What would you do?

The Jewish history is a tumultuous one at best; it is a hodge-podge of confusion. With all the mystery and hatred surrounding this tiny nation; a Jewish writer for the Atlanta Jewish Times had the nerve to mention the assassination of President Obama. This talk isn’t new nor will it end until he’s finished serving his second term in office, should he be reelected. Andrew Adler had a lot to say before the backlash landed him in hot water; his verbiage bordered on cocky that is until his bluff was met. It’s easy for journalists and bloggers to sit idly by and act irresponsibly. We are hopefully serving with a purpose and we can say anything we want, but we shouldn’t become reactionary when we are met with opposition. Adler boldly said, “For Israel to attack Hezbollah and Hamas, for Israel to strike Iran directly, or -- and most controversially -- for Israel to "order a hit" by US-based Mossad agents on Obama in order to allow the "current vice president to take his place and forcefully dictate that the United States' police includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies” and “Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies. Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles? Another way of putting "three" in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives...Jews, Christians and Arabs alike? You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table. This is irresponsible journalism in any form. Israel isn’t beyond reproach, some of the negativity leveled at it is warranted, some not.

My problem is how people make Israel out to be the beacon of hope. Genesis 12:1-3, provides us with some insight; out of the three promises we learn to accept the third: we are (individually) and as a whole are blessed. The problem arises with all the gushing over Israel; aside from the Bible, what have they done for us a nation? Have people read why the U.S. gives so much aid to this small nation. Start asking the uncomfortable question like, when did Israel serve as a mercenary state for the U.S. around the world? All one has to do is pick up a history book. Israel is complicit in a lot of evil throughout the world.  All is well though because God sees all evil and will punish it. Another issue in the Israel debate is, are we talking about the Orthodox or Messianic Jews?

People always make these wonderful acclamations pertaining to the Jews but the fundamental question has yet to be asked. Who is a Jew and what does it mean to live as a Jew? Jewish roots have been flawed throughout the ages, why strain the relationship further by acting irresponsibly as Adler did. At least he came to his senses and stepped down.

Catholicism and Protestantism-the wayward path

Have you ever wonder where did the influx of religions come from? How did the so-called church form? It had to grow out of something, some religion. Have you ever wondered what the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church have in common? Where did the Pope get his power from or what role did Martin Luther play? Finally, who is this celebrated man by the name of Constantine? The answer to these questions and many more will startle you. Let’s journey to the beginning of what started it all:fear and power. 

The early Church consisted of what were called Orthodox (Christians). They understood God was to be feared. The Orthodox believed Christians should fear there earthly rulers (Orthodoxy) as they feared God. This sounds like the seed for brain-washing slaves during slavery. There has been an ongoing argument about indigenous people; the inhabitants who lived on/in the new world. The theory is it's best to take their land, if not; one could end up worshiping the moon instead of flying there. My other point has to do with slaves. Did they have to be enslaved to be taught a religion? The answer is a resounding NO! God teaches that he speaks through his creation; he will be made known throughout the earth. Let me ask this simple question. If no one ever heard of the Messiah, Yashua, Jesus, where does that person go when they die? This tactic was used to maintain order. In believing this structure there is no such thing of shared authority between races or gender. One must be superior to the other. Men looked to God to be male; they understood that to mean male authority. 

To further prove this point, as late as 1977,Pope Paul the VI explained that our Lord was a man, so women were banned from the priesthood. They were given more submissive rolls. The orthodoxy used 2Timothy, chapters two and three to further their points. At this time I'm not here to explain who is correct but it's not proper to marginalize women as they did. I will deal with this issue in another post as it is an important one that deserves attention.

History teaches they were divided within services because of their chatter of always asking the husband what was being taught. They were to sit on the other side of the church in order to not be disruptive yetwhen the Apostle Paul left for trips he put women in charge, there were even women prophets. Galatians 3:28 teaches we are all one in the Messiah. Even today we still struggle with women in leadership positions.

Here are a few examples of how men viewed woman:

• ·         Men have broad chests and narrow hips; therefore they have wisdom. Women have narrow chests and broad hips. Women ought to be domestic; the creation reveals it, for they have broad backsides and hips, so that they should sit still. [WA, TR I, no. 55, p. 19; cf. Hazlitt-Chalmers translation, p. 299]

• ·         There is no dress that suits a woman or maiden so badly as wanting to be clever. [WA, TR II, no. 1555, p. 130]

• ·         When women speak well, it is not praiseworthy. It befits them to stammer and not be able to speak well; that adorns them much better. [WA, TR IV, no. 4081, pp. 121-122]

• ·         What goes in through women's ears comes out again through their mouths. For that reason a secret is to be entrusted only to a dead woman. [WA, TR IV, no. 4434, p. 311]

The orthodoxy believed that people could only learn from those who have experienced his resurrection. That class was first the Apostles and their successors were the Roman Catholic Church. They claimed to be the only enlightened, by this they claimed to have sole authority to delegate or interpret as they saw fit.

NOTE: To this day the Pope traces his power back to Peter. This is known as stolen power, Paul or Peter were the very last of the Apostles. That office within the five ministries doesn't exist anymore. The requirement for being an Apostle was to have a personal visitation with the Messiah; Paul was the last to meet that requirement. It is unnecessary for us to meet the Messiah or angels; he speaks to us through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The orthodoxy believed in blind faith, only except what is being taught through the church. Do not dispute, do not inquire on your own, in other words, do not question. If an answer cannot be found, leave those things of that nature to God. The RCC also believed that salvation cannot come outside of what the church teaches.

• Bishop Irenaeus-she is the entrance to life all other are robbers

• Clemete-whoever disobeys the divinely ordained authorities has disobeyed God himself and should receive the death penalty.

By everything that was mentioned above this led to the Protestant Reformation. This was a western Christian movement that was fed up with the divine rule of the RCC. They believed that the Bible could and should be read and studied. Protestants believed in uniformity of Scripture but have not always been able to come to agreements. This is why today in modern Protestantism we have so many sects, splits and off -shoots.

This is my personal summation without going too in-depth. Sometimes simplicity works best without overstating. It becomes more palatable without losing any salt.

What is a CULT?

What is cult? Everything that Christianity says it is. Anything that differs from Church dogma is abhorrent and irrelevant. The Dictionary of CULTS, SECTS, RELIGIONS AND THE OCCULT reads-A relatively small, often transitory religious group that commonly follows a radical leader. A cult, unlike a SECT, espouses radically new religious beliefs and practices that are frequently seen as threatening the basic values and cultural norms of society at large. Therefore, people who are involved in cults frequently exhibit antisocial and neurotic behavior. In recent times, orthodox Christians have used the term to describe those religious groups that deny the TRINITY(see trinity in statement of faith) and specifically the deity of Jesus Christ. Their teachings are contrary to historic Christian ORTHODOXY. The three dynamics of a cult are sociological, psychological (behavioral), and theological. By this definition could Christianity be a CULT?