for Israel. He intended to rule Israel DIRECTLY, as he had from the Exodus onward. The Levites and Priests WERE the State, along with God, and prophetic war leaders sent by God. The Torah is not a religious rulebook, it is the constitution and lawbook of Israel. ALL of the laws, regulations and judgments of Israel are contained in that book, including the fact that the Israelites were not given the right or power to make any ADDITIONAL laws from any sort of councils, etc. The only government in God's Israel was the "Church" as you call it. It was an absolute theocracy with no separate civil state. God was the King. The Priests and Levites were the administrators and judges. Prophets were hand selected by God to be temporary military leaders in time of threat. There was no standing police force, no standing army, and no right for the Israelites to have even a town council to set local rules. ALL of the rules for the state are in the Torah. The "Church/State separation" that you espouse is NOT IN THE TORAH AT ALL. God's law for Israel was an absolute theocracy with no vote for anything, ever, and no government at all, just judges, who were priests. Go back and read it, and remember that Saul, David and Solomon were chosen by God, but the Israel Kingship itself was a REJECTION of God, and a Fall from grace, not an institution God created. God was King. The Israelites rejected him for a human king. God said it was a rejection of him, and warned them that they would serve corrupt kings instead of serving God. They clamored for a King nevertheless, so God let them fall, chose kings by hand, and the kings he chose were men and fell. David and Solomon are NOT the model of government under God's law. God's law had no king and no legislature. God alone was king and legislature and commander. Priests were the judges and civil servants, appointed prophets were temporary lieutenants. Joshua was not the commander of the Hosts of Israel. God was. The Archangel Michael was his general in command. Joshua was the human lieutenant in the field, subject to the commands of a commanding angel and a commander-in-chief God. God never gave men in Israel ANY DISCRETION AT ALL to rule themselves outside of the family. He imposed the law, and imposed a priesthood to enforce it and collect taxes and distribute charity. THAT is the constitution and government according to God: absolute direct theocracy, with no place for the human voice to ever express its own will. Go read your Torah again, and stop pretending that there was a separation of Church and State under God's law. The state in Israel WAS the judges, and they were the Levitical priests. God was King, directly. There was no legislative branch. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-20   10:14:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: Vicomte13 (#49) (Edited) The Hebrews did have judges at one time (back in the days of Exodus), but only for a very brief period of time, and only because they were living in the wilderness and the nation of Israel did not yet exist. And not long after that, after they conquered the Holy Land, the judges were replaced by kings, and then the kings ruled the kingdom of Israel for a thousand years. And all of the Christian kingdoms that have ruled the earth since then have also lasted 1000 years (as will the US I think, but we will need to defeat Clinton, et al else we may not exist for much longer). Anyhow, about half the Bible is about the State, and about half is about the Church (or Levites in the OT). And in the proper marriage between Church and State they work together as one. And that's exactly what God wants, and not the nonsense you espouse. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-20   12:04:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: interpreter (#50) And not long after that, after they conquered the Holy Land, the judges were replaced by kings, and then the kings ruled the kingdom of Israel for a thousand years. Go back and read your Bible again, starting with the Book of Joshua, when the Hebrews conquered much of Israel, and then coming forward through Judges, when Israel was IN Israel, still living under God with the Levitical and priestly judges, and read on through Samuel. Read what God said when he spoke to Samuel about how the Israelites were clamoring for a king. Samuel was bitter, because he - the head prophet, head priest and head judge of Israel under the system that God gave them in the desert - felt he was being rejected by the people. But God said no, Samuel, they are not rejecting you, they are rejecting ME. So Samuel is then sent to give them the "Law of Kings", which in the Scripture is spelled out in wholly negative terms: how the king will exploit and abuse everybody. The Kingdom of Israel did not last for 1000 years. It only endured three reigns: the reign of Saul, who died in battle, a broken, bitter and crazed man, the reign of David, whose rule was unstable and unhappy in his old age, suffering civil war at the hand of his own sons, and ultimately leaving the kingdom to Bathsheba's daughter. And then the reign of Solomon, which started with the slaughter of his brothers, and ended in idolatry and sexual immorality. Rehoboam reigned for a very brief period over a united Kingdom, which immediately broke apart because he not only refused to stop following his father's excesses, but promised more. Shortly after that, the unified Kingdom of Israel was over. It broke up into two: the Kingdom of Judah, and the Northern Kingdom, called "Kingdom of Israel". The Northern Kingdom immediately lost its religious legitimacy by appointing false priests, raising a false altar, and engaging in rites prohibited by God to anybody but the unitary priesthood in Jerusalem. The result? Read the prophets to the Northern Kingdom: over and over and over again they warned the Northern Kingdom that it was a harlot, having departed from God by raising false altars and having a false priesthood. Finally, Israel was UTTERLY destroyed, by the Assyrians, and while a remnant of the legitimate Judah would survive intact in Babylon, the ten northern tribes were lost forever - delegitimated in the reign of Rehoboam, by the very first of the Northern Kings. The kingdom of Israel, united or divided, was a FALLEN kingdom. God never intended for his Israel to have human kings. The fact of the human kings was, in his own words, a REJECTION of God on the part of the Israelites. There were no good kings of Northern Israel - they all let the idolatrous and heretical northern religion go on. God repeated his condemnation over and over again, and finally wiped those tribes out with the Assyrians. God did not bless or seal the Northern Kingdom and its kings. He damned it, he damned them, and he destroyed it utterly, with the most part of 10 of the tribes. The Southern kingdom, of Judah, had few good kings. Most were bad. Most were idolatrous. And NONE of them were the way that God set up Israel to be. For two or more centuries after the conquest by Joshua, Israel was ruled as in the desert, directly by God, with the priests as his administrators, and chosen prophets (such as Samson and Gideon) as his war commanders (but never kings, and never legislators). That was not for the desert. That was God's INTENT for Israel for all time. It was the Israelites who rejected God by demanding a human King. That's exactly what God called it too: a REJECTION of him, and he promised them nothing but corruption and trouble from the kings even as he granted their wish. And whom did God choose to be the first King? Saul. Treacherous, violent, crazy, disobedient Saul. Saul was God's choice. Then David: murderous, lecherous, adulterous David. Then Solomon: lecherous and idolatrous Solomon. And after that, the human-led united kingdom of Israel was broken up. The united Kingdom of Israel, under human kings, lasted less than half as long as the true, original Commonwealth of Israel, ruled by God as king. The Commonwealth, ruled by God, was God's intention. The entire span of the rule of kings was an "after the fall" event. By taking a human king, the Israelites doomed themselves. But they still refused, generation after generation, to repent the folly of their ways and go BACK to God as king. Instead, they kept doubling down on their error. Now, you've read the Bible many times, and told me you stand ready to school me in it. So you already know these things. Are you yourself making the same error as the Israelites, exalting the Israelite kings that God said were a REJECTION of him? God's law of Israel, given in the desert, had no king. The only state was the priest/judges. THEY continued after Saul was King. The kings did not choose the judges. The priests and Levites remained the judges. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-20   13:50:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: Vicomte13 (#51) (Edited) If what you say is true, then why does the Revelation repeatedly say God made us to be priests and kings? You need to read the whole Bible, including the Revelation which unlike any other book of the Bible, is given to us directly by God. And I don't know what history book you've been reading, but every history book I've ever read says Israel's kings reigned exactly 1000 years to the day, from 1000 BC to 70 AD, and after subtracting 70 years for the time the Israelites were in captivity (in Babylon) that's exactly 1000 years. That's how long every kingdom of God lasts, whether Christian or Jewish. For example, the Holy Roman Empire also lasted exactly 1000 years to the day, from 800 AD to 1806 when Napoleon defeated it. When you subtract the 6 years when no emperor was crowned by the Pope (because of an occasional disagreement between the Church and State, that leaves exactly 1000 years. When the Church and State are united as one, they last 1000 years. Otherwise they don't and God allows the gates of hell to prevail against them. So our only hope of lasting 1000 years is to defeat Hillary, the other half of the false prophet of chapter 19. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-21   0:55:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: interpreter (#52) And I don't know what history book you've been reading, but every history book I've ever read says Israel's kings reigned exactly 1000 years to the day, from 1000 BC to 70 AD, I;m reading the Bible for this history. The Kingdom of Israel had four human KIngs after God's direct rule ended: Saul, David and Solomon, plus a very short rump period under Rehoboam. After that, Israel split in two. The Northern Kingdom was the Kingdom of Israel, composed of ten tribes. It was destroyed by the Assyrians under Sennacherib, never to return. The Southern Kingdom was Judah, not Israel. It was the land of Judah and Benjamin, two tribes. It was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. The Persians permitted Jerusalem to be rebuilt, but it had no king and was simply a province of the Persian Empire. The Macedonian Greeks conquered Persia under Alexander the Great, and it became a part of the Greek Seleucid Empire. In the 160's BC the Maccabees led a revolt against the Seleucids and, gained independence from Seleucid rule for Jerusalem for a brief period of about a century. However, the Romans came after that, and the entire region passed under Roman control. The Idumean monarchy was elevated by the Romans to remain in place as the local puppet government, in order to pay tribute to the imperial capital. Herod the Great was a Roman apparatchik, an Idumean, as were his sons. When the Jews revolted against the Romans to regain their independence, they were destroyed. In no sense whatever did the Kingdom of Israel last for 1000 years. United Israel lasted for three kings. Judah lasted for a couple of hundred years after that. The Jewish/Davidic monarchy was never restored. The Babylonians ruled the land, then the Persians, then the Seleucid Greeks. Jerusalem gained its independence for a century, only to be swept into Rome. The Romans established a non-Hebrew Idumean Kingdom under the Herods, which lasted a century. Judah as an independent entity under its kings lasted for about 450 years. It had 100 years under Idumean puppets as a Roman satrapy before even the appearance of national existence was wiped out. Even God did not call Judah "Israel". Israel, by that name, under Kings Including Saul, David and Solomon, lasted from Saul until the Assyrians, a period of only about 300 years, and never recovered. Most of this, from Saul to the Maccabbees, is in the Bible. In the New Testament, the land is ruled by Rome. There is a titular Herodian king, but only Herod ruled over the whole land. After his death the region was divided, Any history book will tell you this. You've got a template in your mind, but it doesn't fit the facts. Revelation is indeed an important book, for reasons that have nothing to do with history lessons. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-21   7:11:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: Vicomte13 (#53) (Edited) The Kingdom of Israel had four human KIngs after God's direct rule ended: Saul, David and Solomon, plus a very short rump period under Rehoboam. After that, Israel split in two. The Northern Kingdom was the Kingdom of Israel, composed of ten tribes. It was destroyed by the Assyrians under Sennacherib, never to return. The Southern Kingdom was Judah, not Israel. It was the land of Judah and Benjamin, two tribes. It was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. The Persians permitted Jerusalem to be rebuilt, but it had no king and was simply a province of the Persian Empire. The Macedonian Greeks conquered Persia under Alexander the Great, and it became a part of the Greek Seleucid Empire. In the 160's BC the Maccabees led a revolt against the Seleucids and, gained independence from Seleucid rule for Jerusalem for a brief period of about a century. However, the Romans came after that, and the entire region passed under Roman control. The Idumean monarchy was elevated by the Romans to remain in place as the local puppet government, in order to pay tribute to the imperial capital. Herod the Great was a Roman apparatchik, an Idumean, as were his sons. When the Jews revolted against the Romans to regain their independence, they were destroyed. In no sense whatever did the Kingdom of Israel last for 1000 years. United Israel lasted for three kings. Judah lasted for a couple of hundred years after that. The Jewish/Davidic monarchy was never restored. The Babylonians ruled the land, then the Persians, then the Seleucid Greeks. Jerusalem gained its independence for a century, only to be swept into Rome. The Romans established a non-Hebrew Idumean Kingdom under the Herods, which lasted a century. Judah as an independent entity under its kings lasted for about 450 years. It had 100 years under Idumean puppets as a Roman satrapy before even the appearance of national existence was wiped out. Even God did not call Judah "Israel". Israel, by that name, under Kings Including Saul, David and Solomon, lasted from Saul until the Assyrians, a period of only about 300 years, and never recovered. Most of this, from Saul to the Maccabbees, is in the Bible. In the New Testament, the land is ruled by Rome. There is a titular Herodian king, but only Herod ruled over the whole land. After his death the region was divided, Any history book will tell you this. You've got a template in your mind, but it doesn't fit the facts. Revelation is indeed an important book, for reasons that have nothing to do with history lessons. It makes no difference whatsoever what you want to call the southern half of the Kingdom of Israel after the northern half split off. It was still part of the Kingdom of Israel, and it is still called Israel today for God's sake. And the original Kingdom of Israel lasted 1000 years, and exactly 1000 years, irregardless of what you say. That is one of the definitions of a kingdom of God, and to say ancient Israel was not a kingdom of God (the first one) is tantamount to calling God a liar. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-21   12:44:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: interpreter (#55) It makes no difference whatsoever what you want to call the southern half of the Kingdom of Israel after the northern half split off. It was still part of the Kingdom of Israel, and it is still called Israel today for God's sake. And the original Kingdom of Israel lasted 1000 years, and exactly 1000 years, irregardless of what you say. That is one of the definitions of a kingdom of God, and to say ancient Israel was not a kingdom of God (the first one) is tantamount to calling God a liar. The Kingdom of Judah, if we include Israel in it, was an independent polity from about 1200 BC until 582 BC, when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. That's 782 years, maximum. There was no part of Israel that was independent again until the Maccabbean revolt of 164 BC, which established a small independent state around Jerusalem for 101 years, until the Romans conquered it in 63 BC. So, some small part of the Jews were very briefly independent again after a break of 418 years. Add 101 years to the 782 and you get 882, which is nowhere close to 1000 years - and this is being generous in considering the disordered time of the Maccabbean revolt a "Kingdom". The 1000 years is important to you because of your interpretation of certain Scriptures. It isn't actually true, either in the Scripture itself or in history, that there was an Israelite kingdom that lasted 1000 years. Not even close. Maybe it WOULD have lasted 1000 years, or forever, had the Israelites obeyed God - BUT THEY DIDN'T. And that is really the key take-away from the Old Testament: God will keep his promises, but his promises are conditioned upon the activities of the humans to whom he has made the promise. God only said "I will do this" without requiring anything in return when he made the covenant with mankind and the animals not to flood the earth again in the time of Noah. All of the later covenants, including the covenant with Israel were CONDITIONAL, not absolute: 'I will give you this land IF, and ONLY if, you do thus and so. If you do NOT do thus and so, I will drive you out.' THAT was the covenant. The ancient Jews made EXACTLY the same theological error as the modern Christian "Once saved/Always saved" heretics. In both cases, they read the parts about being loved/saved/protected by God, but the ignored the "IF YOU DO THIS/DON'T DO THAT..." part. Jews ignored that. Christians ignore it. I don't. Ancient Israel would still be there had the ancient Israelites obeyed the laws and kept God as king. BUT THEY DIDN'T. They struck out their own way, and very soon, after only a few hundred years, it was all gone, destroyed, forever, never to return. God invoked the penalty clauses, and it was done. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-21   13:34:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: Vicomte13 (#56) I have no idea where your getting your dates from. Everything I've read says the Kingdom of Israel began in 1000 BC (or thereabouts) and lasted until 70 AD, except for a brief period of 70 years when the Babylonians conquered Israel and carried them away into captivity/slavery in Babylon. The history books say that and the Bible says that so I don't know where your getting your nonsense from. And God invoked the penalty clause on the Jews in 70 AD and not before. He bore with them for a thousand years -- as He has also done with every kingdom of God since then (e.g., the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires). That is the way God likes to do things. Basically He gives us a thousand years to hang ourselves. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-21   18:53:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: interpreter (#57) Everything I've read says the Kingdom of Israel began in 1000 BC (or thereabouts) and lasted until 70 AD, except for a brief period of 70 years when the Babylonians conquered Israel and carried them away into captivity/slavery in Babylon. The history books say that and the Bible says that I'm returning to this because it is important. The history books do not say that, and the Bible does not say that. The Bible has the monarchy of a united Israel running for three kings: Saul, David and Solomon. It has Israel dividing forever at the beginning of the reign of the fourth, Rehoboam. Thereafter, the word "Israel" only is used to refer to the Northern Kingdom, of Israel, which consisted of 10 tribes, which went apostate and stayed that way, and which was erased from the earth in the 600s AD by the Assyrians, never to return. The Southern Kingdom was called "Judah", and it consisted of the original lands of only two tribes. The Kingdom of Judah lasted for about a century after the Kingdom of Israel, succumbing to the Babylonian invasion of the mid 500s BC. And that was the end of the last Israelite Kingdom. Yes, some of the PEOPLE of Judah were deported to Babylon for the famous 70 year Babylonian exile. There, they were chastened and turned back to their RELIGION. Cyrus, the King of Persia who conquered Babylon, allowed the Jews to return home to Judah and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. So the Jews got their religious practice back. They did not, however, get back political control. The kingdom of Israel was never restored, only the religion of Israel. The King of Israel was Cyrus the Persian, followed by other Persian Emperors, until the Macedonians came. Then Alexander the Great was King of Israel, and then after his death the Macedonian general Seleucus and his heirs. The Maccabbees revolted in the 200s and established a small independent city state at Jerusalem that lasted 100 years or so, but then the Romans came and conquered all of it, and the Romans installed Herod and the Idumean monarchy, which was not related at all to King David's line, and which was a Roman government, not a continuation of the Kingdom of Israel. The Kingdom of Israel, broadly speaking, in the Bible itself, lasts from about 1000 BC to the fall of Judah to the Babylonians in 587 BC: 413 years, not 1000. The RELIGION survived, but the KINGDOM did NOT. Not in the Bible, and not in the history books. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-24   9:06:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: Vicomte13 (#59) Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you, but I have been very busy. First, I will concede that, technically, you do make one valid point. Although the Jews ruled Jerusalem for exactly 1000 years like the Bible and all the history books say, the ruler was not always called a king. For about 300 years or so, beginning around 516 BC with Zerubbabel, the ruler was called a governor and not a king, but that does not mean the Jews did not rule Jerusalem for 1000 years. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-24   11:50:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: interpreter (#60) (Edited) For about 300 years or so, beginning around 516 BC with Zerubbabel, the ruler was called a governor and not a king, but that does not mean the Jews did not rule Jerusalem for 1000 years. So, let me ask you, did the Germans ever rule France during World War II? They conquered it and defeated its army, took the resources they pleased, put bases where they pleased, attached the French factories to the German economy, but there was not one day during the period when there was not a French government sitting in place. France had surrendered to Germany, but the Germans had a puppet French government in place. So, by YOUR use of the word, the French ruled France throughout World War II, and the German conquest shouldn't break the continuity of French rule, because some French people were still titularly in charge of France. Likewise, the Roman Empire never fell, for there has never been a period when Italians were not living in the City of Rome. For that matter, British rule never ended in America, because the ruling class of Americans is primarily composed of people descended from the British colonizers? It's a silly argument. So, then, I have to ask why you're making it. You're having to strain against the facts to find Jewish "rule" over Israel, because there were some of them in the land. I know the reason: you have a theology in which a 1000 year period is important for symmetry, to match up with some things you think you see (or that your teachers thought they saw) in the Bible. Break that symmetry, and a whole set of texts that you think mean something end up not meaning that but meaning something else. Vicomte13  posted on  2016-10-24   12:57:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 61. #62. To: Vicomte13 (#61) No, the Germans never ruled France during WW II. They did manage to conquer half of France, but not all of it. And the pagan Roman empire of course fell in 312 AD, and did not last 1000 years. The Holy Roman Empire, on the other hand, did last 1000 years as every kingdom of God does. And Roman Catholic nations will again rule the earth, and very soon, in the coalition of 24 nations that will once again rule the earth for Jesus for a thousand years. That, my friend, is what determines, and proves, whether or not any kingdom is a kingdom of God. interpreter  posted on  2016-10-24 17:37:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 61. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com