July 29, 2023
Among the “hot topics” of Christianity today is the topic of grace. From the teachings of Luther during the initiation of the Protestant Reformation to modern day “hyper-grace” Bible Teachers, the concept of grace is buzzing and has a lot of people excited. But is it possible that the majority of people, including those teaching heavily on grace, are wrong?
If you have been involved in Christianity for any length of time, you have probably encountered people who have this type of attitude regarding Christian faith: “We’re all just sinner’s saved by grace. We love Jesus, but we sin daily, it’s inevitable, so we thank God for grace that covers all of our sins.”
This attitude is founded upon the idea that we are living in the “age” or the “dispensation” of grace. Essentially, these Believers break down the history of the world into different time periods. For example, there was the age of the law (regarding the period that Yahweh’s people were subjected to the Mosaic Laws). That time period is “finished” now, and we live in the “age of grace” where we are not subjected to the Laws of Yahweh and regardless of whether or not we sin, we’re under this magical blanket of grace where we can just hop, skip and jump our way to heaven while sinning along the way.
In Acts 2:10 we find both “Jews and proselytes” from Rome witnessing the fulfillment of Pentecost when they all heard God speaking in their own languages. No doubt Luke included this detail, having specific people in mind. They were probably the first contacts from Rome who kept in touch with Peter, although the Recognitions of Clement, Book II, says that Aquila was “converted to the faith of Christ under the preaching of Zaccheus.” Zaccheus was no doubt one of the 120 disciples in the upper room on the day of Pentecost. The same source tells us that Peter later ordained Zaccheus as bishop in Caesarea.
When Peter visited Rome about a dozen years later, some time after the martyrdom of James, the brother of John (Acts 12:2), it is likely that he held meetings in the home of Aquila and Priscilla.
We find later that Aquila and Priscilla were Christians from Rome. Years later, Paul met them in Corinth…
I want to begin tonight with a discussion concerning Paul of Tarsus and accusations against him by anti-Christs and so-called “liberal theologians” that he was somehow a misogynist, or a woman-hater. Nothing is further from the truth, except that jews and all those who have accepted their conditioning do not understand the structure of a proper Christian society, which is a patriarchal society, and the reasons which necessitate such a society are indeed Christian. On the other hand, Christians must understand that the so-called liberation of women from the patriarchal society was a goal outlined in the perverse arguments of the Communist Manifesto. It was a jewish goal towards the destruction of God’s creation from the very beginning, and it can be traced back to Genesis chapter 3.
Paul of Tarsus was not a misogynist!
Many people today accuse Paul of Tarsus of misogyny (hatred of women), and no doubt because of some of Paul’s remarks concerning the place of women in Christian society.
Paths of Old – Ancient Paths
Jeremiah 6:16; 18:15; Acts 15:21
“Thus said יהוה (Yahweh), “Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; and find rest for yourselves….” (Jeremiah 6:16)
“But My people have forgotten Me, they have burned incense to what is false, and they have stumbled from their ways, from the ancient paths, to walk in bypaths and not on a highway.” (Jeremiah 18:15)
Regular public reading of the Torah was introduced by Ezra the Scribe after the return of the Jewish people from their Babylonian captivity (c. 537 BCE), as described in the Book of Nehemiah 8. In the modern era, adherents of Orthodox Judaism practice Torah reading according to a set procedure they believe has remained unchanged in the two thousand years since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE).
“For from ancient generations Mosheh has, in every city, those proclaiming him – being read in the congregations every Sabbath.” (Acts 15:21)
Bible readings for July 29, 2023. In the 7th solar month of the Hebrew 5th month of Av (July/August).
And I besought
- Deuteronomy 3:23—7:11
- Isaiah 40:1-26
- Matthew 4:1-11
- Mark 12:1-44; Luke 10:25-37; Acts 13:13-43; Romans 3:27-31; 1 Timothy 2:1-6; James 2:14-26
If you are interested in downloading the annual Torah reading schedule with projected new moon sightings, Feast Days, click HERE.
Three Year Bible Reading Schedule
Genesis to Revelation
Exodus 17:1-16 | 2 Samuel 13:22—15:12 | Psalm 73:1-28 | Jeremiah 10:1—11:23 | Luke 16:1—17:37
If you are interested in downloading the complete 3 year Bible reading schedule, click HERE. You can break up your Bible reading into 5 days of your choosing or combine the above readings of your choice.
In order to fully comprehend the role of the Smithsonian in all of this, one has to understand the groundwork upon which the institution was built.
James Smithson gave all he had to establish an educational organization on American soil, and his reasoning for this has always largely remained a mystery (despite many theories), as he had never actually been to America. His will was, at the very least, ambiguous; he did not specify what the organization would or should be; he merely wrote that it would be for the increase of knowledge and that it must be named “Smithsonian Institution.” It appears by the verbiage used in Smithson’s will that he felt very alone in the world, with very few ties to fellow man or family (excepting one nephew, to whom he left all of his land), and as a result, the Smithsonian was left without a successor or supervising entity of any kind, though it came about through the fame of one man completely without ties to the American government. He had not even a correspondent within the United States to oversee the transfer of money after death, nor any distinguished U.S. colleagues, nor a mere friend. His funds, then, were left simply to the nation of the U.S., itself, and to his legal team to sort out how to get it there and what to say after it arrived (although eventually the money was retrieved through former U.S. Attorney General Robert Rush as traveling messenger). This was, assuredly, quite the pickle for bureaucratic organizers upon whose shoulders it rested to establish said institution, attempt to keep with its donor’s indefinite but documented wishes, and maintain the ideals of a man whose personal values were anyone’s best guess. Because of Smithson’s vague instructions, legal issues arising from the donation of a foreigner to another nation’s government generically, and due in part by some unique handling of the funds by the U.S. Congress during President Andrew Jackson’s administration, the approval of the Smithsonian seal did not occur until February of 1847 (nearly twenty years after Smithson’s death).
Through his posh and indirectly belittling double-speak report, Powell gained the support of Charles Doolittle Walcott, the chief executive officer of the Smithsonian, shortly after Powell’s death. Walcott hailed the report with such irrefutable and mesmeric magnitude that the Smithsonian executives deemed the document the “Powell Doctrine.” Powell’s smarter-than-you linguistic skills naturally fed the pride of many of his followers, which by extension lent itself to further brainwashing from the top rung of the Smithsonian and down. From 1907 to this day, the now-outdated Powell Doctrine has been the final word on the issue of giant bones, as well as ancient Indian culture. Powell was, himself, viewed as a great authority, but he was only one man. When Walcott rallied the rest of the Smithsonian superiors to embrace the Powell report, the rest of the world embraced it as well, because “they” said it was valid. As a result, then, the museum established the Powell Doctrine as a literal, official policy to exclude any and all alternative evaluations of the mounds, bones, pictographs, and human-origin hypotheses, regardless of evidence. Any perspective, no matter how scientifically sound, would be snuffed out under the suppressive abort button of the doctrine. After 1907, it would not matter what was found in the ground. The policy was solid. No opinion other than Powell’s would ever matter to the Smithsonian again.
And you can guess what naturally happens next: Under this administration, years of the institution’s time and money are placed into book collections, exhibits, staff training, and uncountable materials that support this doctrine as truth. The fortress built cannot easily be torn down, and its influence spreads.
Tragically, because of the weight the Smithsonian’s opinion holds to educational institutions across the United States, the Powell Doctrine policy of exclusion was also incorporated into the dogma of most major American universities, adding a behemoth layer of clout to Powell’s appraisal.
All the discoveries and old newspaper accounts above and many other discoveries have been reported across the United States and around the world, and frequently the Smithsonian was involved in some way. If the Smithsonian was going to hide all of this and dismiss what couldn’t be hidden as biological quirks, they had to do it fast.
In 1910, Aleš Hrdlička came on board with the Smithsonian as the first curator of the Division of Physical Anthropology, but he had been working for the institution as a chief of that department since 1903. Hrdlička was a Czech anthropologist heavily involved in the pre-Nazism Eugenics Movement, whose unethical work and harsh treatment of Native American cadavers under his tenure at the Smithsonian has historically drawn much attention. (Tragically, many Smithsonian cover-up “conspiracy theorists” only do themselves a disservice by attacking Hrdlička’s personal morality. The discussion in many of these books and articles continually dives into diatribes that could be summarized under…
Paul’s words have been the central cause behind why women have been forbidden to hold leadership positions within the Body. It seemed fitting that the first deep studies would begin there, in order to replace our contemporary interpretations of an ancient text with the proper intent of the ancient text. This was a crucial step in our journey toward seeing the true and biblical role of women, because what we’re about to delve into is the highest authority of all Scripture: what Jesus Christ thought about women!
However, before we delve into those whom He sent, we should first consider those whom He knew in order to understand how He came to view women as a whole. This includes the women He interacted with personally, as well as some of the names He would have studied from Old Testament Scripture (New Testament wasn’t written yet), as those women would have been the natural basis of His theology at the time.
The story of Deborah can be read in the book of Judges, chapters 4 and 5. The backdrop is an exhausting one. The whole book of Judges documents a circular pattern that goes around and around the same cycle: “The Israelites did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord,” followed by the Israelites’ repentance and God’s mercy, followed by, “The Israelites again did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord,” and so on. It’s a ceaseless “God we’re sorry” then “Let’s worship other gods and act wickedly” loop. No matter how many times the Israelites traveled around it, they landed back in the same old pattern of unwise decisions. Throughout this cycle, God appoints prophets and judges to act as the mouthpieces of His will…
While we’re on the subject of women who are only seen as “kind of” what they were called to be, I would like to briefly tackle the subject of the prophetess Huldah.
The Word documents the following story, beginning in 2 Kings 22: Josiah becomes king at the age of eight. Following the mentorship of his elders and ancestors, he begins to reform the nation of Israel back toward Yahweh. After he has reigned ten years and has shown to be a righteous king in the eyes of the Lord, Josiah orders the rebuilding of the Temple. During the reconstruction, Hilkiah, the high priest, uncovers the Book of the Law that the Israelites have been without for some time. When the document is brought to the king and read aloud…
Church attendance is declining in America, and it spells disastrous implications for a nation that is already spiritually on edge. According to new data from Gallup, U.S. church attendance remains below pre-lockdown levels. Just 31 percent of adults surveyed this year told Gallup they had attended a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple in the last seven days. Gallup conducted the poll between May 1-24. “In the four years before the pandemic, 2016 through 2019, an average of 34% of U.S. adults said they had attended church, synagogue, mosque or temple in the past seven days,” the polling firm reported. “From 2020 to the present, the average has been 30%.” The last time church attendance reached 40 percent was in 2012. Not only are Americans attending religious services less in the aftermath of pandemic lockdowns, but they’re reporting religion as far less important…
Do you believe in God? If so, you belong to a portion of the population that is steadily shrinking. Yes, a majority of Americans still think that God exists, but the trend is clearly going in one direction. So are we headed down the same road that so many post-Christian nations in western Europe have already gone down? According to a shocking new survey that Gallup has just released, the percentage of Americans that believe in God has plunged to the lowest level that they have ever recorded…
The percentages of Americans who believe in each of five religious entities — God, angels, heaven, hell and the devil — have edged downward by three to five percentage points since 2016. Still, majorities believe in each, ranging from a high of 74% believing in God to lows of 59% for hell and 58% for the devil. About two-thirds each believe in angels (69%) and heaven (67%).
The story of Joseph tells how it came about that the sons of Jacob, and with them the tribes of Israel, moved to Egypt so that they could migrate from there a second time to Canaan, to that Promised Land that their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had already inhabited. The Exodus is presented as a homecoming. For this to be possible, the story of Joseph is indispensable as a link between the story of the fathers and the story of the exodus.
Benjamin plays a special role in the Joseph story (Genesis 37; Genesis 39-50) although he does not appear as a speaker at any point. At first, on Jacob’s instructions, he is not allowed to accompany his brothers to Egypt to buy grain (Gen 42:4) Joseph, however, suspects the brothers of espionage and demands that they bring Benjamin, his only full brother, after them for their credentials (Genesis 42:7-20) Only when Judah vouches for Benjamin does his father allow him to travel to Egypt (Genesis 43:8-9). After their arrival, Benjamin is favored by Joseph over his brothers. “And he (Joseph) lifted his eyes, and saw Benjamin his brother, his mother’s son, and said, Is this your youngest brother, of whom ye spake unto me? And he said, Elohim have mercy on you, my son.” (Genesis 43:29)
“And he commanded them of the courts of honor before him. But the honorable judgment of Benjamin was five times greater than the honorable judgments of them all. And they drank with him and became intoxicated.” Genesis 43:34
Above: Benedict XVI’s personal secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein kisses the former pope’s closed coffin during a private ceremony in St. Peter’s Basilica on Jan. 4, 2023. Vatican Media.
Last week a number of interesting commentaries appeared from unexpected quarters. Two in particular noted the speed with which His Holiness seems to be practically skipping down the merry ole #SchismaticWay with the most recent appointments, especially Tucho “Heal me with your Mouth” Fernández and Slim Jim “Bridge to Hell” Martin.
These two commentaries both made mention of the infamous Greek term katechon, referring to II Thessonians in which the Blessed Apostle speaks of the coming reign of Antichrist and the katechon, the “restrainer” who holds him back.
The first to use the term was Sandro Magister in his analysis:
The death of his predecessor Benedict XVI, at the end of 2022, was for Pope Francis like the passing of the “katéchon,” of the restraint that held him back from fully revealing himself.
“Revealed himself” is another reference to II Thessalonians where the katechon is restraining the revealing of the Antichrist.