Video and Audio
See other Video and Audio Articles
Title: Ukraine to become 'Big Israel'?
Source:
The Grayzone
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmICm4qO3i4
Published: Sep 20, 2023
Author: Max Blumenthal
Post Date: 2023-09-20 00:18:04 by Charles_Byrd
Keywords: None
Views: 6537
Comments: 87
The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal addresses the Ron Paul Institute's 2023 Washington DC conference on the disturbing plans in Kiev and Washington to convert Ukraine into a "Big Israel," and what this means for the region and the future of US politics.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Charles_Byrd (#0)
Defeating Russia in the Ukraine is the key to the future. With Russia gone, we can focus on bringing China to a more rational stance, and avoid a war with them too. Russia delenda est.
The symbol on the Ukraine Flag is the Khazarian Tamga. Victoria Nuland's husband's name is Robert Kagan (wiki: "The Khagan Beks were war chiefs, military commanders who exercised considerable day-to- day authority, and were sometimes regarded by outsiders as the supreme lords of the Khazar nation") Looks like the ruthless Khazars want Ukraine for themselves/Israel and will put the Slavs through the meat grinder in order to get it. Imagine what they have planned for the USA...
Neocon geopolitical games are not worth American lives.
FWIW...Russia ain't going anywhere. At some point, we need to find a way to peacefully coexist. The less human blood sacrificed in that righteous quest, the better...MUD "NOW...Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan!!"
Hey, hoss: no Americans are dying in Ukraine. Russians are. And Ukrainians. That’s it. We’re spending money, that’s all.
Want to bet? The peace starts when Russia stays in its lane.
Otherwise the war continues. Russia is in a demographic, and therefore economic, death spiral. They will, in fact, cease to exist as a state if they engage in a forever war. They can't win, and they can't keep going forever. They can be stubborn cunts and keep it going until they screw themselves into the ground, and nobody will regret their passing. OR they could pull out, make peace, change governments and start to repair themselves. My bet is that they will remain stubborn, stupid cunts, and screw themselves into the ground proclaiming what a great nation they are, until they utterly collapse and cease to exist as an organized power. Ok. They're just not that important. The ONLY THING they have is nuclear weapons. And their system is so corrupt and falling backwards, there's no knowing how many of those even work. The rest of the world is not going to stand still in awe at Russia's nuclear arsenal. Nobody is going to invade them, but that's it. Nobody is going to let them invade their neighbors because they have nukes. Yeah? So do we. And we have more accurate, newer ones, and a Western world of about 2.5 billion people. If we DID have a nuclear exchange, we would lose a lot of people, that is true. Russia only has 140 million people. The race would be exterminated forever. The world would go and repair itself, WITHOUT Russia or Russians. There will not always be a Russia. The Russians have to start acting rationally if they want to survive. Aging nuclear weapons are the only line they have against being overrun by the Chinese, who claim Siberia. Russia doesn't have anywhere near the army to keep out the Chinese, only nukes could do it. OR Russia could knock off the oppression, join the West, and have the whole might of the West protecting them against China. But, like I said, the Russians are cunts, stupid cunts, so they're going to choose to fight the whole West in Ukraine, for as long as they can, and then collapse and cease to matter as a nation. Ok.
While I agree nobody is making a bee-line to emigrate TO Russia, and with teir low, low birthrate, they--and the Chinese, btw--are facing a demographic downturn that will possibly be catastrophic. However, the U.S. is presently $33 TRILLION in debt with no will to curtail spending on domestic niceties, so engaging in a "forever war" via proxy will result in a financial collapse like we havben't seen in almost 100 years...MUD "NOW...Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan!!"
So give Ukraine what it needs NOW, win the war, and be able to slash military expenses during the peace.
or take them out and become arrogant and have more wars.
With ATACMs and F16, Ukraine will break the Russian defenses in the South and cut off Crimea and half the Russian army, and that will lead to taking back Crimea. Donbass is much harder, because it abuts Russia. Once Russia is driven back to just the Donbass, maybe a peace deal can be struck giving them the wrecked and depopulated Donbass.
Rev19.11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. The Khazars can genocide and take the land for "big Israel" but they will only hold it for a few short agony filled years. At which time God will come and literally cut their guts out and feed their flesh to the birds of the air.
We are going to have to re-arm our military if we keep giving away all our missiles and ammo, another depletion of American strength Biden has accomplished over the last 33 months. And the sooner we can bring the Ukraine/Russia War to a conclusion, the better for WeThePeople of the U.S. and those fighting and dying in Eastern Ukraine...MUD
"NOW...Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan!!"
What? That Russia will cease to exist in either of our lifetimes? Yeah...I will take that bet. Russia ain't going anywhere...MUD "NOW...Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan!!"
You think Revelation is about the war in Ukraine, eh?
But the thing is, we're not. We are mostly giving Ukraine out surplus. These Abrams tanks - they are an old model. F-16 jets? We fly F-35's. The cluster shells? These are things in stockpile that we don't use. We have pulled a whole bunch of equipment out of mothballs, that we would otherwise have to pay to dismantle, and sent it to Ukraine for a fight against an enemy that we would like to see destroyed, but can't fight ourselves. It's smart. The only enemy that WE are likely to face is China, and that will be a naval war, not a ground fight. We're not giving away anything pertaining to our Navy. Truth is, Russia has had to go "all in" and hasn't won. They don't dare expand their front by, say attacking NATO. And the US is no weaker than we were before in naval terms. We are quite capable of defending Taiwan if it comes to it. Will Russia break up and disappear? Well, if they do something damfool like launch nukes, yeah. Other than that, they could have regional turmoil that ends up splintering the country into pieces. Who knows?
Did a light just come on in your head? Try to keep up, Vic...
A sort of light. The light is "He really believes that the Ukraine war has to do with John's dream in the Apocalypse." It's not "Wow, this is the end of times." When the world doesn't end, and no riders show up with seals, or sheep covered with eyes and the lot, it will be a disappointment for you, just as the world not ending a few years ago when those guys were certain it would. And yet they go on, convinced that the world is ending soon, and that they just miscalculated a little. Obviously I think a story told from the perspective of an ancient fever dream is not actual future history, and it has no predictive quality whatever. And just as obviously, you think it does. And we'll both go to our graves thinking that, but it won't be in the world ending.
I have explained ad nauseum to this forum the evidence of the white horse rider (the 1st seal) in 2020. Followed very clearly by the red horse rider in Feb. 2022, and now the unmistakable appearance of the Black horse rider of inflation for the working-class people. Amazingly, in 2020, we witnessed a peace treaty (the Abraham Accords) that fulfills Daniel9.27 But this alone is not sufficient. The real timekeeper of prophecy is Israel, being restored in the land, currently preparing to build a temple, obtaining red heifers for the cleansing, and the revealing of the man of lawlessness (who tells you in no uncertain terms who he is) who will become the long awaited Mashiach. Furthermore, we see the condition of humanity (delusional to believe the lies), and the churches (having fallen away, not restraining evil). What have I over looked? I'm sure there is more but what I have presented will suffice for a while. More than that, I will cease my ministry as "watchman". There is a time constraint. If the prophesy does not keep unfolding, time will run out. Everything is very unique in its fulfillment. Israel, the opening of the seals, the strong delusion, the falling away...for all these things to reappear at some later date, there would need to be a whole resetting of the world, just to swing around again and arrive at the circumstances we see now...probably take hundreds of years. Vic, prophesy WILL be fulfilled. Now is the time. The evidences are laid out for us to see. If all this adds up to nothing, then I resign. I am reminded of the verse where believers whose faith is based on a myth are most pathetic of all humanity... So go ahead, throw your best objections at it. See if what I say will stand up to examination.
There's just no point. We come from different poles of existence. Anything I could say might be insulting, and I don't want to do that. So, go in peace.
No, not really. I may be right...I may be wrong. I look at scripture...I look at events taking place. You live in some other world? No. I think your reply is a cop-out. I think you simply do not wish to deal with Bible prophecy. Regardless of prophecy, Israel awaits their "messiah" and it does involve a Russia-Ukraine conflict. Just one random example...this from haaretz.com:
It isn't that I don't want to "deal" with Bible prophesy. It is that you see the Bible as something very, very different than I do. And there isn't going to be meaningful conversation across this divide. You are certain that it's an account of divine origin of what will happen. And I think revelation is a fever dream of a guy named John in a period of persecution when he and what he believed was under terrible pressure. So, you look for signs of it coming to be, and I know that any such signs are just coincidental patterns with the wild and random stuff that some poor soul wrote 1900 years ago. You cannot understand why I don't fear God and the Bible. And while I understand that you really take Revelation literally, to me that is outside any realm of possibility. I don't want to insult you for doing it, but anything I say will, if pressed, end up being insulting, because I don't believe that what you believe in is real. I think it's make-believe, pretend. To be nice, I'll edge around the matter, treating it with kid gloves, but it's like dealing with a child who believes in the Easter Bunny. These are both harmless beliefs, in my eyes (if you were a Muslim, you would have already blocked me, because I have no patience at all for their ridiculous, evil, dystopian "Allah", with all of his villainy and misogyny, so I attack him by name, repeatedly, and anybody who sincerely believes that crap, as the evil that they actually ARE, BECAUSE they believe that crap, and the crap is bad.) I do not view contemporary evangelical Christianity in the same light as I view Islam, so I don't want to attack it. But when you get right down to it, I think revelation was a dream - and nothing more. So looking for traces of that dream in current events is, ultimately, not something I'm going to spend any time on. So, when I run into someone like you, that really believes it, I am patient and I try to be friendly. But the dire warnings about what awaits me if I don't believe it wears thin. Nothing awaits me if I don't believe it that wasn't awaiting me anyway. And if I do believe it (somehow), that won't change anything. This is the Truth. Obviously, you see a different truth. It's not a cop out to say that we really cannot communicate. If either one of us tries to build a bridge across the chasm, the other actively tears it down. Which is why I simply say "Peace" and try to move on. All we can do is bicker otherwise, and life is too short for that.
What about the Book of Daniel...is that prophetic work a fever dream too? (Daniel and Revelation are companion books) What if you are wrong?
The Book of Daniel is Old Testament Jewish fiction. I note that the Jews themselves do not consider Daniel to be among the "Prophets" - Nevi'im. They put it down with the Writings - Kethuvim - the least authoritative t parts of the Bible. I think that the Old Testament is the story of Jewish fascination with themselves, with being Jewish, with their chauvinism. And the New Testament letters are essentially fanfiction about Jesus...each writer being very different. Jesus is the only one in the Bible I actually care about, because what he taught, through through the filter of his Judaism, is the most enlightened set of ideas to come out of anybody in history. There's a reason so many people love him, and it's because he presents about the only way for men to make a better world. As far as "What if I'm wrong?" What if I'm wrong about anything? If I'm wrong about Allah, I'm headed for an eternity of torture. If I'm wrong about Ganesh, I'm going to have to deal with Shiva. If I'm wrong about Revelation? Jesus didn't say I had to believe in Revelation, so the consequences from the perspective of most of Christianity is minimal. The important thing, according to Jesus, is whether or not I do what he said to do. And what if I'm wrong about my investments? I'll end up poorer than otherwise. What if I am wrong about my child's development? She will not rise as far as she could. What if I'm wrong about there not being any space aliens? Well, if they ever show up, I'll admit I'm wrong. What if I'm wrong about good nutrition? I might shorten my life? There's nothing worse than being wrong about Allah, and he can go piss up a rope. If I'm wrong, it will be bad, but I'm not. All those people who blight their lives believing in him are wrong, and they won't ever get those years back, or the children they kill, etc.
Well, you've got your god in a nice little box, all under your control. Your god cannot do much (unless you say so). He cannot create the Universe and all that is in it. He cannot foretell the future. He cannot communicate his thoughts to his creation. Your god cannot save man eternally (he can just help men make a temporal "better world"). What else can your god not do?
God can do all of those things, and he's gonna kill me in the end. So I really don't know what you're talking about.
According to you, God cannot present a trustworthy Bible. God has somehow allowed error to be canonized (Daniel, Revelation, the Pauline epistles, etc.) I suppose before any hungering soul sets out to know God, he should check in with Vic to find out if what he is reading is actually something God said is His Word.
Yup. The pale horse rider will kill you (along with 1/4 of the earth's population) Sooner than you think. This isn't in your bible...but it is in mine.
This is actually a troubling statement...something a fallen angel would say. Are you a demon?
He could, and if he ever presented a Bible, I'm sure it would be. But men put the Bible together, of the writings of men, and they disagreed over its contents - and still do. The different strains of Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism have different collections of books in their Bibles. And there are three primary, differing, strains of ancient manuscripts, and no two of them are the same. And there was no Bible at all until the religion was legalized circa 325 AD. So the very first Bibles date from around 350, a long, long time after Jesus. God didn't make the Bible, men did. And they still don't agree as to its contents. There are multiple Bibles. based on multiple different manuscript traditions. And of course Muslims say exactly the same thing about the Koran...and they'll kill you for saying about the Koran what I just said about the Bible.
Sure.
Wrong...the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was complete by the time of Christ. The NT Bible (in the form of letters) was written, circulated, and recognized as the Word of God long before Athanasius merely compiled the canonized letters. Wrong. There many translations of the original manuscripts, which are derived from the original autographs (which no longer exist). You really don't know much about Christianity, do you Vic? All I see is a rebellious heathen raging about this or that...finding any excuse to deny God. Lucifer in the Garden to Eve: "Did God really say that?" Vic on the forum to anyone dumb enough to listen: "Did God really say that?" You speak just like your father the devil. You don't wish to be with God in eternity, so you will go to be with the one you choose. Next stop for you...the Lake of Fire. You can change your heart and mind before it's too late but I doubt you will. You've hardened your heart as in the rebellion Stupid really. Choosing to miss out on heaven.
So men created God. Ok
You call the Bible God? The Bible is your God. God is God. Men created the Bible. Obviously. Which Bible is God? They are all different you know. The Catholic Bible differs from the Orthodox Bible. The Orthodox Bibles differ from one another. The Protestant Bibles differ from the Catholics and the Orthodox, and from each other, depending on which manuscript source they use as their base. So, multiple Gods? Or the Truth: the Bible is not God. God is God.
There's no denial of God in anything I write. In fact, I focus very explicitly upon the words of Christ. This clearly annoys you, probably because you think you have some sort of monopoly over God. If you don't think that, you sure talk that way. Anyway, enough of this. I'm going back to work, and later in the day I will continue by slow plod through the Gospels and Revelation (the only places in the Bible where Jesus himself speaks, other than a single line of Paul regarding the eucharist), picking out the words of Jesus and laying them back to back to make a point. The point I am making is to someone else, but you, of course, are free to look at the evidence yourself.
through the Gospels and Revelation (the only places in the Bible where Jesus himself speaks But you just got done saying "Men created the Bible". The "words of Christ" you "focus on"...are they not found in the Bible? Didn't man merely create the words of Christ too? You constantly contradict yourself. Why don't you just admit it...you do not believe in the God of the Bible. You believe in your interpretation of God, who is someone/something you can control.
Men did create the Bible, and every other written thing. Words do not hang on the air. If we know them and did not hear them ourselves, it is only because men recorded them. The only way to record them before the latter half of the 19th Century was to write them down. So, the only way to know what Christ said is to read it in a book men wrote? Are the quotes accurate? Made up? A bit of both? There is no way to tell that. We have wag at those men at that time recorded, and we use that as the basis to analyze what Christ, or Thomas Acquinas, or Shakespeare, or Caesar said. There is nothing remotely contradictory in anything I have said on this matter. You need to go look up “contradictory” and read the definition again. I can read the Koran too, and see what Allah is said to have said, and analyze that. Do I think that is actually the will of God? Not mostly, no. A stopped clock is right twice a day. When it comes to Jesus, I have very great respect for what he said, in part because I agree with it. I think he was the son of God, somehow, but that assertion is just a bald one to me. So what? Even if he was, that’s useless information unless we know what he SAID. That is what we can evaluate. When I evaluate what Jesus said, it is quite remarkable. Did Jesus say some of that? Almost certainly yes. Did he say every word of it? I don’t know. But nothing about what he says seems very contradictory to me, and it’s excellent, so I am willing to listen to HIM and think that if by listening to anybody I can act in accordance with the will of God, that this is it. Now, I note clear contradictions between Jesus and Paul, Jesus and James, and Jesus and John, so I have to make a choice. My choice is to come down on the side of Jesus 100% of the time. You will say they don’t conflict. I see how they do, and side with Jesus. And that’s all there is to be said here.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1cor2.12-14 You are a "natural" man, that is, without the indwelling Holy Spirit. You cannot understand what God is saying in His Word...it is foolishness to you...so you toss out the parts that don't make sense. Does it annoy me, as you say? No, it grieves me, and it grieves Stone and others.
I toss out the parts that contradict Jesus. Example: You shall not suffer a witch to live. Or “You shall take the daughter of the priest who fornicates and put her into the fire. Or If you have broken any law, you have broken them all. Or.. Kill the sabbath breaker. Or Women shall not teach in the Church Etc.
Edit: These verses about burning witches, etc. are foolishness to you, but not to me. No matter how hard I work to explain it to you, your mind refuses to accept the explanation. After you are born again you will understand what God did in the OT, and what He is doing in the NT.
so basically you're saying you dont have faith that the Bible is the word of God.
you are mistaken www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023 -10-02/pentagon-congress-ukraine-war- funding-11569941.html
I am saying that the words of Jesus stand supreme, because he was the Son of God, and he said to follow him. He did not say to follow the Bible, and he did not leave a Bible. That didn’t come to be until the 300s. There were no Christian Scripture when Paul wrote, for example. There were none until decades after Jesus. What Jesus said and did is recorded in the Scriptures, yes. And what he said is supreme over everything else for, as the Scriptures tell you, HE was the begotten son of God, HE was the divine one, HE knew what was what. So therefore, I focus on him. The Scripture say to stone the woman found in adultery, but HE said “Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone.” The Scriptures say “eat no pork nor shellfish”, but HE said that nothing that goes into a man’s mouth makes him unclean, only that which come out of it. The Scripture says to kill the sabbath breaker who so much as gathers firewood, but HE said that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; and that it is right to heal on the sabbath, to do good.. The Scripture (James) says that if you break one law, you’ve broken them all, but Jesus always speaks of greater and lesser sins. The Bible had at least 95 authors, each with a different viewpoint in a different age. But Jesus was one man, recorded in five different texts, largely consistent between them. What Jesus says is very distinctive, and often different from what other people in the Bible said. And Jesus was very self-consciously the son of God, and said so. The Bible can take you myriad ways, but Jesus takes you in a very distintive direction. Example: Paul says to not let women teach, but Jesus had the woman at the well teach her whole people. Where other parts of the Bible go in different directions, you correct all of that to Jesus. So, within the Bible itself, Jesus is above the rest of it. And that means that no, you can’t burn witches, even though another part of the Bible orders you to.
I am at page 80 of 180, still moving through methodically and taking notes for you. It will be several days before I am done. Then I will send it to you.
Wow...I am impressed. Very enlightened response, V13...MUD "NOW...Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan!!"
Yeah. But obviously the conversation continued. I have decided that all I can do to state my faith is what I have promised to Stone: systematically go through Jesus, and lay end-to-end the things HE said, because HE is the son of God. Everything else ends up being "Jesus PLUS", and in my experience, everything that's "Jesus PLUS" ends up being Minus Jesus. And the only person in that whole Biblical milieu I'm willing to listen to is Jesus. The trouble with Moses, Ezra, etc., is that they're pronouncing death and exclusion. And the trouble with Paul, James and John is that what they say contradicts Jesus, and always, inevitably, in a way that I disagree with. I'm aligned with Jesus, and when somebody says something different from Jesus, that difference is invariably worse, in my experience. So I just stick with him. This makes sense, given that he's God. But many people have replaced Jesus with the Bible, making the Bible God. Jesus did not say to do that. He said "Follow ME", and he didn't leave a Bible. So, when I see Jesus excoriating the Jews time and again for their traditions that completely close off what Jesus was saying, I see Christians and their Bible doing exactly the same thing. And I am unimpressed with this. I am also unimpressed with how mean and carping they are about it. the Bible ain't God. God is God. Now, what God said is IN the Bible, in the mouth of Jesus. Follow THAT. But the Bible ALSO contains things out of other people's mouths, that contradict Jesus. Don't follow that. This makes some people accuse me of being a demon. I would say that they are tradition-mongering Pharisees, and the Bible is their tradition. Obviously we are never going to see eye to eye, just as most of the Jews never saw eye to eye with Jesus (and the ones who did, stopped being Jews in time and became Christians). But the Christians, in later ages, erected their OWN traditions that replace Jesus, and did various terrible things like murdering people. I have no patience for any of that. And I have only limited patience for the cheerleaders of that, which is precisely what Christian tradition-mongers are. Just shut up and follow Christ, and all will be well. Is that so hard? Why do people work so hard to follow everybody BUT Christ? The answer is that Christ demands things of people they don't want to do, while the others present a way of thinking and being that is easier, lets them feel holy, without actually DOING what Jesus said to do. It's "Christian", but it ain't following Jesus. I stick with Jesus, and I see the tempests of anger that raises. And I provoke them - just like he did. But I need to get through the Scriptures and present Jesus, Just Jesus. And let the storm wail away after that - I won't care!
no rush. take your time
blah, blah, blah
13 is the number of rebellion in the Bible.
I happen to be the 13th Vicomte of a place in France. If I were the 11th, I would have “Vicomte11” as my name. But I’m the 13th, so that is my name. Does genealogy render me a rebel? Doubt.
Superstitious about the number 13?
Well, I shouldn't be associating with someone of such low degree as yourself because your commonness always rubs off on those of us who are of true nobility. I am, after all, a child of the King, the Most High God. Unfortunately, in a matter of speaking, yes. Your rebellious nature was passed down to you from your father.
We're all children of God.
Worn out cliché. You can't merely claim to be a child of God any more than I can claim to be a child of a Vicomte. You were born an enemy of God...you must be reborn to become a child of God.
No jesus didnt say that about the warmongers who would supply foreigners with weapons to kill people that they politically hate. Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God". Youre not a peacemakers but someone who supports war to kill as many russians as possible so we will be dominant in the world.
A bit off topic but this thread is at the moment off topic. I cant find where jesus says to pray to dead sinners, you know Mary. So in truth you dont listen to Jesus but to sinful man. Just saying
Then as above why do you pray to a dead sinner. Mary never claimed to be someone to pray to. jesus never said to pray to Mary. so what you said is not the truth.
I don’t pray to Mary. However Mary, being a disciple of her son, is not dead. Neither are any of the others of his disciples, if you believe him anyway. I am at page 116 of 183. Steadily moving. Jesus says a lot.
Where did Jesus say that? I don't think he did. Only Elijah and that other dude never died.
Tell me, does your church allow divorce and remarriage? What do you think of that?
Take as much time as you want or need. I'm sure you will do a thorough job.
He said it over and over again. Since you don’t remember, I’ll be sure to cite it again and again, and again, in what I am writing to you.
What do you think of that? I don't believe there is such thing as divorce. You are still married and commit adultry if you have sex with anyone other than your wife who you originally married.
Ok :)
You sound like Jesus. But, what does your Church teach? See? You are responsible for what YOU believe, not for what your “leaders” tell you to believe. I’m not a fan of pedophilia, or coverups, or burning heretics and witches, or saints, or torturing political opponents, or enforced priestly celibacy. The sins of the Church over the centuries are that: sins - I don’t agree with any of it, and I don’t defend any of it. In truth, I use the fact of all of it to attack the absurd notion of general infallibility. Barrow, specific infallibility is essentially limited to Mary. And I pay attention to Jesus, not Mary. I don’t have a problem with Mary - I think that maternal devotion and placing a woman very high is not a bad thing, but Mary is not the focus of my faith, Jesus is. But as far as being a “rebel”, because I happen to be the 13th Vicomte de Voreiz, and some guy is superstitious about the number 13? I’m the opposite of a rebel. I feel no need to “take a stand” in any meaningful way other than stating my disagreement. I feel no need to rebel against the Church and leave it. Jesus did not rebel against Temple Judaism or tell his people to leave it. He told them, instead, to listen to the good, not follow the bad, but follow him, his teachings instead. He did not require that individuals force the institutions to align with their beliefs - an impossible task. He merely demanded that they follow him, and if you followed him, he did care if you were a Jew or not. So, even though the Jews as an institution taught and did things Jesus said were unnecessary and even negative traditions, he didn’t command abandonment of the religion. Rather, he said - effectively - that if you follow him, the cracked traditions of the institutions don’t matter. I’m no rebel. I remain in the Catholic Church because I was born and raised that way and like the people. But I am forthright in telling you - and the priest for that matter (I am in our men’s group and we talk about Jesus every Saturday, and the priest is with us) - what I think is cracked, wrong and irrelevant. So, to call me a rebel is really off the mark. But to ascribe to me beliefs I don’t have because I’m a Catholic? Jesus was a Jew - who obviously ignored all sorts of Jewish traditions, and criticized them, but made no grand political statement of “leaving Judaism” either. Rather, he simply ignored the things that were not true, demonstrating to me what to do. This was to the great consternation of many priests, scribes and faithful Pharisees of his time. He mocked them, he didn’t leave the faith. I don’t mock people who adore the Eucharist or devote oceans of time to Mary. I just don’t do either, staying focused on what Jesus said. This doesn’t annoy most Catholics (some in the men’s group really don’t like me, but the priest loves me because of my pure and faithful citation of Jesus.). Protestants go after me citing traditions of the Church I ignore. But what I actually believe - well - that I express by citing Jesus, 100%. If someone wants to get pissed at me for THAT…we’ll…go right ahead, Pharisee!
Do recall, though, that Jews were polygamous. Jesus did not prohibit the Jewish tradition of multiple wives. He prohibited divorce. The tradition of monogamy isn’t Jewish (or Muslim, which follows the Jewish/middle eastern tradition). There are polygamous Jews today. The Jewish rabbinical rule is that whatever the tradition of the country is, that’s the local Jewish practice. Yemenite Jews in Israel have multiple wives. Jesus never said anything about THAT. Divorce was his no no. Monogamous marriage is a Roman tradition, deriving from their jealous goddess Hera, goddess of marriage. As the Church Romanized, the custom of the Romans was adopted in the Church, without much thought, but it comes from Juno, not Jesus. Greeks and Gauls practiced polygamy. Romans and Germans did not. They DID have girlfriends, mistresses and prostitutes, but not multiple wives. It’s a Western thing, not a Jesus thing.
But you'll kill the hell out of the Slavs who are sitting on some real estate you want.
The Russians are invading the Ukraine. We aren’t. We are helping the Ukrainians kill the people invading their country.
Did god help or destroy sodom and gomorrah? They are a pro fag country just like us
Here are some Ukranian sickos. Just like the democrats here.
So, Stone, do you think we should let Ukraine be destroyed by the invading Russians? Really?
So, I have completed my review of everything that Jesus said, and I am prepared to begin to remind you of it. It is always good to spend time with Jesus, to be reminded of his word, and to remind others of what he said. This started merely as an effort to demonstrate a point - the Jesus looks to acts, deeds, works, and that he judges us based on what we do. It is not simply a matter of believing he is the Son of God. Obviously he is the Son of God. The miracle of the resurrection, which we can ourselves see (if we will), and be reminded of that, that tells us to look to him and follow his word. For that is what he asks, that we understand, and hear his word, and do it. But when you read him, there is so much more to see in it, and be reminded to be glad. Some say that there is a certain way that one must come to Jesus, and none else. Jesus did not say that. He DID say that if you hear his words and don’t do them, it is unavailing. So, let’s hear him then, and do what he said, and it be availing. Tomorrow I shall begin to write it down, to quote him. I will start with what he said in the Revelation and move backwards from that. Tomorrow.
Ok Vic.
It is tomorrow, and I begin. First question: do I engage in a bunch of preparatory work, explaining the "proper approach" to Jesus, lining up what I write to prove some point? I could. It is tempting. Everybody else seems to do it. But no. The Son of God's words have moved people for two thousand years. Nothing that I can say or do is going to make any difference. So I'm just going to let him speak. All I will say is that my intention is to quote him extensively. I know that those who don't like what they are reading will start to shout "Context! Context!" as they come to those things they do not like. I'm not going to argue with them myself. I'm just going to give them more and more and MORE Jesus - let HIM give the context, and let the ones opposed to him start playing the game of picking and choosing a line here, a line there. I like Jesus exactly as he was, and have shaped my own thinking to fit his, what HE taught. So from my perspective, the antidote to any argument against what Jesus said is MORE JESUS. It is not I who has a narrow and crabbed vision of Jesus. I take in the totality. Of course that ends up being very long and time consuming. I don't really apologize for that, because he's just great, and the more Jesus you read, the better. If you don't believe he was the Son of God, perhaps you will be moved by the excellence of what he has to say. If you do believe he was, then you should revel in every word. And indeed if you do believe he is the Son of God, and you don't like what he is saying, you need to reconsider your own positions and align them with his. Enough of me. Let's begin with Him. Revelation 22: 12-19 "Lo! I am coming swiftly, and my wage is with me, to pay each according to his works. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Happy are those who are rinsing their robes, that it will be their license to the tree of life, and they may enter the gates of the city. Outside are curs, and drug dealers*, and the sexually immoral, and murderers, and idolators, and everyone making and fondling lies. I, Jesus, send my messenger** to testify these things to you in the assembly***. I am the root and the race of David, the resplendent morning star.****" *The word is "pharmakeia". A "pharmakon" sold drugs to people to produce the highs and hallucinations that drugs produce. The ancients, and the medievals, ascribed these effects to "magic", so old translations in English will say "sorcerers" or "enchanters" here, but that gives rise to the idea of what we would call a wizard. Jesus was talking about the people who sold drugs to people to blow their minds. The ancients considered that "magic". We don't. The word he used referred specifically to drug peddlers: pharmakeia. It wasn't illegal in the ancient world to be a drug dealer. There were regular shops that sold this stuff. We could, if we translated it literally, say "pharmacists". But that would give the wrong idea too. Todays "pharmakeia" - pharmacists - are not selling potions to blow people's minds with magic. They are a regulated industry selling medicines to heal people. Ancient pharmacists were selling mind-altering drugs - legally at the time. The proper modern equivalent of "pharmakeia", to understand what Jesus was talking about, is "drug dealer". He was NOT talking about old women in the woods who think they are witches. They are simply deluded and have no power. He was talking about people who sell drugs to other people who blow their minds. And he is saying explicitly that they have no place in the city of God. **"Messenger" is the meaning of the world "angelos". "Angel" means "messenger" in English. We have preferred to not translate the word and leave it as "angel", which gives rise to a specific thought of a winged being. But an "angel" in Greek CAN BE a winged supernatural being. But it is also the word used for human messengers, from the army, for example, carrying a dispatch. Jesus does not specify here, so I have chosen to use the word in its generic meeting. Whether the "messenger" here comes from on high, or refers to the disciples carrying the messages to the various churches, doesn't really matter. And in any case you cannot tell from what Jesus said: he sent his messengers - winged angels or sandal-clad men. It's the message that mattered to Jesus, not the particular physical description of the messenger. ***"Assembly" is what the word "ecclesia" means. It literally means "those called out" - of a regular meeting to a special assembly. What Jesus is referring to here can be called "the churches", which is the usual translation of "ecclesia". That's not wrong, in the sense that he is talking about assemblies of those who follow him, "the faithful", but "church" is a Medieval English word that carries very specific connotations - of specifically the Catholic or Anglican rites, of buldings, which we call "churches". And Jesus is not talking about buildings or political organizations, he is talking about assemblies of people, who follow him. Yes, that is the "church" of the period. But given that the word "church" would not exist for another 1100 years, until the invention of English, and given that when the word "church" developed, it was completely synonymous with the Catholic Church, to use the word "church" here is a loaded anachronism that Catholics use to say "See! See! The Church ALWAYS was." No, it wasn't. Yes, there were always followers of Jesus. No, they were not following the rites of the Catholic Church in the first century. "Assemblies of people devoted to Jesus" is what the "ecclesia" is. A "church", yes, but only in the sense of people gathered for Jesus. In the stronger sense of the Orthodox Church, or the Catholic Church, or the Anglican or Baptist Church - capital "C"? Absolutely not! Therefore, I use the word "assembly" here, because that is precisely what it was. Were the assemblies "churches"? Yes. Were they THE Church, capital C? Not really, no. "Assembly" is the exact word. "Church" is a 1000 year later invention of English referring to the Catholic Church (the only game in England for the next 550 years. ****In Latin, the morning star is "Lucifer", and "Lucifer" is the morning star. In Latin, there is no connotation of evil, at all, in Lucifer. In fact, Jesus' reference to himself AS the bright morning star, in Latin, is him calling himself "Lucifer". Men such as Saint Lucifer of Cagliari were holy men whose parents named them to honor God, not the Devil. "Lucifer" didn't get the connotation of being a name of Satan until the Middle Ages. In the Latin Vulgate, in St. Peter's first letter, there is a line in English that concludes "if we pray fervently, the morning star will rise in our hearts". In the Latin Bible, this flatly says "if we pray fervently, Lucifer will rise in our hearts." At the time of Christ, "Lucifer" had a GOOD connotation. It does not today, obviously. So, while I insist on translating "pharmakeia" as the much more accurate "drug dealer", I'm not going to insist on translating "morning star" as "Lucifer". Thanks to medieval superstition, that name carries WAY too much baggage, and superstitious men, such as those afraid of the number 13, will see the Devil. And anyway, "Lucifer" to the Romans WAS the morning star, same thing, so "morning star" is an accurate translation for meaning.
Vic perhaps this deserves its own thread. Your call.
Everybody get ready for Vic to lead us into his very own clown world order...
Sure. Can you take my first message and make it the first message of a new thread. Maybe call it "Jesus in his own words."
If you want to call the words of Jesus a "Clown World order", then you may do so. For my part, I am very respectful of him.
As you should be. What did Jesus say about Zelensky's "Big Israel"?
"pharmakon" "ecclesia". Just look at the Greek words you are using. Very impressive! It's almost as if a Strong's Concordance fell off the shelf and hit you in the head!
Jesus didn't say anything about Zelensky, or Ukraine, or Russia, or "Big Israel", because none of these things existed in 33 AD, and he was focused on the people in front of him, Jews and Romans and Greeks in ancient Judaea, Samaria and Galilee. I don't like being insulted any more than you do, and I don't see why one Christian should be insulting another.
And Latin, where "Lucifer" = "Morning Star".
It does deserve its own thread, but I don't know how to do that. Could you? And maybe call it "Jesus in his own words", or "The words of Jesus" or "Just Jesus", or simply "Jesus' words". And could you put my first message today, the one that contains the first quote from Revelation, as the first message? I would do it, but as I said, I looked through the site, and I don't see how. In fact, you don't even need my preferatory remarks, just start with the reference to Revelation. There's a typo in what I wrote I'd ask you to fix also. Let me find it. I see it now. It has halfway through my discussion of "pharmakeia" (a discussion I would like to shorten). I wrote "magic" in quotes before, but there, I just wrote magic, without quotes. That needs quotes too. Actually, if you just tell me how to start a message, I will do so, and use the copy-paste as the opportunity to edit myself so you don't have to. Thanks.
In the Latin Bible, this flatly says "if we pray fervently, Lucifer will rise in our hearts." The Bible was not penned in Latin. To be sure, Lucifer does rise in your heart... But not mine. Christ, the "light-bringing, the morning star" (Strong's 5459. phósphoros) rises in my heart. "Lucifer" for you..."phósphoros" (Christ's light) for me. Lucifer is the god of your heart...no wonder you continue to mock Christ and His Word. Time is running out for you, Vic. You would do well to take heed.
Phosphoros - Greek. Lucifer - Latin. same thing. and neither is the name of anything evil, outside of medieval superstition.
So you are a satanist? Lucifer is clearly understood by all to be Satan, the devil, the fallen angel. The name Lucifer originates from the pagan Latin and is the name Satanists worship. Since you use the name Lucifer, a name that that is understood to mean Satan, you therefore worship Satan. Since Lucifer is a usurper, you are assisting him to muddy the waters, to seek to replace Christ with Lucifer. Exactly what a Satan helper would do. I will henceforth regard you as a Satanist, which falls in line with your desire to alter and discard parts of God's Word, and especially your desire to kill people. The more you speak, the more your evil heart is revealed.
And I will regard you as a mean, stupid and arrogant man with a serious reading deficiency.
#2. To: Charles_Byrd (#0)
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
(Edited)
"With Russia gone..."
#5. To: Charles_Byrd (#3)
#6. To: Mudboy Slim (#4)
#7. To: All (#6)
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
"Russia is in a demographic, and therefore economic, death spiral. They will, in fact, cease to exist as a state if they engage in a forever war."
#9. To: Mudboy Slim (#8)
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
Rev16.16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
"Want to bet?"
#15. To: watchman (#12)
#16. To: Mudboy Slim (#13)
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
#18. To: watchman (#17)
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
no riders show up with seals
it will be a disappointment for you
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
#20. To: watchman (#19)
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
Anything I could say might be insulting
We come from different poles of existence.
FYI: Putin=Gog, Crimea=Magog, the Apocalypse Is Here and the Messiah Is Coming...https://www.haaretz.com/2014-03-29/ty-article/.premium/fyi- putin-gog-crimea-magog/0000017f-dc4b-db22-a17f-fcfbe4440000
#22. To: watchman (#21)
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
I think revelation is a fever dream
I think revelation was a dream - and nothing more.
#24. To: watchman (#23)
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
#26. To: watchman (#25)
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
God can do all of those things
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
he's gonna kill me in the end
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
#29. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
he's gonna kill me in the end
#30. To: watchman (#27)
#31. To: watchman (#29)
Are you a demon?
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
Vic: He could, and if he ever presented a Bible, I'm sure it would be. But men put the Bible together, of the writings of men
God: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
Vic: And there was no Bible at all until the religion was legalized circa 325 AD
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon, and he used the word "canonized"
Vic: There are multiple Bibles.
Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
God didn't make the Bible, men did.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#33)
#35. To: watchman (#32)
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
I focus very explicitly upon the words of Christ.
#37. To: watchman (#36)
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
#39. To: watchman (#38)
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#39)
(Edited)
I toss out the parts that contradict Jesus.
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
#42. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
surplus
#43. To: A K A Stone (#41)
(Edited)
#44. To: A K A Stone (#42)
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
"There's just no point. We come from different poles of existence. Anything I could say might be insulting, and I don't want to do that. So, go in peace."
#46. To: Mudboy Slim (#45)
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#46)
#49. To: Mudboy Slim (#45)
V13
"Biblically, the number 13 is also believed to be associated with lawlessness and rebellion. This symbolism associated with this number dates as far back as the Book of Genesis, where it’s implied in Genesis 10:9 that Nimrod, a mighty hunter, was before God. This is interpreted as Nimrod trying to take up the place of God, even though he belonged to the 13th generation in the line of Ham".
"...Judas Iscariot, the 13th guest to make an appearance during Jesus Christ’s Last Supper. Judas is also the one who betrayed Jesus Christ..."
https://christianfaithguide.com/biblical-spiritual-meaning-of-number- 13/
#50. To: watchman (#49)
(Edited)
#51. To: watchman (#49)
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
I happen to be the 13th Vicomte of a place in France.
Does genealogy render me a rebel?
#53. To: watchman (#52)
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
We're all children of God.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
We're all children of God.
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#39)
(Edited)
I toss out the parts that contradict Jesus
#58. To: A K A Stone (#57)
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
However Mary, being a disciple of her son, is not dead. Neither are any of the others of his disciples,
#60. To: A K A Stone (#55)
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
Steadily moving. Jesus says a lot.
#62. To: A K A Stone (#59)
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#60)
Tell me, does your church allow divorce and remarriage?
#64. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
I’ll be sure to cite it again and again, and again, in what I am writing to you.
#65. To: A K A Stone (#63)
#66. To: A K A Stone (#63)
#67. To: Vicomte13 (#65)
I’m not a fan of pedophilia, or coverups, or burning heretics and witches, or saints, or torturing political opponents, or enforced priestly celibacy.
#68. To: watchman (#67)
#69. To: Vicomte13 (#68)
#70. To: All (#69)
(Edited)
#71. To: A K A Stone (#70)
#72. To: A K A Stone (#69)
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#72)
#74. To: A K A Stone (#73)
#75. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
#76. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
(Edited)
It is tomorrow, and I begin.
#77. To: A K A Stone (#75)
#78. To: watchman (#76)
#79. To: Vicomte13 (#78)
I am very respectful of him.
#80. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
"pharmakeia"
#81. To: watchman (#79)
(Edited)
#82. To: watchman (#80)
#83. To: A K A Stone (#75)
(Edited)
#84. To: Vicomte13 (#82)
"Lucifer" = "Morning Star".
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 2 Peter 1:19
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star (proinos aster).” Revelation 22:16
#85. To: watchman (#84)
#86. To: Vicomte13 (#85)
#87. To: watchman (#86)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]