Friday, December 21, 2007

More Myths: So, who was that lady who washed Christ's feet with her tears?

For more verification that Christ was NOT born on December 25, read this article:

Let's Take Christ Out of Christmas.

One of the most well-known Bible myths is the "truth" about Mary Magdeline: she was a prostitute. And now with Dan Brown, a fiction writer who many believe is a non-fiction writer, we have the myth that Mary Magdeline was not only married to Christ but that after His death, she went westward into the far western Roman Empire, set herself in what was the Roman province of Gaul, and set about to become the forebearer of the Frankish Merovingian line of kings that ended with Charlemagne's Carolingian line. All of this is tied into the not-so-mythical "Illuminati" that heads up the series of monarchies of Europe and gives rise to the notion (expressed so well by Louis XIV with his "Sun King" and his "I am the state") that because these monarchies, which tended to intermarry, are somehow all derived from the Merovingians, that means they are all derived from Christ and are thus ruling by "Divine Right." If I had a million dollars, I would give it to anyone who could prove using only the bible that Jesus did in fact marry Mary Magdeline. Perhaps at that wedding feast at Cana (John 2). But then again I don't have a million dollars.

But, back to Mary Magdeline, the "prostitute." In fact, other than in Luke 8, where it says that Jesus drove out seven demons from her, Mary Magdeline is only mentioned in connection to her visitation at the tomb and at the cross (Matthew 27 and 28; Mark 15 and 16, Luke 24, and John 19 and 20). So where in the blue blazes did anyone, any sect of Christianity, come up with "Mary Magdeline was a prostitute?"

This is how Luke 8 describes her: (Luke 8:2) "And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdeline, out of whom went seven devils," among the twelve disciples. One can infer from this that Mary Magdeline was a sinner and that she, being among the disciples, was one herself. There are various other Marys found in the New Testament (such as Mary the mother of Christ, Mary of Mary and Martha and Lazarus fame and Mary the mother of James and Joses and Mary the wife of Cleopus). From what I had learned in Catholic School, Mary Magdeline is "possibly" the Mary of Mary and Martha fame. But Mary and Martha and Lazarus lived in Bethany not Magdelina where Mary Magdeline is supposed to be from. There are also prostitutes mentioned: the one Jesus prevented from being stoned; the one who washed Jesus' feet and dried the feet with her hair; and other "sinning" women Jesus was associated with. However, except for the woman who was about to be stoned, it is not clear that the woman who washed His feet was a prostitute just from the description of her as a "sinner."

And, speaking of the woman who washed His feet: this occurs in Luke 7 at the end of that chapter, and, the next thing you read, Jesus and the disciples are traveling all over, and Mary Magdeline as well as Joanna and Susanna were with them. But does that mean that the woman of Luke 7:37-50 who washed His feet and Mary Magdeline of Luke 8:2 is the same woman? Further, does that imply that since the "sinning" woman of Luke 7:35-50 was a so-called "prostitute," then the Mary Magdeline of Luke 8:2 was also a "prostitute" or even the same woman in both instances? In fact, the only basis on which the woman of Luke 7 can be considered a prostitute was the Pharisee Simon's supposition that she was. Now, I ask, how would he know, unless he had, perhaps, a sinning relationship with her?

Now, for you Dan Brown-ites who are trying to prove that Jesus married Mary Magdeline. Your so-called "evidence" is faulty. Your evidence consists of the fact that why else would Mary Magdeline be at the foot of Christ's cross, and why else would she go visiting Him at the tomb, unless she was in fact His wife? The thing is, Mary Magdeline was not the only woman at the cross and was not the only woman at the tomb either. At the cross you had Mary Magdeline as well as (Matthew 27:56) Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children. Mark 15:41 also has Salome there. Then, at the tomb, you had Mary Magdeline and "the other Mary" (Matthew 28:1); Luke 24:10 has Mary Magdeline, and Joanna and Mary the mother of James. Mark has the same women that appear in Mark 15:41. Christ, of course, first appeared to Mary Magdeline. Yet, the Brownites use John's account to "prove" she and Christ must have been married. This gives the account of the nature of Christ's appearance to her. When Mary Magdeline went to the tomb (with the other women) she peeked in and didn't see Him. She ran to Peter and "the disciple that Jesus loved" and told them what happened, so both of them ran back with her to check it out, and saw only His burial clothes there. Peter and the "disciple that Jesus loved" left her there, and, at that point, Jesus appeared to her. He told her He was going to "ascend to" His "Father, and your Father, and unto my God and unto your God."

To paraphrase an old Burger King commercial, "where's the proof?" The "Mary Magdeline married Christ" crowd claims that since Christ first appeared to her, they must have been married! Further, Mary Magdeline, they say, is "the disciple that Jesus loved." Bull hockey! It is clear from this (and other instances of the use of the phrase) that the "disciple that Jesus loved" is John, the same John that Jesus revealed Himself to in Revelation.

But even if Christ and Mary Magdeline were married? So what? He was still going to have to die for the salvation of mankind! All this "Mary married Christ" nonsense cannot be proven using the Bible, and searching for such proof is nothing but a distraction fostered by a fiction writer who maybe has too much time on his hands.

But why do so many Christians believe this stuff, and believe that Mary Magdeline was a prostitute? Simple. They don't read the word of God themselves; instead, they believe what man says the word of God is, and don't bother to verify it.

Just another methodology that has "the Church" heading down the road toward Mystery Babylon, Mother of Harlots.

Deborah Lagarde

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Bible "Myths": the Series

Over the next few weeks I will be discussing some things that most people assume are in the Bible because of the various "Christian" doctrines they've been taught...but aren't. I have already covered the issues of 1)the rapture, 2)the myth of "hell for eternity" and 3)the myth that the present-day state of Israel is God's "chosen" nation and the Jews are God's "chosen" people. These are real biggies, but these just might be the tip of the iceberg.

Why now? Because Christmas, a myth if there ever was one, is coming. As I explained in my post, "'Zeitgiest' on My Mind," there is no way that Christ was born on December 25! That makes any celebration of Christ on December 25--which in fact is the birthday of just about all the pagan gods (notably Horus, Mithras, and Tammuz)--pretty close to blasphemy. Now if folks want to give gifts (as per the pagan yuletide ritual) that's fine because giving and especially receiving gifts is fine, but to do it with the motive that you think you are honoring Christ is wrong, should not be taught and should be repented of. I see no problem with families getting together. Just don't do it because you think you are honoring Christ. So, celebrate the birth of Christ, but don't insist that He was born on December 25, the birthday of Horus, Mithras, and Tammuz.

The various doctrines of "Christianity" are full of myths. Many of them are minor and cause no harm unless you take them way too seriously. The Catholic Church especially is full of them. Since I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic Church and Catholic School for grades one through four, I know and remember several of them. Again, most of those are minor. Several of them were presented in Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." As Christ was trudging toward Calvary carrying the cross along with Simon the Cyrene, some woman, I presume a disciple, came along and wiped the blood, sweat, and tears off Christ's face. In case the movie didn't mention her name or you missed it, her name was Veronica. If you go into any Catholic Church you will see what are called "Stations of the Cross," which all "good Catholics" say prayers to on "Good Friday," before they go into "confession." One of the "stations" has Veronica wiping Jesus' face. Veronica, of course, is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, and I have no idea where the Catholic hierarchy got her from. But rest assured that the myth of Veronica was well in place before someone found the "Shroud of Turin."

Other myths I will discuss in the coming weeks are these: the myth that Peter was the "first Pope" (Bishop of Rome) because Jesus designated it so; the myth that because Mary Magdeline was the first women or person at Jesus's tomb this indicates (to all those who are using to Bible to "prove") Christ "married" Mary Magdeline, which would shoot the whole death and resurrection for the salvation of mankind out the window; the myth that the Pharisees really are "the Satanic Seedline" of Christian Identity fame; the myth that Jesus is not the Messiah because He never claimed to be the Messiah (a John Hagee favorite that he uses to kiss Zionism's butt); the myth that Mary Magdeline was a prostitute (which even I believed until I did the research); the myth that Christians must not drink alcohol and that Jesus did NOT turn water into wine because wine in those days was in fact just grape juice (a popular belief among Baptists and other self-righteous types). And more myths as I come up with them.

Deborah Lagarde

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Israel, 4

And now I conclude the series. Suffice it to say while I have not found evidence that Zionism is not inherently based on the Talmud or Kabbalah--Zionism is, basically, a movement to found a Jewish homeland, and defend it--it is what Zionists practice, not what they preach, that concerns this post. As with most Jews, I suspect most Zionists are secular, anyway.

So how did the descendants of the Pharisees come up with the Talmud, anyway? Fro the Freedom in Christ website (link below):

This is from a book by Rabbi Roy Rosenberg, "The Concise Guide to Judaism: History, Practice, Faith":

"...The early tradition of the Pharisees had held that, while the written Torah was meant to be transmitted in written form, the oral Torah was not to be put in writing. The teachings of the sages were to be memorized, rather, and transmitted by word of mouth from scholar to scholar. It did not take long, of course, for the number of interpretations and decisions that constituted the oral Torah to become so vast that even the most brilliant scholars would have trouble recalling all of them (they also had to remember the names of the various sages who had originated or transmitted a decision). For this reason the head of the academy in the early years of the third century, Rabbi Judah the Nasi (“prince,” or “patriarch”), resolved to reduce the oral Torah to writing. . . . Then in about 220 A. D., he introduced the first authoritative summary of the rabbinic tradition to that date. This was the Mishna (“repetition”). The Mishna, based upon the laws of the Hebrew Bible, is the source of all subsequent Jewish law to the present day and is an object of study in the academies of all the forms of Judaism."


Josephus wrote in his "Antiquities of the Jews": "What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers....What the Pharisees had most against Christ was that Christ and His disciples refused to accord with the oral traditions of the elders. Christ told them, "Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: '"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"


So the "letter of the Law" is the Pharisee/human interpretation of the Mosaic Torah written down, while the "spirit of the Law" is the actual Mosaic Law Torah. When the "Torah" was codified in 200 AD, the Pharisees had already perverted the Torah beyond all recognition, passed through courts and academies. This is why Jesus refers to what Pharisees have in oral tradition, "You have heard it said:" and why Christ tells the disciples the real Torah, "But I say unto you:"

If anyone questions the hatred the Pharisees had for Christ and his followers, who, shortly after Christ's death, came to be called Christians, one only need think of Saul and his persecutions until Christ converted him into Paul. Paul, in Acts and elsewhere, considered himself to be perfect before Pharisaic law, oral traditions.
Paul, a Pharisee, sets an example of the hatred of the Pharisees against Christians. In the Philippian letter, he describes his ancestry and earlier behavior toward the church: “If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless” (Philippians 3:4-6) (See also Acts 8:1...Acts was written by Luke).

Why is Paul's statement important today? Because, for one thing, Yeshiva staudents in Israel, today, spit on Christians! I have already stated what some IDF Jews do to Palestinian Christians. Further, I have already stated what the Talmud and the Kabbalah proscribes for Jews to do to Christians.

From the Freedom in Christ website: "After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 Ad the Pharisees established a school in Galilee (Jamnia). Basically the names of the various groupings of Pharisees went under one name, rabbi, at that time. These rabbis led in the constant study of the Torah and especially the oral traditions the Pharisees taught and the legalism handed down because of the oral traditions. While the Mishna is the coded form of law BASED on the Torah, the Talmud (Gemara) is the oral interpretation and written down discussions of these interpretations. [See Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud, translated from the Hebrew by Chaya Galai (USA: Basic Books, 1976)], where he explains the Talmud:

"The formal definition of the Talmud is the summary of oral law that evolved after centuries of scholarly effort by sages who lived in Palestine and Babylonia until the beginning of the Middle Ages. It has two main components: the Mishnah, a book of halakhah (law) written in Hebrew; and the commentary on the Mishnah, known as the Talmud (or Gemarah), in the limited sense of the word, a summary of discussion and elucidation of the Mishnah written in Aramaic-Hebrew jargon....This explanation, however, though formally correct, is misleading and imprecise. The Talmud is the repository of thousands of years of Jewish wisdom, and the oral law, which is as ancient and significant as the written law (the Torah), finds expression therein."

And the combination of the Mishna and the Talmud is the Babylonian Talmud.

Thanks to the website Freedom in Christ for much of the above information.

At some point between the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the Pharisees in Jamnia and the rise of the Zionist movement in the 19th century, I have determined from research some still rather general knowledge of what happened to the Jews. Many of them wound up in Spain when the Islamic Moors came and were later driven out under Charles Martel after 800 AD. The Jews based in Spain, the Sepharidic Jews (sometimes called Black Jews, though dark skinned were not "black" as with Africans), were led philosophically by Maimonodies, who is affiliated with the Jerusalem Talmud, who was driven out of Spain by a group of Muslims and educated in Morocco. While the Jerusalem Talmud is less popular than the Babylonian Talmud, from this Maimonodies laid out the precepts that the Seven Noahide Laws (again, these are from oral man-made tradition and are loosely based on the Ten Commandments) must be followed by Gentiles in order to be acceptable to Jews. The Talmud and the Noahide Laws complement each other. From Wikipedia: 'The Talmud also states: "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a). Any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as one of "the righteous among the gentiles". Maimonides writes that this refers to those who have acquired knowledge of God and act in accordance with the Noahide laws out of obedience to Him. According to what scholars consider to be the most accurate texts of the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides continues on to say that anyone who upholds the Noahide laws only because they appear logical is not one of the "righteous among the nations," but rather he is one of the wise among them. The more prolific versions of the Mishneh Torah say of such a person: "..nor is he one of the wise among them.' But here is where I have a problem with these laws: the Noahide Laws only apply to Gentiles! It is as if the Jews set up laws for those they considered inferior, but don't have to subscribe to themselves because they follow the Torah and are not permitted to teach the Torah to the Gentiles! Must be a good excuse for spitting on us!

But I am not going to deal any longer with Maimonodies and the Sepharidic Jews because I want to get back to the Babylonian Talmud which most Jews follow if they follow the Talmud at all. Sometime after Jamnia, the Jews and their Pharisees moved on into the various parts of the Middle East and, apparently, settled in a place called Khazaria, which is close to present-day southern Russia. They were called Khazars. According to my research on Google, the Khazars were either Ottoman Islamics who converted to Judaism or were wandering remnant Jews left over from when they were dispersed while under the rule of the Assyrians after 721 BC or so. Some say one thing and some say another. The point is, it is the Khazars who came up with the Babylonian Talmud. Okay, imagine if the Khazars had been Islamic, but then converted to Judaism: this would mean that they had no clue as to what Judaism really was in either oral or written tradition ("Like, what's the Torah?"), and just who the heck converted them to Judaism in the first place? Obviously, Jews who had come out of Assyria or even remnant Jews in Babylon-Chaldea-Persia who did not return to Jerusalem-Israel with Ezra and Nehemiah and their group, but stayed in Babylon. And if they were not Islamic converts, but diasporah Jews or Babylonian Jews, don't you think that maybe they lost the meaning of the Torah anyway? It is this group, the Ashkenazi Jews, that came to Europe over the centuries of the Middle Ages, primarily to Eastern but also to northwestern Europe, especially Germany. Further, it is this set of Jews who, in the 19th century, came up with Zionism.

There is no direct connection of the Pharisees to the Zionists, but there is probably an indirect connection by virtue of the fact that rabbis used the Babylonian Talmud and possibly even the Kabbalah (which, I have shown previously, is anti-Christian), and I must say there is deinitely a spiritual connection, what with Israeli Jews spitting on Christians and all.

Finally, I get back to where I started with Christian Zionism. This group, based on a misreading of the Bible which says Jews do not have to accept Christ to be saved (and I hope I debunked it thoroughly enough in Part 1 of this series), plays into the hands of the so-called Israel lobby which drives US foreign policy in the Middle East and drives us to further death and destruction in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and (they hope) Iran and Syria. This group claims to honor Israel but refuses to let the Israeli people live in peace with their Palestinian and Arab neighbors; thus, they refuse to let the Jews in Israel live their lives in peace and safety just going about their business. I think I can honestly say that the Christian Zionists SO NOT BLESS ISRAEL BUT CURSE ISRAEL! Further, and even more importantly, Christian Zionists say nothing about Jews spitting on Christians in Israel or about IDF soldiers beating up Palestinian Christians. Not only that, but when in the company of Jews, Christian Zionists don't even mention Christ for fear of offending the Jews! Christians who o to Israel to see holy sites are admonished NOT to prosletize or mention Christ! Just how long will it be before the Christian Zionists become just Zionists, and forget about the Christ part?

And how long before, as we come perhaps to the "time of trouble" or what some call the Great Tribulation and the time of the so-called "Anti-Christ", these Christian Zionists, who refuse to witness on Christ to Jews, refuse to witness on Christ to anyone, who FEAR to mention Christ, who FEAR being called "Christian" because they might be persecuted or tortured or killed for Christ's sake, and "take the mark of the Beast" which is a spiritual sign of rejection of Christ given by God to those who reject Christ? Bcause, if you FEAR to mention Christ is your Savior to a Jew or an Islamic, how long will it be before you forget that Christ is your Savior?

It says in Revelation 21:8-- "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

I forthwith tell all you Christian Zionists out there, and you too Pastor Hagee: REPENT!

Deborah Lagarde

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Israel, 3

As promised, today I will discuss what Christ said about the Pharisees, and next time I will close this series up with proof that today's Zionists are spiritually and in some cases physically/historically descended from the Pharisees, using the Zionists' own theological and philosophical works.

To discuss what Christ said about the Pharisees, I will mostly use the Gospel of Mark. Matthew and Luke say much the same, but Mark is a shorter Gospel.

In Mark 2, four men drop a paralytic on a bed through the roof of the house where Jesus was staying, and Jesus forgives the paralytic's sins. Scribes were there (in using "Pharisees," scribes and priests and others connected to the religious establishment, as well as the Saducees, are implied as well.) The scribes reasoned in their hearts that Christ blasphemed because only God can forgive sins. Christ read their thoughts and said to them, paraphrasing, why should they think it is so difficult to forgive sins verbally than to say get up and walk, which would be a much more difficult thing to make happen verbally; and just to prove He really had that power, he told the partalytic to get up and walk, which he did. Later (verses 15-22), Jesus and the disciples were eating with sinners in the house of a "publican". So the Pharisees and scribes saw this and said to Jesus' disciples how can this be that Jesus could eat with sinners? Jesus answered that He came not to save the righteous but the sinners, calling them to repentance. The Pharisees questioned how is it that they and the disciples of John the Baptist fast for sin, but not Jesus and His disciples? Jesus told them that since "the bridegroom" (HIM) was with "the children of the bridechamber" (which could be construed as the bride), there was no need to fast, but that when the groom is taken away, then they shall fast. Now clearly a Christian can discern this, but not the Pharisees, who, not discerning the meaning of putting new wine only into new wineskins, completely missed the point. It is amazing to me, who grew up believing the Jews were the chosen people, that this statement in Mark 22 about the wineskins clearly states that the Mosaic Law believing Jews (let along the Talmud and Kabbalah believing Jews, Zionist or not) WERE NOT going to be the chosen people, but the Jews of that time who threw aside the rule of the Pharisees and were called to accept Christ would be the new wineskins for the new wine of Christ's Covenant. Then, in verses 23-28, the Pharisees rebuke Christ and the disciples for gathering corn on the Sabbath, which to them was unlawful. Christ said, again I paraphrase, that what King David did in eating the sacred bread of the priests in the Tabernacle of God when he was hiding from his enemies would have bene considered unlawful as well, and that the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around.

So then in Mark 3, verses 1-6, Jesus cured a withered hand of a man on the Sabbath in a synagogue as the Pharisees watched and as He read their hard hearts. After Christ cured the hand, the Pharisees began to plot to kill Christ, in conspiracy with the Herodians who called themselves Jews but worshiped the Roman Emperor. In verse 21, friends of Christ believed that Christ was perturbed (that is, "beside himself") over not being able to eat the food laid out since multitudes kept on pressing Him for teachings. When the Pharisees heard about this Christ being "beside himself" they conjured up the notion that Christ "hath Beelzebub" within Him and by that Christ "cast out demons". Christ called in the Pharisees and said to them, "How can Satan cast out Satan?" It is in this section, verse 29, where Christ makes His famous "he that shall blaspheme the Holy Spirit" shall (as most Christians falsely believe) be "eternally damned." (As I explain elsewhere, the notion of "eternity" was unknown at that time and the Greeks had no word for "eternity": the word "anion" used here actually means "age-long".) So what does "blaspheming" the Holy Spirit mean? Here it means that the Pharisees, in claiming that Christ (Who had the Holy Spirit within Him as per Mark 1:10) was possessed by demons, meant that the Pharisees were claiming the Holy Spirit within Him as being demons instead. to call the Holy Spirit an agent of Satan is to "blaspheme the Holy Spirit," a sin which is NOT unpardonable, only unpardonable in a certain time frame!

IN Mark 4, where the Sermon on the Mount is given, Jesus tells the disciples that when it comes to speaking to those Jews He has not called and chosen, He will ONLY speak in parables, so that they will NOT discern His words and teachings. The only thing that could possibly mean is that Christ has NO INTENTIONS of truly reaching the average Jew on the street, but only those He calls. He is NOT about to call the typical Pharisee! A few such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathea are called and become His disciples, but only a very few (just as throughout history only a remnant of Jews have become Messianic "Jews for Jesus").

Coming to chapter 5 we have the story is Jesus bringing the daughter of a "ruler of the synagogue" back to life. This could onl have happened because Jairus, the ruler, believed that Christ could do this (see verse 36). Now the rest of the household did not believe, so Christ told them to leave. But Jairus and the mother did believe so were allowed in to see Christ bring her back to life.

In Chapter 6, Christ commissioned the disciples to be able to heal and drive out demons, sending them off (verses7-8 and 12-13...I discussed this issue in my denunciation of Part 1 of the "Zeitgeist" movie wwhich claimed Christ was/is a myth).

Then in Chapter 7 Christ tells the Pharisees that just because the disciples did not wash their hands it didn't mean the disciples were defiled: it is what comes from the heart and from the person that defiles or not. But a very amazing set of verses comes later in Chapter 7, when Jesus cures the daughter of a Gentile (a Syrio-Phonecian of Tyre and Sidon). The woman asks Christ to cure her daughter or demons. Christ replies that (verse 27), "Let the children be filled first: for it is not right to take the children's bread and give it to the dogs" (note, just as Israelis today consider the Palestinians "dogs" [and just as Palestinians consider Jews "dogs"!], so in those days the Jews considered Gentiles no better than dogs, and the same went for Samaritans). But the woman, who obviously had faith, replied that even the dogs go under the table and eat the crumbs (of the Word of Christ). Because of her faith, Jesus healed her daughter (verse 29).

IN Chapter 8, Jesus fed four thousand on seven loaves of bread and a few small fish. When they left and arrived in Dalmanutha, the Pharisees asked Christ to provide them a "sign from heaven." Christ answered there will be no sign given unto "this generation." When Christ and the followers left, the disciples "forgot to take bread." Christ dissed this by saying, "Beware of the bread of the Pharisees and of Herod."

After the Transfiguration of Christ (Chapter 9) in the desert before Peter, James and John, they return to the rest of the disciples, and the multitude and scribes were there as well. A man brought his son who had a "dumb spirit" within him to Christ to be healed because the disciples couldn't do it. Later Christ told the disciples they couldn't cast out the demon because that type of demon only gets expelled through prayer and fasting. They then went through Galilee incognito, where Christ told the disciples that Jesus would soon be "delivered into the hands of men to be killed, and rise on the third day."

Chapter 10 brings another scathing rebuke from Christ to the Pharisees. The Pharisees tried to trap Christ into saying that what Mosaic Law commanded regarding a man "putting away" his wife with a "bill of divorcement" was righteous and pleasing to God. But Christ ripped their logic to shreds by saying even that was wrong, that once God joined man and wife NO ONE should render this null and void EXCEPT for unfaithfulness, and, further, if the divorced man married someone else that was "adultery" against the former wife (and the same for divorcing females). So basically what Jesus was doing was overthrowing the old Mosaic law (by fulfilling the Law in
Spirit if not in letter).

Chapter 11 begins the climactic scenario of Christ being greatly received by the people in Jerusalem, the betrayal of the Pharisees, Herodians (and Judas, who couldn't help it because Satan had, by the Will of God, entered him for this purpose so that Christ could save all mankind...still, Judas, who tended to feel in his heart that Christ was an opportunity for personal enrichment, was the perfect candidate to betray Christ), His death and resurrection. When He overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple, the "scribes and priests" plotted to destroy Him. It gets interesting in verses 27-33. They question as to who gave Christ the authority to perform miracles, cast out demons and speak as sent by God. But again Christ turned the tables on them. Christ responded to their question with a question: He asked them was the baptism of John (the Baptist) given from heaven or from men, and if they could respond He would tell them by what authority He did those things. So, being the hypocrites they were, they plotted which course they would take and, like Hillary Clinton, "triangulated" their response instead to saying what position they took openly. Since they couldn't decide if John's baptizing was from God or from men, they replied, "We cannot tell." So Jesus answered, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."

But instead of just walking away, in Chapter 12 Jesus gets to the heart of the matter with the Pharisees. In this chapter is the parable of the planter, who, having planted a vineyard, sends a servant out to the husbandmen (the Jews) who rented the land. A servant was sent to collect the fruit that was due to the planter, but the husbandmen beat up the servant and sent him away. More servants were sent (by now you know the servants as the Old Testament prophets such as Elijah, Isaiah, and the others), until at last the planter (God) sent His son (Christ) because the husbandmen "would reverence him." Remember Christ is saying this to the Pharisees and scribes and priests. Christ says that "But the husbandmen said among themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.' And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. What shall therefore the Lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others." This is in Mark 12:1-9. I am going to stop here with the rebuking by Christ of the Pharisees and their ilk, because this is the parable that gets to the heat of the matter of whom will be considered the chosen people: note, it is clearly not the Pharisees in particular and the Mosaic Law following Jews in general. Here Christ expounds on the fact that the Pharisees (and,ultimately, all the Jews who call for the release of Barabbas and call for the Romans to "crucify" Christ, and their heirs (see Matthew 27:25) will be disinherited from their "chosen people" status, which will fall to all believing Jews and all believing Gentiles (through the discipleship of Paul, who had previously, grievously, persecuted Christ's Jewish followers, the first Christians).

Deborah Lagarde

Saturday, November 03, 2007

Israel, 2

We will now move from discussing the Christian Zionists to the Zionists themselves. I am not here to make a claim that the Jews have no right to a homeland. IMHO every single ethnic group on Earth has a right to a homeland. Yes, that also includes the Palestinians. Sorry, but there is no getting around that truth; further, had Israel decided originally to let the Palestinians (and any Arab now living in either Israel proper or the Occupied Territories is a Palestinian, for the sake of this post) have their own homeland back in 1948-49, the Israeli people wouldn't have the issues they have today to deal with. How they deal with the Palestinian people issue is not going to go away, no matter how the Israeli government (with, it seems, a high percentage of support from the Israeli people) tries to collectively punish the Palestinians for the actions of the terrorists and suicide bombers who, truth be known, if they are Hamas terrorists, Israel, by creating Hamas, definitely has a blowback issue!

And here is the other reason why I rail this way against Israeli treatment of the Palestinians: I don't know the percentage, but I've seen figures as low as 2% and as high as 20%, of the Palestinian population is Christian! It is possible that some of these Palestinian Christians are descended from apostles such as Peter, John, James and the others who were called to stay behind in what was then called Palestine (while Paul went off on his evangelizing missions to the Gentiles). I am again NOT saying the Jews cannot have Israel to be their homeland, I am not denying the "Holocaust" and I am not denying that Jews have throughout history been persecuted as they persecute the Palestinians today. Still, when folks like John Hagee (and I cannot stress this enough!) laud Israel to the skies and say Israel must not let the Palestinians have a homeland and must be as brutal to the Palestinians as they want to be to teach those godless Muslims as lesson, taking into no account that there is a fairly large minority of Palestinian Christians who are being treated just as harshly as the Muslims are being treated (and I do not advocate being hard on Muslims while being soft on Christians there, okay? Because Muslims, moreso than Jews, are capable of converting--at least Muslims revere Christ while Jews completely deny Him!), they are guilty of NOT "doing to the least of My brothers what you would do for Me." But, again, this is not about Christian Zionists, but Zionists.

So, okay, now I bring up the question: why are the Zionists doing these bad things to the Palestinians? It is simply too easy to say, "well, the Palestinians started it under Arafat." Actually, in what is now Israel there has always been a Jew-Arab struggle over the land. But my claim is that after hostilities ceased, Israel was formed, and borders were made, peace could have been at hand; however, the leaders on both sides would rather have fought it out. I am NOT saying the Palestinian leadership is guiltless...they are as guilty as the Israeli leadership; the Palestinian leaders are just as guilty of screwing their people as the Israeli leadership is in screwing their people. But that was then, and, now, Israel is doing everything possible to as I claimed collectively punish all Palestinians to the point where a claim of genocide might be a valid claim. (Okay, now you can say it: if the shoe was on the other foot, wouldn't the Palestinians be doing the same to the Israelis? Perhaps, but hopefully we'll never know. The Jews I feel have suffered enough.) Again, why are the Zionists doing these things?

Now, hold onto your hats, because it turns out (according to Barry Chamish, the Israeli who wrote , "Who Killed Yitzak Rabin?" and has investigated this issue) the Zionist leadership has performed similar treatments on their own! (see here and here and here). Not that Chamish is some kind of Uri Avnery who wants the Palestinians to have a homeland--he doesn't. Chamish believes that the Palestinians ought to be Jordan's problem. So, for Chamish to claim what he does about the Israeli government, for him to make the anti-Zionist claims he does is not out of love for Palestinians, who he says do not exist as a separate people. NO, Chamish's beef is against the Zionists, period, and their leadership of Israel. Actually, to get to the heart of the matter, his beef is with the Zionists because his beef is with the movement that begat Zionism: a movement, funded by the Rothschilds (who he believes founded the "Illuminati" and continues to call the new world order elite by that name), began by Zvi Sabbatai (the Sabbateans), who used the Kabbalah and the Zohar, a perversion of the philosophy of the Talmud, which was a perversion in and of itself of the Torah. The Talmud, based on the oral law of the Torah, is the written law of the Pharisees left from the sacking of Jerusalem (as opposed to the Torah, the Law of Moses given by God), codified around 300-400 AD in the areas around what was left of Jerusalem and Israel. And then, there is also the Babylonian Talmud, as the members of the ten tribes taken to Assyria plus many from Judah taken to Babylon who never returned created their own written law even more loosely based on the Torah. It is the Babylonian version that gained prominence. A perversion (Kabbalah/Zohar) based on a perversion (Talmud) of an original perversion, the corruption of God's Law by the Pharisees (Christ called the Pharisees "you are of your father the devil," NOT because they are actually descended from Satan! Because they are spiritually in line with Satan, not physically). Chamish says it is the Sabbateans in Labor Zionism (which founded Israel, by the way), allied with the Illuminati, which are the problem (and, he claims, I believe with some veracity, THEY are using the Arabs as well to destroy true Judaism and Israel with it).

Reverend Ted Pike, who made this video would agree. Funny, a so-called "anti-Semite" (Pike) and someone who obviously cannot be an "anti-Semite" (Chamish) agree! And who do they agree on? That the Zionists running Israel are NOT the Jews of the Torah but the "Jews" of the Kabbalah and Talmud (in other words, the spiritual and perhaps even the physical descendants of the Pharisees who killed Christ). That the Zionists running Israel are out to destroy Israel. That the Zionists running Israel are in the pay of the Illuminati/oligarchy/new world order elites who care not a fig that as THEY kill off Palestinians THEY will ultimately try to kill off the Jews as well.

So, after all this, we come to the conclusion that because the Zionists follow a secular Judaism that actually follows more in line with the Kabbalah and the Talmud, the same Kabbalah that claims that Christ is the bastard some of the whore Mary, that Christ is in Hell boiling in excrement, and that Christians as well as Muslims, as through the Talmud, are cattle only to serve the Jews (especially its "Book of Sanhedrin"), that it follows from this that the Zionists care not a fig for the lives of a few billion people except as slaves. Sorry, I didn't make this up. Sorry, but a few of the Jews I grew up with in school (NOT the majority...in fact I can rightfully claim that "some of my best friends were Jewish") actually did hate us Gentiles...and now I know why. Sorry, but if you are going to pin the lable "anti-Semite" on me you are just going to piss me off, nothing more. You are NOT going to stop me from defending Christ, and you are only going to make me work harder to prove that the Talmudic-Kabbalahist "Illuminati" "Jews" are the spiritual if not the literal sons of the Pharisees who murdered Christ. In the next post I will go into further detail about what Christ thought of the Pharisees and their law body the Sanhedrin. It is interesting (see Mark chapter 7) that while Christ cut much more slack to Syro-Phonecians (the ancestors of today's Lebanon and Syria) and Samaritans (Jews who had mixed blood with Gentiles, who were shunned by Jews) as to His teachings, he cut absolutely none with the Pharisees.

I will leave you with the following quotes by Israeli leaders, if you still are not convinced:

" Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." -- Menachem Begin - Israeli Prime Minister 1977–1983 (an example of what is in the Talmud)

‘Well, I think it is good…it will generate immediate sympathy for Israel.’
Benjamine Netanyahu on 9-11

"When Jewish women come out of a bath they must take care to meet a friend first, and not something unclean or a Christian. For if so, a woman, if she wants to keep holy, should go back and bathe again."--Talmud

And here are more links.

As far as I know this person is Jewish

Zionism vs. Jesus

Now go ahead and call me an "anti-Semite", knowing as you do that Christ was born a Jew!

Deborah Lagarde

Friday, October 26, 2007

My Israel Piece, 1

Gosh! I haven't posted since the end of September! Most people think bloggers should post every day! But alas, I am usually too busy. I post here when the Spirit moves me to. Now I realize I should post more, do the Lord's Work every day. But the Lord's Work involves more than just blog posting.

If you want to check out some of the other things I've been doing, go here.


Who can help but be concerned about the Middle East? Certainly not me. But it is not concern over the Middle East that is prompting this post. It is the various falsehoods put forth among circles and ministries calling themselves "Christian" regarding Israel and Judaism and Zionism that have caused me to try to set the "record" straight. In fact, it'll probably take several posts to do so, thus I am calling this "My Israel Piece, 1".

Introduction

First of all, Christians will, naturally, have some sort of position on Israel because throughout their lives Christians have been told things such as "Israel is the Chosen People" or Israel is "the apple of God's eye" or the Jews are "the chosen people" or that Christians have a natural affinity to Jews or "the Jews killed Christ but they knew not what they were doing so don't blame Jews, and besides it was really the Romans" and stuff like that. Further, Israel is so much like the US that naturally Americans want to support Israel against the perfidious Arabs, who are so different. In fact I daresay that probably 100% of Christians have some fairly strong opinion about Israel. It has been the position of this blog that while the present-day state of Israel has the right to exist and conduct its affairs to the benefit of its people--as all nations do!--it must be praised when it does the right thing and denounced when it does the wrong thing (in other words, I do not support the position of "Israel Right or Wrong"), and, further, its persecution of Christians within Israel and especially in the Palestinian Occupied Territories must be denounced! Finally, it is my position that the present-day Zionist, secular, state of Israel is NOT GOD's Israel.

However, through research and communication with some individuals in the know, I have been able to wade through the disinformation and come up with a position on Israel that pretty much jibes with what is in the Bible. Today in this post I want to discuss the veracity of "Christian Zionism" as to whether it holds to Bible truth. I also want to get into the Judaism-Zionism-Talmud-Kabbala issue, but may have to bring that up in a future post, because it is rather involved; indeed the Judaism-Zionism-Talmud-Kabbala issue is VERY involved and often confusing. That's because one must know where the Talmud and the Kabbala (and its prophet, Zvi Sabbatai) are coming from. The answer would surprise most Christian Zionism and might even surprise its main proponent, Pastor John Hagee.

Why Christian Zionism is not Biblical

In the future I will have more on this (just as I have commented on this in previous posts, I am fairly sure), but for right now suffice it to say that the present-day Zionist and secular 1948 State of Israel is not God's Israel, and that is easily proven. God's Israel, in the Old Testament and especially the New Testament has nothing to do with imperfect man who lives by the flesh; witness the countless times in the Old Testament that God cursed both the Northern Kingdom Israel and the Southern Kingdom Judah because of idolatry and other forms of disobedience to God. While God certainly did bless Israel for the few times the Israelites (heretofore called "the Jews" for my purposes) did their best to try to "obey" God, that doesn't mean that God would forever look upon the Jews as His "chosen people." He did not communicate with the Jews through prophets after Malachi for a darned good reason--they had fallen into hopeless idolatry and had perverted His Word and His Laws to the point where He had to do something about it, but not before He sent all sorts of "stranger" invaders to continue to punish them: after the remnant returned to Jerusalem (see Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther) and tried to return to His law (but couldn't...see Malachi, who prophesied the Coming of the Lord and His prophet John the Baptist, the Elijah who "made His way straight") for a time, the Jews continued to violate God, and so, He sent, first the Greeks under Alexander and his minions (see the apocraphyl books "Maccabees 1 and 2" in your Catholic Bibles), and then the Romans, who, further cursing Israel for murdering Christ, Titus, who completely destroyed the Jewish nation in 70 AD. As I will show in either this post or the next or the next after that, it is what happened to the Jews after 70 AD that has seemingly sealed their fate to be thoroughly wedded to Mystery Babylon, Mother of Harlots, until the cleansing spoken of by Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah and the other prophets during the last days (after the glory...see Zechariah 2:4 and 8-9), when the Jews will have it written onto their hearts that Christ is Lord of All. Now this doesn't sound very much as if God considered the Jews "His people"! To continue, the situation got so bad that God finally, after promising the Jews (who are NOT the people of promise! see Hebrews 11 and 12) that the Messiah would come, He finally sent Him. As we all know (read the Gospel of Matthew from chapter 5 on at the Sermon on the Mount), the Jews, with a few exceptions, spurned Christ and His Word, and, as we all know, the Jews with few exceptions had him murdered, shouted to "Crucify HIm" and claimed (in Matthew 27:25), "His blood be on us, and on our children." It was the Pharisees along with the Herodians (Jews who supported the Roman Empire), not the Romans (who just did the Jews' dirty work...these are truly the ones who "know not what they are doing"! Since the Pharisees plotted to have Christ killed, they knew EXACTLY what they were doing!) who killed Christ! They paid for it dearly in 70 AD (again, Christ foretold this in Matthew 24 and other places). They will pay for it in the future as well (see Revelation regarding "Sodom and Egypt", that is, Jerusalem in the latter times, the city of whores and (as per Hebrews) the "children of the bondwoman").

This is all very clear in the bible to me, a person who believes every word out of the mouth of God but has no degree in Bible Study at some seminary or Bible College. It is unfortunate that John Hagee, for one, doesn't see this. Now I like some things about Hagee: he is a very charismatic speaker with his booming voice and his "hallelujah to the Lamb of God" and other phrases and the fact that he provided a lot of help to Katrina victims. I like it that he is helping many Jews to return to Israel; the Jews like everyone else should have a homeland (the thing is, they should share it with the original inhabitants, the Palestinians!). Unlike Falwell and some other televangelists, he does not advocate Jewish return to Israel for the so-called purpose (as per Zechariah 12, as some read it, again with an ulterior motive) of two-thirds of them being slaughtered during the so-called "Great Seven Year Tribulation" (that period after the phony "rapture"). What Hagee believes and preaches in his huge Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, is that God has made a Covenant with Christians (culminating in the phony "rapture") as well as another Covenant with the Jews, who will return to an earthly and fleshly Zion here on Earth to live happily ever after WITHOUT ever having to accept Christ as their Messiah! That reading of the Bible is so false I am amazed that anyone actually believes this! (see Ezekiel 39:21-29, as well as Isaiah 45:23-25 and Philippians 2:9-11--EVERY KNEW SHALL BOW, AND EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS THAT JESUS IS LORD! That, Mr. Hagee, includes the Jews!!!

Now I want to get to the notion, usually spouted by Mr. Hagee, that the modern-day Zionist and secular State of Israel is "the apple of God's eye." He says this almost everytime I turn on his show on Daystar or CBN or TBN! WRONG! Let us look at the verse that this comes from, Zechariah 2:8, which says (the Lord of Hosts is speaking here to Zechariah--that is, Christ is speaking. God is not speaking here...see the context of the message):


"Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon (verse 7) For thus saith the Lord of hosts (Jesus); After the glory [(meaning the future coming 1,000 year millennial reign of Christ..."unwalled villages" (verse 4) (see Ezekiel 38)] hath he (YHWH Father God) sent me (Jesus, the Lord of Hosts, who is speaking) unto the nations which robbed you (Israel): for he that toucheth you (Israel) toucheth the apple of his (God's) eye. (verse 8)"

Hagee and others like him make a false comparison. First, this verse says that God sent Christ into the nations that robbed Israel. "He that toucheth you" means the nations that robbed Israel. "Toucheth the apple of God's eye" also means that nations that robbed Israel because those nations are where God sent Christ. "The apple of God's eye" means CHRIST, because as Christ is being sent to the nations that touched or robbed Israel, it would be natural that these nations would touch Christ, or "get" Christ or even "rob" (or take the Word of) Christ (who was intended to be sent to the lost House of Israel, only to be spurned by them until the end.)This, of course, makes Christ, not Israel, the "apple of God's eye." Further, you can understand this in the context of a father and child. Your son is the apple of your eye, correct? Now wouldn't Christ, God's only begotten Son, be the apple of His eye? to say that Israel is the "apple of God's eye" is to completely disregard the fact that God so despised the corruption of Israel that He refused to communicate with them for 400 years! And that He sent the Romans to destroy completely the nation of Israel in 70 AD! And that He called Israel "Sodom and Egypt"! NO! ISRAEL IS NOT THE APPLE OF GOD'S EYE!

Another quote that Hagee and others like to use to force Christians to be subservient to the interests of Zionist secular Israel is from Genesis 12:1-3, below:

The Lord (Christ, again) had said unto Abram, "Get thee out of thy country [that is Canaan, the land of Haran], and from thy kindred (Terah's people in Haran), and from they father's house (Terah), unto a land that I will show thee: (verse 1) And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make they name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: (verse 2) And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (verse 3)"

Hagee reads this to say that all Christians must bless Israel is they expect to get any blessings from God. Period. End of Story! Bless Israel and grow rich! But heaven help you if you curse Israel or say anything bad about it! In other words, if you don't believe like he does in "Israel Right or Wrong," or if you believe it is wrong for Israel to persecute Christians Palestinians (or for that matter Islamic ones) and say so, then God will curse you! RIDICULOUS! Strong delusion propaganda! This is in fact what Genesis 12:1-3 says and it again is very clear what is meant.

Christ tells Abram to get away from his folks into a land that Christ tells him to go to in verse 1. Notice he has not been given the name Abraham yet! In verse 2, Abram will not only produce a great nation but will also be blessed and become a great name. In verse 3, we get to the nitty-gritty. The Lord will bless Abram's defenders and curse Abram's enemies. We can see this happening in subsequent chapters, especially Chapter 14 when Abram and allies (for instance, the Elamites and Shinar) fought against Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim and Bela to rescue Abram's nephew Lot among other reasons. Well, wouldn't it be a truth to say that God cursed Sodom and Gomorrah? And wouldn't it be true to say God blessed Elam and Shinar, which would soon become strong nations (that is, while Sodom and Gomorrah disappeared a short while later, Elam and Shinar stayed on for many hundreds of years after). Verse 3 also says that in Abram all the families of the earth would be blessed. This of course refers to the fact that through Abram would come Jesus Christ. THIS SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ISRAEL...IT IS ABOUT THE COMING OF CHRIST!!! Christ, Who would bless all the nations with His saving grace and His salvation for all mankind!

Well, that's it for today...I am going to have to leave the discussion of the fallacy of Zionism and Talmudism and Kabbalaism for later. By the way, according to Barry Chamish, who is NOT an Orthodox Torah-believing Jew that I have corresponded with, true Judaism has NOTHING to do with either Zionism, Talmudism, Kabbalaism or Zvi Sabbatai, and I'll get into that next time. but I must say this issue is crucial for Christians to understand.


Deborah Lagarde

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Romans 13...Again!

When I had my old "Render Unto Christ" site up here on Blogger I had written a post expressing what I had believed Romans 13 actually said. I will boil it down to this: you must obey the law and the authorities but you don't have to like it, you can work to change it, and if it violated the laws of God you most certainly did not have to obey it!

Well, I didn't go far enough and, further, I was wrong about who or what I thought Paul was meaning when he used the word "authority." "Magistrate" was another word. However, I did not have to wait for God to give me discernment on this directly. In this case, God used Chuck Baldwin (see his website at Chuck Baldwin Live. The Florida Panhandle preacher wrote a very informative piece on why most Christians and preachers get Romans 13 wrong. I am not going to site the exact words Paul wrote from any Bible. Suffice it to say Paul wrote that since all authority (power) is derived from God, and all "rulers" (powers) are appointed by God, all SOULS must obey this authority and these powers. As for taxes, they are to be rendered unto authority is given. Baldwin explained that where Christians get it wrong is in their belief that all people we elect to be our leaders or rulers or what have you must be obeyed, even if we don't like their laws or even if we believe their laws take our freedom away or even if we believe they might violate "The Ten Commandments." Even I believed that this was true until, as Baldwin pointed out, it was precisely our rulers who were emphasized as to be "subject unto the higher powers." Naturally, we all are. But Paul and of course God knew who exactly would need to be reminded constantly who must remember that they are subject to there "higher powers": the "rulers" themselves! It is the people at large, being constantly reminded every minute of every day by the cops, the media, the clergy, the courts, the governor, the president, who KNOW they are subject to the law. That is why most people wear seat belts whether they want to or not--they don't want to be ticketed (and of course some wear then to feel safe). That is why most people register their vehicles and buy car insurance...the law says they have to. That is why 18-year-old males register for Selective Service: the law says they have to (besides, the penalties for not doing so, such as not getting a job or a college degree, make not registering a bit prohibitive). That is why people pay taxes. Not because they want to but because they don't want the IRS on their backs!

No, Romans 13 applies most specifically to the "rulers" themselves. Why? Because God knows it is the rulers who are most likely to break their own laws! Throughout history--including the history of the Kings of Israel and Judah--it was most likely that the rulers would break their own laws. David, "the man after God's own heart", murdered Urias to grab his wife Bathsheeba. Solomon had God knows how many wives though the law was one wife only. Many of the Kings, listed in Kings and Chronicles, constantly violated God's laws and man's laws ("...and he did evil in the sight of the Lord..."). It is the rulers, who to a man or woman constantly break the laws of God and the laws of their nations, that Romans 13 was specifically written for. Not just because these rulers tend to break their own laws because they can rig the system to let them get away with it. Also, because when the people see their rulers flouting the law as they always do, the people themselves start to think that they, too, should be allowed to flout the law. It is rare indeed when a member of the public at large violates a law that the rulers hadn't already violated themselves. It is not for nothing that most famous (or infamous) quote of the late Leona Helmsley, "Only the little people pay taxes," rings true. Well, we can know what uttering that quote got her...several years in jail!

If you think that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney really, really are going to get away with their various crimes (do I really need to list them here? If you don't know what they are you have been physically or mentally asleep since 9-11-01), then you are being sorely pessimistic. They may not get impeached (and, if any president and vice president deserves to be impeached it is Bush and Cheney!), but somehow, somewher, at some time, they will answer for for bearing false witness, violating, continually, the US Constitution, overseeing the murder of millions either through unjust war or financial chicanery or torture, worshipping false gods (through Skull and Bones and the other so-called "secret societies"), taking the Lords' name in vain ("God told me to invade Iraq..."), committing adultery (in the sense that Bush is "in bed" with leaders of the so-called Religious Right who practice "Churchianity", that is, Mystery Babylon, Mother of Harlots), stealing (by invading countries to steal their resources, in the case of Iraq, oil, and lusting to steal the oil or Iran), lusting after more wealth and power (that is, coveting), and lying, lying and lying some more! When the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land," (in other words, the "authority" of which Paul speaks!), says that the Federal Government must raise a standing army it means in order to defend the US--not go into 140 or whatever countries putting up bases of Empire! Not go destroying Iraq and perhaps Iran and Syria and thinking that what Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the Huns, the the Brits, the Soviets, and who knows what others couldn't do in Afghanistan, the "almighty United States" can do!

And, for all you "Mark of the Beast" eschatology believers: now that you so wholeheartedly believe that you must obey the government of man no matter what they force you to do, on what basis will you be able to resist it when they "put this mark" or "microchip of the 'mark of the beast'" into you?

And you though you deserved to be "raptured"!

Deborah Lagarde

Saturday, September 01, 2007

"Zeitgeist" on my mind

The Zeitgeist movie, the first part of which is primarily based on writings from the late 19th and early 20th century Egyptologist Gerald Massey (which, while claiming Christ's divinity denounce the fact that he actually existed as a human: see this article
and read it carefully
) and "Archarya S", who is the author of "The Christ Conspiracy: the Greatest Story Ever Sold" and whose real name is "D. M. Murdock", supposedly proves that religion has been invented to keep the masses down (hey, I agree with that! which is why while I call myself a member of the Body of Christ rather than "Christian", which to me translates nowadays as "Chruchian"...that is, while the Bible is true, religion, with all of its quasi-Biblical dogma, is not, and is part of the anti-Christ Mystery Babylon, Mother of Harlots) by making Archarya's claim (naturally, she uses Massey as a source) that Christ is actually an amalgm of the various gods of the various historic religions, beginning with Horus, the Egyptian "Sun God." Archarya, who claims to be an archeologist as well as language expert in ancient languages (folks, there is a big difference between ancient Greek and modern Greek!), claims on her website (see above) that NO historians at the time Jesus was "supposed to have lived" ever mention Christ, or any of Christ's names used at the time. When Josephus is brought up, his writings (see here) are
ridiculed as hoaxes. Well, naturally! They must be hoaxes because these self-styled
"intellectual giants" say they are! At least Massey (again I say read the whole article before you diss the guy) had the sense and honesty to at least claim Christ is God. While Archarya, who has seen so many evidences of so many gods she's got pagan gods on the brain, is not being intellectually honest and is hiding behind her credentials. I agree with her that religion was invented by the power elites of history to enslave the masses (Marx had this right when he said "religion" was "the opiate of the masses"), but to make that leap to "Christ never existed" sounds to me as if some idiot "Christian" some time in her life really did a number on her and she has made it her mission in life to try to prove beyond all the historic evidence
from the first century AD up until now being discovered that just because she would rather He not exist she is bound and determined to prove it! Truly another example of junk "science" (as with "Creationism" now being pushed as something "scientific" by calling it "intelligent design"---folks, Creationism is NOT science!) by someone who just happens to have "credentials".

Well, that said, I must say that after watching the first part of Zeitgeist, they haven't proven anything regarding the "non-existence" of Christ, for the following reasons. First, Zeitgeist rehashes all the phony "indicators" of the "existence" of Christ-as-religious-tool, such as Christ was born on December 25 (as was Horus, Tamuz, Mithras, Buddha, and other pagan gods...all of them in fact!), such as Christ was born of a virgin, such as Christ taught in the temple at age 12, such as His miracles, death on the cross and resurrection, etc., etc., etc., and His coming again. Well, I answer that with what the Bible says: in Luke 2, Mary (who as in Matthew really was a virgin, I am not disputing that) gave birth at a time when the Romans called everyone to go to the place of their ancestors to be taxed, as well as the shepherds were in the fields. This would place the birth around the time of harvest (when folks were taxed, because this is the time when they had available money); and shepherds being out in fields watching sheep (they harvested animals at the same time they harvested crops) also indicated that, since the sheep were still there, it had to be around time of harvest--not after, as it would have to be if the birth was on December 25, because the sheep simply would not be there, they'd already be slaughtered! Further, if you look at the old Roman calendar with December as the 10th and not the 12th month, even this indicator would be wrong, because this would place December at the beginning of winter in any case. The beginning of winter
implies there was no harvest, the sheep will have already been slaughtered, and hence taxing would already have taken place. Therefore, while all these other pagan gods were born on December 25, CHRIST WAS NOT! The "Christ was born on December 25" nonsense was invented by "the Church" in or just after Constantine made "Christianity" palpable for all the pagan Horus/Tamuz/Mithras/etc. worshippers who were forcibly being "converted" (take a clue here: only Christ through the Holy Spirit can convert!). Secondly, the notion of Christ was born on December 25, while false, is given credence in the movie because that was the time of the "rising star in the East" when the 3 Maji were to visit Christ and offer gifts, by way of visiting Herod first in order to find out where the Christ child was. Now, as the Bible says
(Matthew 2), when, after seeing Herod, they found the house (NOT THE MANGER! He
had already been born, and in fact was probably several months old by then!) and offered gifts to the "young child" (not infant!). Further, if Christ was just an "infant" by the time the wise men were supposed to return, why would Herod have ordered the deaths of ALL BOYS 2 and UNDER OF BETHLEHEM (Matthew 2:16)? Thirdly, the claim that Christ "taught" in the Temple in Jerusalem when he was 12 is NOT in the Bible! Luke 2:46-47 says that Christ "listened and asked questions" which, if Christ was following in Jewish traditions (you've heard of the bar-mitzfah, Archarya?) would have been a natural thing for Him to do! NOWHERE does it mention he "taught" in the temple at age 12! Fourthly, though Christ did perform miracles, did die on the cross and was resurrected, this does not prove he is an amalgamation of pagan gods such as Horus or Mithras! Heck, the disciples performed miracles! (see Luke 10 when He sent out the 70 disciples, and they came back saying in verse 10:17, "Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name"!) What is the big freaking deal about miracles! So, Christ arose from the dead? So what! So did Lazarus! So did the daughter of Jairus! So did the slave of the Centurion! Whoop-tee-doo! So does
anyone who, having his or her heart stopped, gets defibrillated back to life! No doubt my own paramedic husband has raised people from "the dead" when he defibrillates them!

Finally, Zeitgeist makes the claim that the "coming of Christ" is no more and no less than the return every morning of the sun. Because Christ is really Horus, the Sun God! Right! And I'm the Easter Bunny! They make this claim by saying the Bible is nothing more than the Zodiac. Further, by using the Bible-as-Zodiac, the makers of the film can claim when the end of the world will be...in 4300 something, because that is when we enter the Age of Aquarius (Sorry, cast of "Hair", you're wrong about that too), the water bearer, and, coming as it does on January 21 to February 20 or thereabouts), and, prior to Aquarius, we have the Age of Pisces, the Fish, or the Church Age with Christ represented by a fish (the fish, BTW, does not indicate Pisces, but the harvest of mankind...you know, Christ telling the disciples they
will be "fishers of men." But why let Bible truth get in the way of "facts"?). So, despite everything in prophecy, in Revelation (I guess they don't think the apostle John existed either!), and in Paul's (non-existent?) letters to the various Christian groups, "Christ" comes again every morning with the sun, not once again to judge and save the world and mankind for good. All mankind, even their sorry asses!

I guess what really compelled me to debunk this movie is not just that the makers, and their sources, are wrong, not just that this is just another example of anti-Christ among so many anti-Christs who and which have existed since the resurrection of Christ (warned about in 1 and 2 Thessalonians), not that these liars are taking their cues from phony "Christianity" as if it is true Christianity, but most of all because by doing so they are saying THERE IS NO SALVATION, PERIOD! They are really saying that the "God" of all the Churchianities of this world, the wrathful, hateful, torturing "God" of the "hell for eternity" crowd is THE BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR! Heck, might as well pray to Sauron or Galadriel of "Lord of the
Rings"!

But I will defend my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and I don't give a crap what these phony "intellectuals" say!

Deborah Lagarde

Sunday, August 12, 2007

No Rapture, Part 3

Well, "Secret Rapture" is at it again with his or her wanting me to go to his or her website. This person loves to spam this site, but what the heck, if it serves to show the difference between spiritual discernment and strong delusion.


7. John 19:30-- “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.” (He died).

8. Luke 23:46-- “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.” (He died)

9. Mark 15:37-- “And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.” (He died)

10. Matthew 27:50-- “Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.” (He died)

Do you get the picture yet? Christ died, like everyone else has or will. The difference is that He was also resurrected, which fulfilled the words of the prophets. Now, if anyone would have had a right to be “raptured” it is Christ, right? But EVEN CHRIST DIED! What makes any of you rapture-lovers think you deserve to be “taken” alive into Heaven, what with the fact that you will have to be taken there with the same corruptible bodies you have now?

11. John 3:13-- “And no man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of man which is in Heaven.”
Do I really need to explain this one again? See number 1 above.

And, now, for the reason that basically closes the case!

12. John 17:15 and 20-- Here, Jesus is praying to His Father in the garden the night before He is crucified. "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest protect them from the evil one." "Them" refers to the disciples who are waiting for Him. Verse 20: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word." This means all subsequent believers. That is, this applies to all those who now think they are going to be "raptured".

But for those whose thick heads refuse to let them believe Jesus cannot lie, cannot say what actually will happen, and cannot actually be God, here it is again, with emphasis: JESUS SAID NO RAPTURE! NO ONE WILL BE TAKEN "OUT OF THE WORLD" JUST AS NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE WORLD!

NO Pre-trib rapure. NO Post-trib rapture. NO mid-trib rapture.

NO RAPTURE! NO, NADA, NYET, NON, NEIN, NO, NO, and NO!

Deborah Lagarde

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

No Rapture, Part 2

If you haven't seen Max Blumenthal's "Rapture Ready" video taken at the Christians United for Israel conference last week, here is a link: here

You folks who believe the rapture eschatology do realize that by doing so, you are wishing for war, death, and destruction in the Middle East, don't you? After all, if the Middle East has peace that must mean the "Anti-Christ" is here, and we mustn't have that, mustn't we?

Anyway, to continue with the reasons the rapture won't happen, from the Bible:


5. Matthew 24: 37-39: “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of man be.”

This is another popular set of verses the rapturists use to “prove” the rapture. Bad choice of verses! For whom was taken away? The wicked, that's who! Again, the fact that they DIDN'T KNOW WHEN they would be taken away UNTIL the flood came is a type, sort of an analogy, as to the coming of Christ. That is, they won't be taken away UNTIL a “type” of “flood” comes that will take all wickedness off the earth...which is at the time after Christ's “millennial reign” and the battle with the loosed Satan and his forces against the saints who will reside with Christ on earth.

I will return to Matthew 24 and 25 later when I discuss the so-called “Great Tribulation.” One must understand that the “rapture” and the so-called “Great Tribulation”, the so-called “end times,” the so-called “Second Coming,” and the popular notion of “hell for eternity” are all bound up into one gigantic heresy that nearly 99% of Christians not only believe in but cherish. I do not know the exact number or percentage, but a large majority of Christians seem to think that the “end times” period is coming very, very soon. Most believe some sort of variation on the notion that some “anti-Christ” from the United Nations or the European Union or the Papacy will make peace with Israel for 3 ½ years, after which he will “sit” in the newly rebuilt “temple” in Jerusalem as “the most high God,” after which all hell will break loose. No one “except those who have the Mark of the Beast” will be able to buy and sell...that sort of thing. I know Christian fundamentalists who refuse to use a computer and the Internet because that is how “the anti-Christ” will control everyone (some claim that “www” stands for “666”!) and in a cashless society everything will be bought and sold over the net. I will prove that since before John wrote Revelation, anti-Christs were (as it says in 2 Thessalonians) “already” at “work”! There will be many “tribulations” that will steel the called and chosen, which only the chosen will overcome...there will NOT be some “great tribulation” lasting “seven years.” And I bet you are dying to know who “Mystery Babylon, Mother of Harlots” is. It is NOT the Pope of Rome!

6. Luke 21: 36- “Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things [the so-called “great tribulation”] that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.”

This “escape” is NOT a “rapture”! Remember, Christ told that the ones who overcome these trying times will “not an hair of your head perish.” (Luke 21:18) This implies that instead of escaping a tribulation, these will be kept from harm. Also, remember in John 17: “I pray not that thou [Jesus says to His Father] shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest KEEP THEM FROM THE EVIL.” And where are we to be kept? Colossians 3:3 tells us: “your life is hid with Christ in God.” Revelation chapter 12 also describes how the overcomers are hid, using symbolism that many Christians believe to be coming physical reality.

That is not to say some sort of “great” tribulation won't happen just prior to Christ's coming. Mark chapter 12 describes some of the events that will be part of this tribulation: wars and rumors of wars (7), nation shall rise against nation (8), earthquakes (8), famines and troubles (8), one shall be delivered up to councils and synagogues [and churches, I presume] (9), brought before rulers and kings for Christ's sake (9), the gospel must be published among all nations (10), family members will rise up against each other (12), the appearance of the “Abomination of Desolation” (14; just what this is I will discuss later), false Christs (22), sun shall be darkened (24), stars of heaven shall fall (25), shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory (26). After these transpire, God shall send His angels to gather the elect (the chosen, from the beginning, by God) (27).

Part 3 will appear shortly.

Deborah Lagarde

Saturday, July 28, 2007

No Rapture, Period, nein, nada, non, nyet, no, no, and no! Part 1

In my e-book, soon to be published on my research site here, I will be listing many, many reasons the Bible supports the fact that there will be NO RAPTURE of the Church at any time, with my final reason being the only one that matters: Christ Himself said there will be no "rapture" of the Church. I will list some of the reasons on this blog in this new series of blog posts, beginning today.


1. Hebrews 9:27-- “And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”

There is a KJV reference to Genesis 3:19 confirming this: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” And by the way, lest anyone think that “appointing men to die” does not apply to supposedly “raptured” Enoch and Elijah, I refer you to Hebrews 11: 5 and Hebrews 11:32...well, basically, the entire chapter. Verse 4: “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain...” Verse 5: “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death...” Verse 7: “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet...” Verse 8: “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out...” Verse 11: “Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed,...” Then finally in verse 13 it says (despite the fact that Enoch did “not see death”): “These ALL DIED IN FAITH, not having received the promises...” Now, in Genesis 4:21-24 it is said that Enoch lived 365 years and then God took him, God “translated” him, and Enoch “walked with God” and nothing is mentioned about Enoch dying. But then why would Hebrews claim otherwise except for the fact that in being translated, God took Enoch away from where he was and moved him somewhere else so that, not being found, folks could have presumed him to be dead. Or perhaps Enoch's “walk with God” was not physical but spiritual. Yet, ALL MEN are appointed to die, ALL MEN return to the dust, and all these died in faith. Hebrews 11:32 applies the same rule to Elijah (and all the prophets) in verse 39 where even Elijah “received not the promise.” If he did not receive the promise (redemption through the blood of Christ), then by what justification could he then be raptured?

And lest you still think the Bible contradicts itself (to borrow a phrase used often by former President Nixon...”let me make one thing perfectly clear”...the Bible NEVER contradicts itself!), try this from the mouth of Christ Himself: “And no man hath ascended into Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of man which is in Heaven.” (John 3:13) Did you get that? Christ just said that neither Enoch or Elijah were “raptured” into Heaven, because they never came down from Heaven!


2. Proverbs 10:30-- “The righteous shall never be removed: but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.” (KJV)

3. Job 14:12-- “So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.” (KJV)

Who said you couldn't prove the rapture was false using the Old Testament? Proverbs says that the righteous shall (“shall” implies permission as it is a form of the helping/linking verb “may”) never be removed. From where? The second part of the verse implies from where: the earth. Since permission implies a permitter, and since that “permitter” is God, it is meant that God “shall” never remove the righteous from the earth. This means the “righteous” will not only not be “raptured” but it also means the place the “rapture” is taking them to, heaven, is NOT where the righteous are going! Further, it is also implied in the second part of the verse that the “wicked” forces of the “anti-Christ” so dreaded by the rapturists WILL NOT be allowed to take over!

Job says that when a person dies (see verse 10 for the context), they will not rise from the grave, and shall not awake, until the heavens are no more. Contrary to folks who claim that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 means that “the dead in Christ” shall rise first BEFORE the “second coming” of Christ, this verse of Job is just another “witness” that the hope of the rapturists is false hope, because no dead shall rise until, as it is said in Revelation 21, a new heaven and a new earth will come into being (“til the [old] heavens are no more”).

Part 2, soon.

Deborah Lagarde

Sorry About the Lack of Posts

June 5, 2007 was my last post? Good Grief!

But I have been busy putting up my new website, "Something Happening Here," devoted to issues related to moving or considering moving to a rural and/or remote location from the city or suburbs, to the hills, mountains, forests, and deserts. The site is: Somethinghappeninghere.net. Check it out!

I plan on posting the work I have been doing in writing about Biblical arguments to debunk the rapture. What with John Hagee's Christians United for Israel conference in Washington DC, Max Blumenthal's video (check the link at What Really Happened...I did not link to the actual video, and, if you can't find it there, google it with "CUFI") at the conference with him interviewing attendees about their End Time beliefs, and Hagee's calling for the nuking of Iran (I heard him do this on his "John Hagee Today" show on Daystar Network, in a sermon at his Cornerstone Church), I feel an even stronger urge to do so (urge! more like God's will!). So, my next post will begin that particular series of article posts.

The other thing I wanted to bring up about Hagee's conference is that NOT ONCE (according to those who attended the conference or wrote about it) did Hagee attribute to Christ anything, although he did mention God. Well, there you have it! It is, IMHO, easy to talk about God or attribute to God. What makes as Christian a Christian, however, is attributing to Christ. No one will persecute you for praising God...it is the upholding of Jesus Christ, however, that will get you persecuted, as Christ foretold in many places in the Gospels. In fact, if Hagee was really honest and not just another Churchian, he would out and out renounce Christ and become a Jew, because the only thing that matters to him is Israel...Jesus and America be damned, no matter how horribly the Likudniks in Israel (and US) treat Palestinian Christians, as well as potential Christians, i.e. Muslims.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

American Idol

If you think this post is about the TV show, then I will disappoint you.

Though the TV show "American Idol" is itself an idol (that is, an idol of the heart), I am not referring to the TV show. I refer to America, itself.

Yes, America IS an idol!

Many Americans have an American Idol.

If you think that America is always good and can do no wrong...or screws up every now and then, yet is at its heart inherently good and was founded by various religious groups as the "shining city on the hill" and, thus, is foreordained by God to be the land of good, then you must have an American Idol.

If you think Americans are generally good, as in "We're the good guys," and thus, as we are good because we are Americans, then, of course, those who oppose us are bad, no matter who it is that opposes us, no matter their religion, economy, political frame of reference, race, color, or creed, no matter what the historical context is, then you must have an American Idol.

If you, as a corollary to the first two, believe that because America is (almost) always good and Americans are (almost) always "the good guys," then we Americans have the right to control the world and it is in the world's interests to do what we tell them to do, and that we have the inherent right to control the world's resources and use them as we please and to heck with everyone else (because they oppose us and thus they are bad), then you must have an American Idol.

I will have more to say about this in my next post, but suffice it to say I am laying the groundwork for expounding on this issue, which, also suffice it to say, all Americans, Christian or not, will have to come to grips with in the long run. Just another part of God's "strong delusion."

Deborah Lagarde

Saturday, May 12, 2007

In the World but not of the World: Politically Speaking

Most of the time it is easy for me to claim I have no interest in presidential races simply because no candidates in the past gave me any hope that any good could come politically--the power elites would do what they always do, that is, screw the rest of us! It's as if someone put a sign, the same sign, up and down out shores and border crossings: "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here." Abandon hope, because the power elites only took care of themselves.

But Presidential Campaign 2008 is WAY different! Not only do we have one candidate that really can make a difference, we actually have two! One in each of the two parties! One Republican, one Democrat! AMAZING! The Republican is, of course, Ron Paul; the Democrat is, of course, Mike Gravel. As far as I'm concerned, all the other candidates are either power elites or are shills of same, and a couple of them are "one trick ponies," so to speak. And one of them, Fred Thompson, who hasn't declared yet, is a red herring of sorts, a guy who will be wined and dined by the neocons who run the Republican party as a "safe" alternative for the masses they despise--anything to get the people to NOT look closely at Paul, who really, really is (more than Gravel, who hasn't given a position yet on key issues like abortion and gun control) the ONLY presidential candidate who will set America back on the right path (no pun intended!), while any other Republican will keep the US on the road to ruin (and, probably, totalitarian police state, or do I repeat myself?).

Here are the rest, first, according to a list of candidates at ABCNews.com:

Republican:

Rudy Giuliani: supports the Iraq war, abortion rights, and is generally regarded as a "law and order" candidate. Scandals, scandals, all around. Also claimed that is the Dems win the 2008 presidency, America will likely have another 9-11 attack, and that only Republicans could prevent that. As a NY prosecutor, was famous for sending so-called white collar criminals to jail. My take--if any Republican would be into instituting a police state, Giuliani is it.

John McCain: his name rhymes with "insane", and with his, "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" shtick, you don't need to be a licensed therapist to make this diagnosis. My take--Maniac McCainiac

Mitt Romney: This is the guy who is so teflon he makes Bill Clinton look like honest John. Now why did the power elites peg this guy who no one ever heard of 6 months ago? He is pro-abortion, which is why now he's "against" it. Supports Iraq war, but is trying hard to make himself out to be "reserved" on continued support...he's one of these "benchmarks" types. And, like Clinton, he's "good looking"! Finally, he's a Mormon. My take--the fact that he's another one of these guys who came outta no where to lick power elite ass makes him no leader in my eyes.

Tommy Thompson: Who? Well, for starters, he's pro-ethanol. Comes from Wisconsin. Too bad you can't make gasoline for cow's milk...on the other hand, one shouldn't be using our nations food corn supply to make it, either! My take--ABC refers to him as being supported by "conservative Democrats", which is code for "flip-flop at any speed!"

Sam Brownback: A one trick pony for sure, being the most liable to have Religious Right support. he's one of the folks who made sure Kansas taught creationism in schools. Now I am no evolutionist by any means, but I know enough about creationism to know it's faith, not science, by even the name "intelligent design." My take--the Religious Right will abandon him when they realize he really doesn't have a prayer (no pun intended).

Duncan Hunter: Who? According to ABCNews.com, this guy supports Bush lock, stock, and barrel. My take--who?

Jim Gilmore: This guy exemplifies "Who?" ABCNews.com considers him a flip-flopper of many proportions. Meanwhile Ron Paul is totally and unequivically consistent in his voting in the House: if it isn't in the Constitution, he votes against it...even if it helps his district! My take--Even if he was "Happy Gilmore" it wouldn't help him.

Newt Gingrich: According to ABCNews.com, the former Speaker of the House believes poor people ae responsible for global warming and is plagued with ethics violations. No wonder the Religious Right loves this guy! My take--actually, he is an undeclared candidate, so why is he up at this site, while Ron Paul IS NOT?

Mike Huckabee: Who? What? Where? He's a Bushian from a Clintonian state. My take--Ron Paul is missing from this list. Why is this joker on it?

Tom Tancredo: Another one trick pony. His big deal is immigration, a real hard-liner. My take: So is Ron Paul, so why is this fascist-lite guy on the list?

Democrats:

Hillary Clinton: ABCNews.com says it well: she's a polarizing candidate. Mention her name to all but the hard core and you can hear a million "I wouldn't vote for her if she was the last perosn on Earth"'s. My take--I wouldn't vote for her if she was the last person on Earth. In fact, I guarantee it if she becomes the President she will do what Bill couldn't do: take all of Bush's police state laws and run with them.

Barack Obama: In a party of Teflons, he's the leader. Totally untrustworthy. My take: Blacks will certainly vote for him.

John Edwards: Just a shade behind Obama in the Teflon department, even to his $400 haircut and hybrid SUV. My take--he was Al Gore's running mate. Enough said.

Joe Biden: According to ABCNews.com, he's "famous for enjoying the sound of his own voice." Mike Gravel called him our on his arrogance. My take--Mike Gravel knows what he's talking about.

Wesley Clark: The bomber of Serbia in 1999 is now against the Iraq War. Appeared on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" show on Link Channel, DirecTV 375 a while back to tell why he now opposes the war. My take--I don't particularly support him but if we had to have a high-up military person as President, he wouldn't be too horrible.

Chris Dodd: A "who?" among the Dems. Regrets his pro-Iraq war vote. Flip-flopper. My take--but a flip flopper no one cares about, so he might not be all that terrible.

Dennis Kucinich: Best known as the "true anti-war" candidate. But, on most domestic issues, he's hard core leftist. My take--ignore his antiwar stance and concentrate on the fact that he is pro-gun-control, pro-abortion, and pro-social spending on programs that don't work. He's the kind of guy I would vote for only if it kept up from having someone like Giuliani.

Al Gore: Not really a candidate, but what the hey? If he didn't have power elite support he just might be Mike Gravel, who scares the daylights out of the power elites as much as Ron Paul does (which is why Gravel is not on this list either). My take--"South Park" called him best: "'man-bear-pig, half-man, half-bear, and half-pig."

Bill Richardson: A nicer, more "tasteful" version of Mike Gravel, more power elite friendly. My take--if I had to choose someone the power elites favored on pain of death, it would have to be Bill Richardson, only because it seems he's done less damage to the American people than anyone else on this list.

Not mentioned:

Republican Ron Paul: A few call him "the savior of America." I wouldn't go that far, but as I said before, if it isn't authorized by the Constitution, Paul won't vote for it. This makes Paul the antithesis of the flip-flopper, a statesman in a world of politicians. In short, Paul favors abolition of the IRS and the Federal Reserve (privately-owned) Bank, serious reform of entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare programs (which is why he shouldn't expect much support from welfare recipients, and I'm not being racist making this claim because most people on welfare are white), getting out of Iraq yesterday and totally against war on Iran and Syria, is not beholden to Israel (the other reason he's not on the list!), is against illegal immigration (and, unlike the neo-fascist Tancredo, is not opposed to legal immigration) and is against the "NAFTA Superhighway" and (unlike most of the candidates in both parties) is actually willing to defend US sovereignty. He's anti-UN, anti-Kyoto, and anti- most every program coming out of the UN and NGOs these days. And he doesn't have the endorsement of the Religious Right. In other words... My take--Ron Paul represents, completely and unabashedly, the American people, and I will be honored to vote for him in the primaries! No problem...we both live in Texas. Plus, he's my son's Congressman!

Democrat Mike Gravel: This "cantankerous old man" can be said to have singlehandedly gotten us out of Vietnam, filibustering the Senate against re-authorizing the draft for five months. I do not know his position on some key issues such as abortion and gun control, but, speculating, him being a Unitarian Universalist, he's a liberal, and thus, probably pro-abortion; yet, being from Alaska, probably anti-gun control. If he is pro-abortion I cannot vote for him, but honestly, he's the best Democrat to run for President since Eugene McCarthy. This man (as with Ron Paul) actually has a plan to save the United States from utter ruination--direct Democracy, where citizens help in making laws. My take--Gravel, in his statement during the debate that "I will be the next President," is already the underground favorite (as Paul is the also the underground favorite of the Reps.). As with Paul, if millions of Americans who are fed up with "politics as usual" seek out who really stands for our interests and not the power elites, millions of American will find Gravel (and Paul).

Now, to my point of writing this...

The Bible says that the Kingdom of God is not of this earth, that we must subsume our fleshly desires in the Spirit (and, of course, the Kingdom of God is spirit). Yet, because of the command in Romans 13 that we must obey those in authority, it means that we, who are able to elect our leaders, must choose the best we can. In fact Romans 13 makes it imperative that we do so. Those, as on a forum (http://forums.bible-truths.com) that I have visited in the past, who believe we must as followers of Christ have nothing to do with politics and must not even vote, let alone campaign for a politician, are only seeing the prize without understanding the road to achieving it as a transformation at the end of the road. It is amazing that so many (and by that I mean a few can be "many") believe that they can achieve spiritual rebirth while still in the flesh simply by not having anything to do with anything fleshly or carnal! Amazing! So these people, some of whom are married, have no sex? So these people, all who have taste buds, have no favorite foods? So these people have no favorite TV show or web site or book or artwork or song? So these people, so convinced they can join "the elect" now just be subsuming all desires, really think all they have to do is sleepwalk through life letting anything and all things happen to them, to just be so passive, and this will "force" God to make them part of His elect? While it is true that we have no free will apart from God's Will we do have choices, we do have will (but not free will). Further, we do have to obey our leaders, right? So, who would you, follower of Christ, rather obey? A leader who follows the rule of law and the Constitution, or a leader who does what he damned well pleases and to heck with the law? Would you rather be lead by someone who honors Romans 13 or by someone who dishonors it?

Would you rather be ruled by a group of people headed by Ron Paul, who has consistently followed what is in the Constitution, or by someone like Hillary Clinton, who has a history of flip-flopping on the law, a history of seeking power for its own sake, and a history of being beholden to money, and to heck with the people? Or by someone like Rudy Giuliani, who refused to step down as Mayor of New York City when his term was up, all under the pretext of 9-11, suggesting that he could outdo Bush in the "dictator" department and consider himself "President for life" while instituting martial law?

That is why, even though Christ commands us to live in the Spirit, we must also make sure we are able to put leaders in office who will honor their duty to rule so that we can pursue our living in the Spirit, instead of having to become paranoid that we won't be able to in a constant state of fear.

Deborah Lagarde