For whatever it may mean, the UN just made Palestine a nation:
In a historic session of the United Nations in New York [November 29], exactly 65 years after passing the Partition Plan for Palestine, the General Assembly voted by a huge majority to recognize Palestine within the 1967 borders as a non-member state with observer status in the organization. Some 138 countries voted in favor of the resolution, 41 abstained and 9 voted against: Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, U.S., Panama, The Marshall Islands, Palau, Nauru, and Micronesia.The opposition of the U.S. against this resolution does in no way convince me that Obama is opposed. For it's part, Israel has declared new construction projects in the West Bank, which is the part of Israel that the UN just declared a nation with observer status. Is there any difference between a "state" and a "nation"? The White House opposes the new building projects in the West Bank, which declares the real truth, that Obama wants the Palestinian State. He continues to give Israel the same garbage that was fed to Netanyahu before: that he opposes West Bank construction because it deteriorates the peace talks. But in that case, doesn't Obama want the peace talks because he wants Palestinians to have their own state?
They are trying to take Morsi down by peaceful demonstrations. If there is no relenting, I don't see how a civil war will be avoided when peaceful turns to violent:
In contrast to the largely leaderless uprising by youth activists against autocrat Hosni Mubarak last year, a more energized, cohesive leadership has started to emerge in the new campaign against Morsi, Egypt's first freely elected president. It is made up of a number of prominent liberal, secular and moderate Islamist politicians, notably reform advocate Mohamed ElBaradei.The article says that the Morsi people have put together a proposed Constitution to be put to a public referendum in roughly a couple of weeks. "He says his new powers are in effect until the referendum passes." It seems that he seized dictatorial powers to assure that this Constitution passes without the courts having their say on whether it's constitutional.
From an October 10 article on an interview with the Neuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister:
Question: Mr. Prime Minister, you met with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev a day before. What issues did you discuss with him and what subjects are you going to discuss with President Vladimir Putin?Answer:...We agreed that we need to restore good relations...We want Russian companies to be active in energy and oil projects; we want them to participate in electric power and pipeline projects and in projects suspended due to the military operations in Iraq...
...Q: What is your assessment of Russia's position in the Syria crisis?...
A.: Our position is very close to Russia's. We believe that the only possible solution to the Syrian issue is settlement in a peaceful manner, because military intervention or the use of force will only fuel the disturbances, and then this will affect the entire region. We do not support countries that believe the Syrian problem can be resolved only forcibly or that the regime should be overthrown by the use of force.
Since Iraq suffered so much because of outside interference in its internal affairs, we categorically object to anyone interfering in Syria's internal affairs... ...The international community should stop Turkey, because Turkey is behaving brazenly...Turkey wants to engage NATO forces to interfere in Syrian affairs. This is very dangerous, because God forbid the Libyan scenario be replayed.
Every position of Maliki is an anti-Obama position. All the American blood spilled in Iraq, and every effort to Americanize the country, is, less than a year after the American pull-out, and just a few months after the removal of Medvedev, being spoiled by Putin's dealings with Iraq.
I have not been following the movements of Sunni/Baathists in Syria nor in Iraq for many months. Even if I wanted to, I don't think the information is readily available in news sources. For the time being, it seems sufficient, for prophecy-watch purposes, to know that Sunni Baathists are opposed to Assad and therefore to Putin. Therefore, we can expect Baathists and other Sunni fighters to be even more opposed to Maliki now than before his new-found relationship with Putin.
The conflict between Kurd fighters and Maliki's forces has escalated in the past week in northern Iraq. It now appears that the makings of a war are in place. It allows Putin to foment such a war with a promise to support Maliki. Such a promise may even be the reason that the large weapons deal was made last month between Putin and Maliki. Russians would naturally side against the Kurds, thus seeing opportunity to make greater inroads to Kurd oil while complicating, or downright ejecting, the schemes that Exxon and other westerner oil people have in Kurdistan.
Iraq's Kurdish region has sent reinforcements to a disputed area where its troops are involved in a standoff with the Iraqi army...The second military buildup this year illustrates how far relations between Baghdad's central government, led by Shi'ite Muslim Arabs, and ethnic Kurds have deteriorated...
Baghdad and Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region earlier this week began sending troops to an area over which they both claim jurisdiction, raising tensions in a long-running feud over land and oil rights.
More Kurdish troops and tanks were mobilised on Saturday and headed towards the disputed areas, the deputy minister for Kurdish military affairs said late on [November 24], adding that they would hold their positions unless Iraqi forces made a move.
'If they overstep the line, we will strike them,' Anwar Haji Osman said.
I have problems with viewing these developments as fulfillment of Daniel 11:21-23 because I'm expecting Gog to make an alliance with Baathists against Iraq. However, even though Baathists are opposed to Assad and therefore to Russia's position on Syria, yet some Baathists and al-Qaeda groups can yet be bought off by Putin to aid his infiltration of Kurdistan. For example, Putin's promise to help Baathists and al-Qaeda topple Maliki. I don't know whether such a promise had even entered Putin's head, but it's certain that he's conspiring with his inner circle on what can be done to assure victory against the West in regards to Kurdish oil.
We should watch this situation. If Gog is to be someone in association with Putin, then we need to know who his allies are as the various groups takes sides. I'm not convinced that Putin and Maliki are forming a genuine relationship. I'd rather believe that Maliki is courting Putin to secure his help against Kurds...who are predicted to be pro-Obama. Anything pro-Obama in the Middle East is expected to be a target of Putin.
How can Gog become Isaiah 14's "king of Babylon" at this time unless Maliki`s power in Iraq is compromised? According to Isaiah, the end-time Medes are to invade Iraq successfully as God's punishment against Babylon. The very conflict now developing between Kurds and Maliki can be the start of the fulfillment of that prophetic war. But simultaneous (or nearly so) to that prophetic war, Gog is to invade Babylon as per Daniel 11:23-24. Does this predict that Gog will become an ally of the Kurds (whom Britannica identified as modern Medes)? There seems to be a problem with that view if we hold to a Putin alliance with Sunnis, for Sunnis oppose Kurds bitterly.
There is nothing that would indicate to me at this time that Obama is ready to play the role of a Christian prophet, nor any other kind of Christian. If the False Prophet is to be an American president, and if the phrase indicates a false Christian, then I would say that the last seven years are not yet begun. It's notable that Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile machine became operational (2011) in southern Israel just in time to thwart most of the latest round of new (longer-range) missiles from Hamas. One might interpret this situation as not the right time for God's invasion on Israel via the anti-Christ.
It's time to start asking seriously whether there has been an engineering of a financial breakdown in the United States. It may be true that the current "fiscal cliff" crisis was inevitable aside from a purposeful engineering program, but is the use of such a phrase purposeful for convincing the people that a drastic "solution" to the crisis is necessary? Do they already have the "solution" prepared? Does it involve stepping stones to a commercial skincode?
The fiscal cliff wouldn't be dire had it not been for the huge national debt to begin with...that Obama has personally accelerated to unsustainable grossness. The worldwide gloom started with his pronouncements in his first year. The fiscal cliff is a thing known to be coming because a Bush law demanded it in January of 2013. Bush started the bank-bailout scheme, and Obama finished it. "Fiscal cliff" is now a phrase used for the increase of taxes in January of 2013 in the range of $2-3,000 per family. It's very unwelcome for the tax payers, but not a crisis in itself. It's especially not a crisis for the government so long as the people pay their increases taxes. In fact, you know that Obama is rubbing his hands to a nice heat, relishing this fiscal-cliff increase in taxes. How he loves to spend your money.
The problem is that, simultaneous with the fiscal-cliff tax increases, there needs to be some drastic cutting in government spending, meaning that government people need to lose their jobs and go on government assistance. Republicans know that it's cheaper to pay government workers government-assistance moneys than to pay them their incomes, and besides, a government worker out of a job is forced to seek other employment. This win-win solution of Republicans, in the eyes of Democrats, is the worst monster of all to be avoided at all costs.
Obama probably won the election due, most of all, to fears of many government workers and government parasites. It is very good to have the government to fall back on when one loses a job, but there are now so many government parasites (many of them working or having other sufficient means) abusing the system that Democrats have a very strong hand for winning elections. Once the government has sufficient government dependents, winning of elections by Democrats can be assured so long as government cuts is an important election issue. Therefore, the leader of the Democrats is a money-eating grubber. Monsters abound in their camp, and the hairiest one -- government dependents -- would re-elect Obama even though it knows that he will increase their taxes, and their childrens' taxes, to obscene levels never seen before. The government-dependent parasite is a play-with-numbers monster that tallies up whether electing a Democrat gives it a net increase in money in the face of certain higher taxes.
If there are no government cuts, America's economy, they say, will fall off a cliff. It's code for unavoidable financial collapse due to too much debt with further debt impending. However, if there are government cuts, the cliff's height will be reduced, and the survival of the one falling may be possible. But the O-monster has been re-elected, and he refuses to cut government spending unless he can get a matching amount of new government revenue in return. And he has the increased taxes of January, 2013, as a card in his hand by which he can seek to force Republican subjugation to his will.
Have you noticed how ugly the unemployment monster has been painted by Republicans? Anything but unemployment. Anything but increased taxes because it creates more unemployment. Therefore, Republican monster is pitted against Democrat monster...promising no solution. My question is, will the solution be the worst monster of all, and has this creature been the intention all along by some sort of "Super Committee"? Have the dragons sitting round the Super-Committee table fabricated the other monsters as phantoms in order to justify the unveiling of their Solution Monster?
You might say that the other monsters are not phantoms, but real problems, not fabricated by any group. But wait. Isn't the printing of money the creation of a phantom? If money is "printed" (though in the world of electronic money, physical printing may not be required), then no one is required to pay the money back. That is, the debt to printed money can be forgiven, wiped clean, because no one worked for the money. No one deserves to pay back printed money. It's unethical to make people pay for printed money. It's a fake monster used as a real one. The ones who print the money require t to be paid back, and all the while that it puts the country further in dept, the people are required to pay the interest on the printed money, a win-win situation for the bank that creates the printed money. That bank is the government itself, isn't it? It's the Illuminati government, isn't it? It's the phantom rapist.
The creators of this phantom know that they can forgive the debt at any time because they didn't work to create the money that they loaned to the country. They don't require to pay it back to anyone. But if they destroy the phantom, they will lose the money that they steal from tax-payers, government workers included. They might be willing to forgive debt to printed money, but they won't do it for nothing out of the goodness in their hearts. Instead, they will come out with the Solution Monster, where they get something in return. We shall have to wait and see what the monster looks like, whether it's portrayed as a lovable flying dragon that you should like to ride.
We might see a proto-type solution monster in Greece first, or in some other EU country. Afterward, that beast will be entertained by the United States...and accepted by all nations in financial crisis until all dominoes fall as required in order to have the desired globalist end. In any case, bank-guzzling globalists would be kidding themselves if they see a successful, peaceful transition to a debt-solution Avatar. For there is the scariest monster of all to contend with, Who rides the clouds, and His name was Jesus. Frightful beyond comparison, He comes with a new name to wipe the slates clean for real. The Defender of the Poor will break the steel bars that the Solution Monster places around every citizen.
YS sent in an email after the last update was published which included the Boeuf topic. YS was asking whether a Leboef surname is from the Boeuf surname of Perigord that I link to Boofima/Baphomet. In the email, YS sent along a genealogy, from someone close to the family, starting with a Thomas Leboef...whose surname is shown at times as "Leboeuf" (with the 'u'). Here's part of the email:
This [Leboef] name shows up several times in my _____'s genealogy. It was thought they were part of the Native tribes, as they had no qualms at all about trading wives, all female sisters marrying one person (not at same time, I don't think)......all of these [Leboefs in this genealogy] are from France. Thomas Leboef was from LA Rochelle, Haute Saone...His mother's maiden name was LeMay, and I found them to be descendants of the Metis tribe. Originally from Algonquin, in Maine...Another part of this family were expelled from Canada to USA for being petitbois. Petitbois was defined as half breeds that chose to...help English during the war over Canada...
Incredible. I had traced the "met" in BaphoMET to mythical Metis (first update last October), and here YS speaks on half-native peoples called, Metis, who are connected to the Boeuf surname...which is shown as "Leboeuf too. But there's more. In the last update, the Mathers surname was traced to the Met entity of Boofima, and in the genealogy just passed to me by YS, there is Marie Reine MATHERne entering the family as the wife of Jean Francois Leboeuf (born 1750). Entering "Matherne" gets the Mather Coat.
It just so happens that, last year, I met a daughter of a half-native man who told me that she was familiar with an organization which she called something like "matey." That's how it sounded, but then "Metis" may be pronounced in that way, and indeed Wikipedia pronounces it, mei-ti.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9tis_people_%28Canada%29Mythical Metis was an aspect of the Zeus bull otherwise called, Moloch. Like Boofima, Moloch was a human sacrifice cult. It's probably no coincidence, therefore, that the Turnbull surname uses a bull while there is a Turnbull-like variation in the Boeuf page.
There are bulls in the Coat of the Mountain surname, which is in the colors of the "mountain" in the Spanish Gaur Coat, important because the latter surname is like the Gord surname (in Mountain / Gaur colors) that I trace to "PeriGORD," and because "Gaur" is like the Gauron surname of "Angelique (Petitbois) GAURON" in the Leboef genealogy that YS sent. Angelique was the wife of Thomas Leboef's grandson. While searching "petitbois," I found: "Margaret Robineau, married Michel Gauron dit Petitbois, said his name is Petitbois."
The Gaur surname is shown more-properly as Guardia/Guardiant, smacking of Lawrence Gardner, a writer on the Mary-Magdalene theme whose surname traced exactly to Rennes-le-Chateau a few updates ago. The "guardian" term in the Stewart write-up is highly suspect here as code for the Gardner bloodline, for Lawrence supports Stewart rule. Here's from the 1st update of November:
I haven't yet mentioned how I found, early this morning, the Borgia bulls in the Mountain Coat. It had to do with "A mountain lion holding a shield" in the Bane/Bean/Vain Coat. As you can see, their Dempsey / Dempster sword is likewise called a "dagger." The mountain lion here followed after seeing the "cat-a-mountain sejant guardant proper, on a green MOUNT with a paw resting on a gold estoile" of the Stars. Remember here that "guardant," used for the Crom cat too, is tracing to the surname of Lawrence Gardner...The Mountain surnames were dealt with very recently and traced to the blue-apple bloodline at Rennes-le-Chateau, which included the Pousson/POISon surname...that might just link to "petitBOIS." Thomas Leboef married Nicolle Gazelle, a term smacking of Gascony, but in any case sounding like the Caselle surname (Bavaria, where I expect Boofima elements) using what looks like a near-match with the French Martin castle, and Martins were first found in Gascony along with their kin, the Martels. Charles Martel is thought to be a part of the Dagobert mystery at Rennes-le-Chateau, and then the Pousson Coat uses the Dagger scallops, which are almost the Gardner scallop.
I now find that the Pousson dolphin is similar to the one in the Scottish Cassell Crest. It's the MARley dolphin design, and as you can see, there are Mary-like surnames involved here. The Scottish Cassels were traced to Casseys who use the three-eagle-head design of Celers/Kellers/Kelle's, important not only because I trace the Kill/Keele and similar surnames to "Quillan," beside Rennes-le-Chateau, but because Mathers/Matherne's use a "CELERiter" motto term.
If the Tournebulle variation of Boeufs traces to Turnbulls, then, because the latter are said to be related to Rule's/Roule's, the Rolls/Rhole's/Rowle's (in Rats/Rait colors), who use a version of the Turnbull Coat, should link with Rule's/Roule's to Boofima elements. Who were Rolls and Rule's from? Like the Rolls/Rowles, the Rowells/Rathwells/Rosswells use besants on black, and as the Rats/Raits/Raiths look like a branch of Sinclairs, I'd say that we are looking at Roslin elements as they trace to Rosellon = Roussillon, the location of Rennes-le-Chateau. Rows (trefoils) use besants too.
As the Rule's/Roule's are said in the Turnbull write-up to be related/associated with king Bruce, the heart in the Coat of Rule's/Roule's is that of the Douglas and Logan surnames who supposedly started to carry the literal heart of king Bruce to Jerusalem. Bruce's heart is reportedly in the Melrose Abbey, in Roxburghshire where Rule's/Roule's and Turnbulls were first found.
Turnbulls, Rats and Rolls use Varn colors, which leads to the question of whether the Lenoirs/Nerets/Nereds are part of the Varni goddess, Nerthus. The Lenoirs are being brought up because Philippe Leboef, grandson of Thomas Leboef, married ANTOINette Lenoir. I recall tracing the Anton(y) surname to Boofima because it uses both a leopard and a goat. The Nardi variation of Narbonne's/Denardo's can apply here.
You can know that I'm on the right track because Parkers use a Coat with flaunches on boths sides, in colors reversed to the identical Coat of Antons, with flaunches on both sides. PARKers were looked at as per the "roll of PARCHment" in the Roll Crest. Antons and Roll-related Rowells were first found in the same place (Lincolnshire). Parkers were first found in the same place as Roets/Rowatts while Narbonne's/Denardo's use a Catherine wheel.
What we seem to have, as I find over and over again by other means, is a Rus-Nordic peoples of the Sinclair kind merged with north-African Amazons. However, more lately, and even as we speak, these same Rus, whom by the way were traced by their rooster to Rostock on the WARNou river, were found identified specifically with Boofima elements in north Africa. I had traced Turin (Piedmont), Thuringia, and the Turin surname, long before coming to Turners, to Tuareg Amazons so that TURNbulls should apply, meaning that the TOURnebulle variation of Boeufs is evidence that Tuaregs were involved with Boofima. As you can see in a Warner Coat below, besants are used, what would be expected of the Bassanius line to Basina of Thuringia, mother of Clovis.
It's telling us solidly that the Glaphyra line, which is known to have married a Mauritanian king, applies to the Tuareg trace to Thuringia. And as Glaphyra was an Archelaus by surname, while the coin of her husband (Herod Archelaus) traces to Lannoys and related Lyons, the Lenoir variation of Nerets/Nereds is suspect there.
I gleaned that Tuareg lines use the heraldic "turris" and "tower" symbols, and that Tuaregs of Mauritanian relations trace especially to the Moratin/Moreno tower used by the Tower and Tour/Thor surnames...as well as by Narbonne's/DeNARDO's. The Nordic-Rus of Mauritanian relations go to the NERTHus-worshiping Varni/WARNi (who I think created the Varangian Rus), explaining why Turners show relationship to WARNers. German Warners even use the same basic Coat as Turins (and Morrels). It's not likely coincidental that while French Tours and French Narbonne's were first found in the same place (Languedoc), Italian Narbonne's/Denardo's and French Tours use the same version, colors included, of the Moratin tower.
The impression is that the Warners and Turners who use the blue-and-white split Shields in the colors of Boeufs/Tournebulle's are expressly related to the Boeuf lines...as per when Varni merged with Tuaregs of the Boofima cult. If "Varn' is what provided "Frank," then note that the Clovis Franks were the first Franks proper. Moreover, while the Frank surnames use a "nati" motto term, ditto for the Warners who use the Turin / Morell bend. As we just saw Lenoirs married to Leboefs, it should be added that Lenoirs and French Morrels were first found in Brittany, and that Lenoirs are said to have been from Dol. Doesn't this trace Boofima to the Alans of Dol? I still identify Alans as the origin of the "Mary Magdalene" code for Mauritanian lines as they merged with Alans/D'Allens? It just so happens that Lenoirs use "three bends," as do the Merits/Merys.
The Lenoirs "were well established in the region of Dol at Mintiere," and then one Minter/Minster Coat uses what appears to be the exact design of English Turners (first found in Oxfordshire, where Varni elements are expected). While English Turners call their symbol a "fer de moline" as part-code no doubt for lines of the Fers/Ferrats (Brittany), Minters/Minsters calls theirs "millrinds." Therefore, to this picture, add the German Milners who use as Catherine wheel in colors reversed to the same of German Turners.
But also ask why Scottish Millers use a moline cross. Surely, it has to do with the Boofima goats in the Moline/Moulin Chief. The goats and the moline cross of Moline's/Moulins (a known Sinclair line) are in the colors of the Miller Catherine wheel. Both goat-using Russells and Minters/Minsters were first found in Dorset. Minters/Minsters are new to me; I'd guess that they are using a version of the Hill Coat because Hills use the Moratin tower. But then the same-colored fesse is used by Maisys/Mayseys, said to be from Brittany.
Also, as expected, Mind/Munds were first found in Shropshire, where Dol's Alans came to roost. Mindys/Mundys use a "heathCOCK" while Chambers use a "peaCOCK," important because Minters/Minsters show also as "MinsterCHAMBER." Heaths/Heths use the heathcock too.
Aha! The Heath/Heth heathcock is said to be "combed and wattled," and then the Wattle surname was first found in the same place (Somerset) as Roets/RoWATTs (owners of the Catherine wheel). Moreover, as Roets are known to have been merged with BEAUForts, so we find Wattles using the same lion, essentially, as French Beauforts/Beaufors. A lion in colors reversed is used by English Alan-Stewarts. Likewise first found in Somerset are the Mede's/Meads using versions of the Stewart pelican. The Mede's/Meads might just be a branch of Mathers/Maders, or at least from the Metis-Boofima bloodline.
One variation ("Ballafay") of Beauforts looks to be from the Brittany Balls. Reminder: the Models/Middle's/Midlers, first found in Shropshire, where Dol Alans lived, use what could be the English Ball lion, and the Boeuf fesse. The Ball lion holds "bombs" that look like the crescents on fire of the Putins/Padyns (Moratin tower), and then English Puttens, first found in the same place (Sussex) as MEDleys, use stars in the colors of the pierced stars of METHleys/MEYthly Chief. Why are Put-like terms tracing to Boofima? Ask the ancient nation of Put that modern prophecy scholars trace to Libya, location of the Meshwesh. But also ask the Botters whom I think were a Boofima carrier. One may also ask why president Putin chose a MEDvedev surname to replace him temporarily in 2008-12.
The besants used by Puttens can trace to Boofima as per the same-colored besants of TURNbull-related Rolls/Rowles and Rowells/Rathwells/Rosswells. As Rolls and Turnbulls are in Varn colors while Varni > Varangians founded Moscow, isn't this the Biblical Rosh, Meshech and Tubal in north Africa? Turnbulls and Rolls look like a branch of Leaders and Ladds/Ladons whom I view in-turn as a branch of Meschins. But then the Rutuli Latins at Ardea are coming to mind with the Rath terms.
Beauforts were recently found to be from the Fisk - Cliff bloodline now conducting a super shapeshift project under the noses of its global citizens. Aren't you glad, if you have removed yourself from the camp of Global Citizen? Anyone who has chosen the King of Sacrifice's will be spared the fate of the Global Citizen, on the Day that the New Name comes to squirt the guts of the dragon into the quaking mountains, when the Global Citizen conducting his rebellion at the base of the cliff cries out to the rocks to fall upon his soul, to hide him from further Wrath which until then he denied was coming.
Let's go back to the following from YS: "[Thomas Leboef's] mother's maiden name was LeMay, and I found them to be descendants of the Metis tribe. " It just so happens that German Mays use the Moratin tower in the colors of the same of Narbonne's/Denardo's and French Tours. Then, these Mays are also "du May," a term that brings up the Dumas/Dumay surname (more besants, expected of Tuareg lines to Thuringia), first found in the same place (Languedoc) as the Narbonne's and Tours, albeit English Tours were first found in the same place as English Stewarts, the ugly guts of pseudo Mary Magdalene.
By what coincidence are the Dumas'/Dumays also "DuMETS"??? Doesn't this reveal that the BaphoMET cult passed through the Le Mas entity in the Dumas write-up? Yes, and Le Mas is a location near Imperia, which smacks of the Imperi peoples who oversaw Boofima. Thanks to Julie, I know that Boofima was protected by an Imperi peoples. And as I identify the Dumas / Le Mas entity as from Julia Maesa Bassanius, it again points to Meshwesh Amazons as the ugly guts of Boofima.
I had traced the Boofima leopard to Mark Antony because Antons use the leopard, but then Mark Antony formed a relationship with ANTipater, father of Herod "the great," and grandfather of the Herod who married Glaphyra after she had been married to a king of Mauritanians. Then, beside Imperia there is an ANTIBES location smacking of "Antipas," the surname of another Herod, the brother of the Herod who married Glaphyra.
It just so happens that English Mays/Mai's (fesse in colors reversed to the Alan fesse) use a "red leopard's head" in Crest, the color of the Anton "leopard's head ." It seems important that, in both cases, it's a "head," for in many cases of leopard heads, it's officially a "leopard face."
The Head/Heed surname was first found in the same place (Norfolk) as the Morrels, and while the latter use "esto" in their motto, the Heads/Heeds use the black horse that was shown until earlier in this year in the Este Crest. The Este's and Heads/Heeds are clearly Pepins...whom I trace to the same peoples, the Paphlagonian HENETI (founded by ANTENor), as I trace the Antons/Antonys.
All the above underscores the importance of the Leboef relative of YS. We might ask why YS has been a contributor to these topics, whether by chance or by Design for this and other purposes. It goes without saying that people who trace to Boofima, or any other cults that sacrificed humans, for example the Mayans, are not guilty of such crimes by mere association. I point out the Mayans because the Mays are also "Maya." Who really are the people suggesting that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012? I saw no evidence of such a thing when I examined the reasons for that claim. It's November 30 as i write, just 21 days before 12/21/2012, the day that even Bill Hemmer of Fox news is stressing as a possible doom's day. Why would Fox have anything to do with such a silly thing? Have globalists been planning to make 2012 special in their globalist plots?
German Mays/Du Mays/Maya's have their tower on three ROCKs, and it looks like a version of the Gaur/Guardia/Guardians Coat. To this it needs to be added that Gore's/Core's use, without doubt, the Alan fesse in colors reversed, meaning that Gore's/Core's use the fesse of English Mays. Gore's and Este's were first found in the same place (Essex) as the Camulodunum=Colchester that traces to the Pepin camel and to the Colapis/Kupa river of the Japodes at the Rijeka / Gorski theater. Both Gore's and Andech-branch Este's trace to the Gorski / Rijeka theater, important because the Arms if Rijeka/Rika uses an eagle on a ROCK.
The Maze/MAYze surname, first found in the same place (Somerset) as Mede's, Roets, and Boeuf-suspect Beauforts, even uses a "Garde" motto term. It's all telling me that the Boofima cult's Dumas / May / Mede/Meades elements were at Rijeka / Gorski. "Gorski" may now trace to the mythical MEDUSa GORgon in north Africa, who was anciently given, as with other Gorgon elements, an ugly-head symbol. As the MAEzaei lived beside the Colapis and the Sava/Save, it's suggesting that the DuMas/DuMAY/DuMETS bloodline, especially the May/Mai surname using the Gore/Core fesse, is from those peoples.
To help prove that Maze's/Mayze's trace to Roets of Somerset, the Italian Maio/Maitani Coat is an oak tree, symbol also of Roets. The write-up: "First found in the ancient city of Orvieto, with Lorenzo Maitani, born in 1275." "Orvieto" may trace to the Orbieu river in Aude with a source not far from Rennes-le-Chateau.
The motto term of the Gore's/Core's traces easily to Servitium on the Sava near the mouth of the Colapis/Kupa. Then, the HOPkins, who became important in the next section (which was written before this YS section), are now suggesting "Kupa" because they will be linked to Cop-like terms. I've known all along (while writing this YS section) that Hopkins use a chevron in the colors of the Mede/Mead(es) chevron. The "primos" motto term of Hopkins is proof enough, under these circumstances, of a trace to proto-Boofima elements from mythical Priam/Paris, who represented Parium/Parion, home of the Muse-related Gorgons in Mysia.
The last update touched briefly on Choppings and similar terms as they traced potentially to Hyksos lines at Shepping. I can now add that CHOPs/Camps use a chevron in the colors of the HOPkin chevron, meaning that Hopkins / Chops trace to the same place as Camps and Campbells/Cammells, which is to the Colapis/Kupa theater along with Cole's (from Camulodunum) who use a motto term ("serva") similar to the Gore/Core motto term that traces to Servitium. Then, both Cole's and Turnbulls use a black-on-gold bull, the symbol of Mieske's/Mesechs to whom Cole's easily trace (I trace Mieske's/Mesechs to Mieszko's who are traced in-turn to the Maezaei on the Urbanus river leading upstream to Piast-like Bistue location).
Why are Turnbulls = Boeufs tracing to Mieszko Poles? Ask the Pepins of Goplo's Mouse Tower. The mythical Popiel of that tower evolved into mythical SiemoMYSL, and into the Misl surname using a mouse. Then, the Metis-suspect Meth surname is properly, METHLey, suggesting that Meths are Misls and leading to Siemomysl at Goplo. That works excellently because the Meth(ley) Coat is three black-on-white horizontal bars, colors reversed to the same of the Haught/Houghton Coat, the surname of which is from Mieszko's daughter (Sigrid the Haughty).
The Scottish Turnbulls who show a bull head in the colors of the Haught/Houghton bull head use a motto, "I saved the King," which trace's easily to the Save/Sava river. But then the King surname, in the colors of Meads / Hopkins / Chops/Camps and therefore colors reversed from Turnbulls, use an upright lion in the colors of the upright Misl/MAYsel/MAIsel lion, which happens to be the colors of the upright Roll/Rowles lion...itself upon a Coat that is a version of the Turnbull Coat. Larry King, long-time liberal talk-show host on TURNer Broadcasting, is coming to mind.
Here's from the last update: "It strikes me now that the Drake write-up, tracing the surname to "duck-like gait," could be part code for Gettys. "Gait" gets the Gate's (round-tailed lion), however, using "thoroughFARE" as one term to which they trace "Gate." Interesting here is that one Fare Coat could be using the Broadwell bars. "
I've quoted that after loading the Maddock/Mattix Coat and recognizing that it uses a split Shield in the two colors of the split-Gate Shield, and even gold lions upon it, the colors of the Gate(s) lions. If the Fare's are Vere's, then it makes sense for Gate's to trace to Boofima, as "MADDock/MATTix" may in itself suggest if it's a Metis-rooted term.
It just so happens that, like Broadwells and Spanish Fare's, Mathers/Matherne's use two horizontal bars. Then, in the Leboef genealogy sent by YS, there was not only a Matherne surname, but a Vaudry surname that itself uses two horizontal bars. As Turnbulls, who share the same-colored fesse as English Vaudrys, show also as TRUMbell," but also due to the trace of "Broad(well)" to "PodeBRADY," where the patriarch of Scottish Drummonds got a wife, the three horizontal bars of Drummonds are coming to mind, especially as German Drummonds use their bars in the colors of the Broadwell bars.
As I see "Drummond/Tremond" from "THERModon," I've been tracing the Drummond bars to the three black-on-white bars of the Arms of Trebizond, which I think are a version of the Haught/Houghton bars, important because we just saw Turnbulls tracing solidly to Haughts/Houghtons. And it just so happens that the Haught/Houghton bars were in colors reversed from the Meth(ley) Coat, a term smacking of Mathers and Maddocks/Mattix's. In this picture, because the Meth(ley) bars are in the colors and numbers of the Trebizond bars, it's suggesting that the Metis elements in Boofima trace back to very ancient Amazons at Trabzon, and it just so happens that it was they whom Herodotus paired with Gargarians, important because I trace mythical Metis to the MEDUSa Gorgon.
Thus, it appears that Turnbulls were Drummonds of a sort from Trabzon. I'm not at all aware at this point how the relationship may have played out, but Turnbulls are in the colors of the Traby bugle.
It just so happens that the split Shield of the Gates' and Maddocks is used, nearly, by Italian Bosco's, important because Bosco's were first found in the same place (Piedmont) as TURIN, that being where I expect "TURNbull" to link. It's clear enough that Bosco's were from Busca in Cuneo of Piedmont. This is all very good if we're convinced that Boofima is from the Meshwesh as they became the Masci's, first found in Piedmont.
There is a good chance that Bosco's were a branch of Bassets (use the wavy Drummond bars) and Bissets. Busca is not far from Massa-Carrara (Liguria-Tuscany border), where I know the Massi/Mattis surname comes from. It seems that the Mattix variation of Maddocks should trace to "Mattis," which in turn suggests that the Maddocks should trace to Massa-Carrara.
The reason that Bosco's entered this discussion is for their being in the write-up of the Woods, which came up when I entered "Vode" in search of Vaudry kin. The write-up says that "Bosco is a Latinized form of wood," suggesting that Woods/Vode's were from Busca. Bosco's even use a "tree stump"...which at this time is in the design of the Milan tree stump (though previously the Milans, first found in Messina, used a tree stub like that of Rodhams, for example). One can glean here a trace of the Boofima human-sacrifice cult to the Esus human-sacrifice cult.
I don't think it's coincidental that while the Treveri peoples were guardians of Esus, the Trever/Trefor surname uses the wyVERN that for me is a special symbol of the Varni. The TREFor variation suggests the Traby-suspect Trips/Treffs, first found in the same place (Hamburg) as German Drummonds. Trips/Treffs are still showing the same boot that French Masseys showed for years until earlier in this year. Hamburg just happens to be in/near the Varni theater. Trevers were first found in the same place (Herefordshire) as Maddocks/Mattix'.
To help prove that Boofima elements from Busca / Cuneo / Piedmont moved up to the Hamburg area, not only are Turin-suspect Turnbulls in Varn colors, but German Schore's (in Drummond and Bisset colors) were first found in Hamburg, and they use a column in the colors of the columns in the Scottish Bosco/Boist Coat. This branch of Bosco's was first found in Fife, beside Drummonds and other Hungarians in Aberdeen. In fact, the Drum surname (mascles) was first found in Aberdeen.
Drum's appear to use the dancette of the Cheshire Chee's/Cheatle's whom I see as a Keith branch, important because Keiths lived at/around Musselburgh while Mussels are also "Muscel," like the mascles used on the Drum dancette. Keiths use a stag, expected of lines tracing to Hungarians. I'm noting here that the Mussel/Muscel Coat is a fesse in colors reversed to the Turnbull / Vaudry fesse.
There is a question developing of whether the BOISt variation of Scottish Bosco's traces to "PetitBOIS," the term that YS identifies with the half-native peoples, the Metis. In any case, I am sure that Busca is the place to which Bush's trace, and as a Bush family adopted George Herbert Scherf Jr., if behoove's a re-mention of the Scherf trace I make to "Schwerin" of the Varni theater, and that I see Schore's as a branch of Schere's/Scherfs. The Bosco/Boist symbol is not called a column, the term used by Schore's to describe their symbol, but rather Bosco's/Boists use "...silver pillars, out of each, a gold tuft of grass." By what coincidence is the Grasse location of France smack beside Imperia?
There is a Tuft/Taft/Tuff surname, first found in the same place (Cheshire) as Tuff's/Toughs/Touch's. If we're convinced that the Boofima cult was from the Glaphyra line with Mauritanians, then it's important that while her Herod husband traces to the Lannoys and Lyons, both use a green-on-white lion, the color of the Tuff/Tough/Touch lion.
Glaphyra was from the COMANa area of Cilicia's Adana region, and then the Arms of Trebizond belonged to the empire as ruled by the Byzantine KOMNeno's. "According to ancient geographers, Comana was situated in Cappadocia (and later Cataonia)." The Adana area had a Cati area / peoples that should trace to the Keith Catti whom were recently identified with the Clan Chattan. It just so happens that a motto phrase used by several Clan-Chattan branches is, "Touch not the cat." In this picture, the Tuff's/Touch's and Tufts/Tafts could trace to ancient Daphne, a location in Syria not far from Comana. Daphne was also called, "Harbiye," what I identify as a Garebite city, and then the Comyn/Commings Coat uses garbs, the grabs of Cheshire no doubt. .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comana,_Cappadocia[Insert -- After finishing this section, I checked for a Petit surname, and found it to use the same red-on-white lion as in the English Bois/Boys Coat! It's colors reversed from the upright Beaufort lion, and there is nearly a Catherine wheel in the Bois/Boys Crest. Moreover, as Roets had Chaucer relatives in Kent, so the Petit surname was first found in Kent. The Bois/Boys Crest is a "gold wheel," and then the Wheel surname was first found in the same place (Shropshire) as the Brittany Alans, important because French Bois'/BOSCs (!) were first found in Brittany.
The Bois/Bosc clan uses three bars in the colors of the three wavy bars of Scottish Drummonds.
Scottish Bois'/Boasts/Busts are the ones using the Sale / Salman / Cheney bend, wherefore note the "du Bois de la Salle" in the write-up of French Bois'/Boscs.
The write-up of German Petits/Pessits (Post kin?) is key for what it discovers: "First found in Bourgogne where this distinguished family held a family seat at Bressey, where Antoine Petit was a knight of arms in the year 1353. They were also seated at Lavaux....This main stem of the family eventually emerged as the Barons Mathault." It seemed likely that "Mathault" should link to Methleys but when the Lavaux Coat was loaded, there was a version of the Mathers/Matherne Coat! (The colors of the stars on the central Lavaux bend are the colors of stars in the Mather Chief).
The LaVaux Coat happens to use three gold bends" on blue, as do the Lenoirs (Brittany)...who had married Leboefs, as had Matherne's.
Moreover, Burgundy is where Vaudrys were first found (who likewise married Leboefs), and then DeVAUDs are also "DeVAUX," suggesting strongly that LaVAUX elements trace to Devauds/Devaux. The latter use a pelican on nest as do Wheel-like Wells...and Stewarts.
The Lavaux surname is shown properly as "Lavalle." French Valle's, first found in Brittany, use the Bois/Bosc / Drummond bars. The Mather/Matherne Crest, by the way, is identical, brownish color included, as the eagle in the Drummond Crest. Dutch Valle's use a bend in the colors of the Scottish Vaux bend. While Scottish Valle's were first found in Castile, Italian Valle's look like they use the Borgia moline.
The Petts/PERTs were first found in the same place (Kent) as Petits, and then Drummonds were first found in PERTHshire. It's suggesting that Petits were from mythical Perdix whom I traced to Berrys / Barrys using bars...symbol of Drummonds. The Pett/Pert bend is in the colors of the Valle / Vaux bend, and the scallop of Petts/Perts is in the blue color of the Mather/Matherne scallop. PATTersons not only use pelicans on nests, but scallops in colors reversed from the Pett/Pert scallops. But Pattersons (use the Devaud pelican design) trace, in my mind, to Roman Patricians.
Scallops and mascles are shared between Peters and Petts/Perts. In this picture, because I trace Peters to Peter Pollock of Alan relations, I'd now say that the Peter lion is the Well lion. It's known by some Wells online that they were a branch of Vaux/Valibus.
Not only are French Petits said to have had a seat at Lavaux, but "They were strongly associated with the region of Champagne" The Matey/Mathie/Mathes surname (in May colors) was first found in Champagne, and it uses the five besants on a saltire in the same fashion and colors as Manders ("Laus" motto term). As I'm absolutely sure that Manders were from Maeonians as they developed into MeneLAUS, the Matey/Mathie/Mathes link to Manders evokes the end of Menelaus' life in Messene, location of Mitanni-suspect Methoni.
One can now reload the Maness/Manner Coat to see it's two bars in colors reversed from the Mather/Matherne bars.
The day after starting this insert, I found the white Bosco pillar (nearly) in the German Frank Coat along with the Mieske arm-and-sword. The other German Frank Coat uses a saltire in the colors of the Matey / Manner saltire. Moreover, both German Frank surnames were first found in Bohemia, which assures all the more that "PetitBOIS" is a Boii line. The Frank saltire is even surrounded by red leopards that for me traces the surname to Boofima elements of the Anton / May kind.
I can't yet be sure if the red lion of French Pastors/Paturets is the red lion of Petits based on the Pessit variation of German Petits. The Pester/Pestell surname comes up also as "Pistol," probably the intent of the pistols used by Hopkins. Hopkins were just traced to Boofima elements of the Mead/Mede kind.
The Pastor/Paturet lion, with billets, is no doubt the same-colored lion of Dutch Bush's/Boschs. This paragraph and the one above it were a natural part of this insert, not consciously part of the billet-like Pilet surname appearing immediately below in a Bosco investigation. It just so happens that Pilets/Pilate's were first found in the same place (Burgundy) as Petits/Pessits. End Insert]
The use of "tuft" by the Bosco's/Boists come's with "pillars," and then the Pillars are also "Pilet," suggesting the line of Pontius Pilate. It just so happens that Trebizond was at a Pontus area which may have named Pontius Pilate. In any case, if Herod was involved with Comana, why not also the Pontius-Pilate line? The Herod involved with Comana was the brother of the Herod Antipas who was banished to Covenarum, what was later re-named, Comminges.
The mother of Pontius Pilate is said by Wikipedia to have been a Pict of Perthshire, where Drummonds were first found. The Bosco's/Boists were first found in neighboring Fife. The Bosco-suspect German Schore's use a "vine" around their column, and then the English Vine surname uses, not only three grabs in the positions of the Comyn garbs, but nearly the same red leopard in Crest as in the May Crest! The Mays were traced to the Metis elements of Boofima. The Vine's call their Crest a "a tiger's head proper, and then a tiger is used in the MEDley/MADley Crest. The thin pairs of black-on-white lines of the Medleys/Madleys should be those also of Mauds/Molds.
The German Mays use their Moratin tower in the colors of the Bosco column, and both German Bush's/Buschs (in Bosco / May colors) were first found in Rhineland, an area of Germany around Hamburg. The English Mays using the red leopard even have a fesse in the colors that English Bush's showed until this year. Besides, Dutch Bush's/Boschs use a red lion along with billets, and then English Mays use billets around their fesse. Thus, the Busca location at Cuneo does trace well to Boofima elements.
As English Bush's now use the eagles of the Salmans, who must surely trace to Saluzzo beside Busca, and as Cheneys use the Salman bend while smacking of "Cuneo," isn't it imperative that we consider the human sacrifices that Bush and Cheney gave to the devil on 9-11?
Billets are used by Wings/Wink (Perthshire), who may be implied in the winged bulls of Turnbulls. As Turnbulls are traced in their write-up to Rule's, note that Rolls (variation of the Turnbull Coat) use black billets, the colors of the Wing/Wink billets.
As Boofima has traced to the Mary-Magdalene cult already, which was the Da-Vinci-code cult, by what coincidences does "Wink" smack of "Vinci" while the Vince winged-lion design is the Holder winged-lion design while the Holder Crest uses the gold winged lion of Maddocks/Mattix' now tracing to the Metis elements of Boofima? The Vince fesse is in the color of the Turnbull fesse.
Here's from the Maddock write-up: "This was also written as Madawc and Madog, from the Old Welsh name Matoc, which had the literal meaning of goodly." General James Mattis (now in charge of U.S central command) has the nickname, "Mad Dog Mattis."
As it was mentioned earlier in this update that Maddocks/Mattix's seem to use the split Shield of the gate's, but what coincidence does the Winger surname show as "Wingate, Windgate, Wyngate, Wingett, and Wingit." A Robert Gates, a CIA director under George Scherf-Bush, was the U.S. secretary of defense during the latter part of the Bush war in Iraq. There is an Obama stooge with Geithner surname (head of U.S. Treasury) now seeking to bring Obama's fiscal cliff to fruition. Geithner's deputy is a Wolin surname smacking of Obama's Wolley/Wolfley bloodline. Robert Gates was succeeded by R. James Woolsey (Rhodes Scholar) at the head of the CIA.
"Woolsey was founder and president of Yale Citizens for Eugene McCarthy for President..." Isn't that a Carthaginian line to human sacrificers in Tunis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._James_Woolsey,_Jr.I've just entered "Yale" to glean some new things not seen before in conjunction with the Yellow and Yellin surnames treated in the 3rd update of November. First, the Yale Coat uses what should be the Annandale saltire, which is used by MacCarthy-related Desmonds too. I don't recall treating the Yale write-up: "First found in Denbighshire, from very ancient times and were descended from Ellis, second son of Griffith Ap Einion, Lord of Yale." As I trace Annan(dale)s to "Ananias" of Israel, what's with that "Einion" surname at the root of Yale's? As I trace the chapeau symbol of heraldry to "Caiaphas" elements, what's that chapeau doing in the Yale Crest? To what Hebrew line does the blue boar trace that's also in the Yale Crest? Aren't blue-boar Vere's from Eburovices, and a branch of Pharisee liners? Yes, and Eburovices=Ebroicum named York by its other name, Eboracum, and this is where Ellis' were first found.
The Ellis Coat (in Varn colors) is a cross in the colors of the Yellow/Yelley fesse, itself in the colors of the Turnbull fesse. This, in a nutshell the size of a skull cap, traces Yale to Boofima. Can we see here that "Ell" and "Yell" are likely related terms? How much do skull and bones from Yale align with human sacrifices?
"Jewish" Yellins/Jellins use a curved chevron, symbol also of the Polish Pasts...who could be part of the Pastor / "Pestor/Pistol / Petit/Pessit line from Boofima's Metis elements. As with Polish Caspers, Jewish Yellins/Jellins use a compass, and then the Compass surname is properly Champeau/CHAMPEL, important because CHOPs/Camps (in Campbell colors) use the chevron of HOPkins that is itself surrounded by pistols...that should be code for Pestors/Pistols.
To make better sense of this, the French Bes/BEST/Bett surname uses the same-colored upright lion as the French Petit/PESSIT Coat while English Bests were first found in the same place (Kent) as English Petits. I traced French Bes'/Bests to the Polish-Bohemian line of Bezprym, a relative of Polish Mieszko. In this picture, "PetitBOIS" looks like a Polish-Bohemian entity of the one under discussion. English Bests use an ostrich, a Traby symbol, and a coat in Traby-bugle colors.
The Woolsey motto, "Homo homini lupus," looks to trace to the Home's/Hume's using a lion in colors reversed to the green Lannoy / Lyon / Tuff/Touch lion (= Archelaus lines). There had been (a few months ago) indication repeatedly that the Archelaus surname at Comana, which controlled a religious cult, was linked to the priesthood of El-Gabal in Homs, and together they ended up in the Le Mas / Grasse / Antibes / Imperia theater. Le Mas is important here because French Home's/Prud'Hommes' use the Moratin tower in the colors of the same of German Mays while the Dumas/DuMAY/DuMET surname, highly suspect with a Boofima line, traces itself to Le Mas.
Let me repeat from above: "The Maze/MAYze surname, first found in the same place (Somerset) as Mede's, Roets, and Boeuf-suspect Beauforts, even uses a "Garde" motto term. It's all telling me that the Boofima cult's Dumas / May / Mede/Meades elements were at Rijeka / Gorski." I was working on a trace of Boofima elements to the Gardners of Da-Vinci-code infamy, but here it can be shown that the Garde surname uses the same brownish wolf as the Woolsey Crest. We really do need to ask why the leaders of the U.S. military are tracing to Boofima? My answer is that God is allowing the wicked to rule in time for His Human Sacrifice in the salty fires of Armageddon.
How salty? Ask Sodom and Gomorrah, God's ambient example of Armageddon. Ask whether Gomorrah traces to the Gomerians that I say named "Homs" as well as Qumran. How interesting that while Sodom and Gomorrah were on the shore's of the Dead sea, ditto for Qumran. According to Isaiah and Ezekiel 38-39, Armageddon ends in Edom to the east of the Dead sea, where Sodom and Gomorrah are said to have been located. That's where the armies of Gog, says Ezekiel, are going to be destroyed along with their fellow tribes, including the tribe of Gomer. Homers use a "crossbow," and then the Bows are also "Bough," pronounced, "Boff."
It just so happens that Bows/Boughs and Beaufort-related Roets use a "Quaerere verum" for a motto (as code for their Carian line). The "book" in the Roet Crest must be code for the Book/Boggs surname. The latter's chevron is in the colors of the Wolin chevron.
What wolf line do the Wolleys/Wolfleys, Woolseys and Wolins represent? The Apollo wolf line was depicted in ancient times with the bow and arrow. The Italian Apollo surname uses the Roet oak tree that I now see also in the Italian Maio/Maitani Coat. In Revelation 9, Apollo is cited exploding what must be a nuclear bomb. If according to Jesus no flesh would survive unless He returned in time, shouldn't we expect nuclear activity at Sodom and Gomorrah? That soil beneath that area is filled with tar, and Isaiah claims that Edom will burn perpetually, non-stop (throughout the Millennium), wherefore I deem that this is Revelation's "lake of fire" into which the anti-Christ and False Prophet will be tossed alive. Certainly, a nuclear bomb above the tar pitch of that area could expose the tar to air for continual combustion.
As Vode's/Woods use the same oak, the Vaudry (who married Leboefs) might just be a Wooley/Wolfley branch. The Apollo cult's Muses have already been traced to Cyrene's Meshwesh, and Wolfleys/Wooleys were first found in the same place as Dunham Masci, where I trace Obama's Dunham bloodline (that's the line that had Wolfins > Wolfleys too).
Gomer had a son, Togarmah, who I think named the Tigris, for which reason the Medley/Madley and Vine tigers may apply to Togarmites. I traced Togarmites to MacInTOCHS, and they easily link to the Tuff/Touch surname. The MacIntochs use "Touch not the cat" in their motto, and as the list of MacIntoch septs shows several Esso- and Exxon-like terms, it's east to realize that Tony the Tiger, the symbol of Esso oil company, is code for MacIntosh's. Note the many Cum/Com/Gom-using variations of MacIntosh septs, easily pointing to Gomerian lines. Exxon is already in northern Iraq, awaiting the Fuel of God to appear in the sky so that your stolen money can be shaken out of Tony the Tiger's pockets, and given to the meek of the earth.
As per the Thomas-surname discussion of the last update, where the surname was linked to Thames elements at MAIDstone, note the Toms, Thomes, and Tomas septs of MacIntosh's. In my opinion, "Thames" traces to THEMIScrya, home of Apollo's twin sister on the Thermodon river, exactly where I trace the Drummonds of this Boofima discussion.
In Revelation 9, Apollo is given his Hebrew version, Abaddon. There is one Madden surname with a MacAVADAN variation. The surname should apply to Maddocks/Maddix' because it's write-up is similar: "The surname Madden originally appeared in Gaelic as "Mac an Mhadaidh," which is probably derived from the word "madadh," which means dog." But how did the Avaddy / Avadan variations figure in?
Clearly, the Muses were Gorgons out of Parion/Parium, and Artemis was an Amazon goddess at Themiscyra, wherefore the two siblings depicted the Amazons and Gargarians that just traced to the Metis / Medusa elements of Boofima. Therefore, this same Apollo must trace to Maddens, especially as Apollo and Artemis were both given a wolf symbol. Is general Mattis the anti-Christ? It keeps coming to mind. Or is he the Abaddon of Revelation 9?
My earliest attempts to identify Abaddon led to "Avatar," though before that it led to "Avith" of the Edomites and to "Avidia" in Pakistan. It was the Pakistan location that brought eastern Avatars to mind. I kid you not, that this YH section is written before the section below on David Cameron, the producer of Avatar, the movie. And I am just about finished with this section.
Maddens use a falcon seizing a mallard duck, which may indicate that the Maddock/Maddox surname is a merger of Metis elements with Duck-like surnames. Reminder: the Maddocks/Maddix' use the Gate Shield, probably, and Drakes, no doubt Boofima elements, use "duck-like gait" in their write-up. Mallards, in colors reversed to Maddens, use a black-on-white moline cross, the symbol of French Mathis/Mathieu surname. A black moline is used by Moline's/Moulins, as well as Gowers/Gore's, who, like Gore's/Core's, use a white wolf. I kid you not that this paragraph was not yet conceived when the paragraph above was written: the Gowers/Gore's use what looks like the Cameron bars.
Camerons might just have been from "Gomer." Cambers/Combers/Commers (in Cameron colors) use the leopard design of Mays, and the latter, lest you've forgotten, probably use the red leopard of the Anton(y)s. Recall the two-year old child strangled to death by her own mother with Anthony surname. It was just discovered this past week that she Googled "suffocation" on the same day that the child went missing.
German Cammers look like a branch of Decks/Daggers, which reminds to add that "TOGarmah" may have named some Tog- / Dog-like surnames. Tuckers/Tokers, related to Toghers/Tuckers, and Ducks use many bars in the same colors. I did not intend to seek Cameron kin here just before introducing David Cameron.
A Recent Magdalene Hoax, Perhaps Still in the WorksFor the last days, we could expect a hoax of major proportions to circle the globe in an attempt, by the Caiaphas bloodline, to kill Christ all over again. Such a hoax was attempted a few years ago using the Discovery Channel to air a movie that faked a documentary. The movie was produced by David Cameron, creator of Avatar, itself a movie advancing demonic humans much like the Star Trek people do. David Cameron can be tentatively viewed as a Rothschild agent because Camerons and Rothschilds share five bunched arrows for their symbols.
Cameron (a Canadian) and his Canadian friend from Toronto, Simcha Jacobovici, released a movie done in "reality-show" fashion, where the actors have the task of making their scenes appear authentically true-to-life, though they are simply acting out a script from the writer of the movie. They enter a tomb field as if for the first time, and they "prove" with modern technology that the remains of Jesus, those of his wife, Mary Magdalene, and those of his brother, James, are in some the ossuaries of this tomb field. My purpose here is to investigate whether the players of this movie trace to the same lines out of Rennes-le-Chateau that perpetrated the Da-Vince hoax:
The Talpiot Tomb (or Talpiyot Tomb) is a rock-cut tomb discovered in 1980 in the East Talpiot neighborhood, five kilometers south of the Old City in East Jerusalem. It contained ten ossuaries, six of them with epigraphs, including one with the inscription that has been interpreted as "Yeshua bar Yehosef" ("Jesus, son of Joseph"), though this text is disputed....The Talpiot find [kept secret at first by the discoverers] was first published in 1994...A controversial 2007 documentary film produced by Canadian film director James Cameron and investigative journalist Simcha Jacobovici titled The Lost Tomb of Jesus and a book written by Jacobovici, together with Charles Pellegrino...
I'll come back to some details of this hoax, but first a few heraldic observations that you will be familiar with if you've read my updates here in the past few weeks. I've just finished covering this heraldic territory and am very familiar with it. The Pellegrino surname is new to me, however. It uses Zionists stars. The first thing coming to mind is that Pellegrin bloodline was depicted by the heraldic pelican, and it just so happens that while I've been identifying the pelican as code for the PULCipher and related Pullens for a few years, the investigation conducted moments ago of the Jacob surname led exactly to those two surnames.
I'll explain below, but first, let me repeat that I've been tracing the Mary Magdalene cult to the Alans of Dol who became the Stewarts, who use the pelican in their Crest. I traced the Stewart Coat above to the Massi/Mattis Coat, and the latter surname has been traced many times, even in the last update, to Messina in Sicily. But "Mattis" has been traced to the Mitanni Hurrians coming out of Methoni in the Greek area of Messene, where the namers of Messina in Sicily are known to be from.
The Pellegrino surname was first found in Palermo, in north-central Sicily, an island flooded by Greeks as part of their Greater Greece empire. Entering "Paler" gets the Balor/Paler surname using what heraldry calls, "piles." It just so happens that there is a Pylos area in Messene. Moreover, the Pellegrino surname shares a black-on-gold eagle with the Massi/Mattis surname. At this time, the two eagles are identical in both colors and design. As you can see, the Massi/Mattis Coat is a general match with the Scottish Stewart Coat showing the pelican.
Moreover, Masci's and Messina's, using similar Coats, were traced to "Mieszko," a Pole, where the pelican -- i.e. the surnames that it represents -- is traced by me. "Palermo" might itself be a Pole-related term, though I'm more sure that Pellegrino is a (proto)Polish bloodline. It's important that the Messina Coat (Zionists stars) used the patee crosses of Jacques de Molay, for the gold-on-blue "bend" (diagonal bar) of Jacques de Molay is used, apparently, in colors reversed by the Pale/Palley surname.
Before going further, it needs to be pointed out that Toronto, where Jacobovici is from, as well as the Toronto Maple Leaf hockey club, were traced to the Bavarian Illuminati is several ways. That Illuminati was founded by a "Jewish" Weishaupt surname, and then the Bavarian Weis surname uses Zionists stars in the colors of Messina Zionists stars. "Toronto" was traced to "Taranto" in APULia/Puglia (southern Italy), and while mythical Pollux was a so-called PUGIList, the term seems to be myth code for "PUGLia." Then, "Pollux" easily modifies into PELICan-like surnames. We could expect the Scottish Pollocks to apply, and it just so happens that, in the beginning, Pollocks and Alans of Dol were one and the same.
This is important when I get to the Jacob surname, for it leads to Pullens and Pulciphers of Foix, where a de-Pole surname merged with rulers of Foix. Foix is beside Rennes-le-Chateau, you see. Already, Jacobovici can trace to that place where the Magdalene church has been a center of Mary-Magdalene lore intended to destroy faith in Christ, especially in the hearts of those whose faith is weak.
There is evidence in the New Testament that Caiaphas, the high priest of Israel who had Jesus executed on false testimony, worked to destroy faith in Jesus after he was killed. That is, he worked to uproot, if possible, the work of the Apostles. It just so happens that a Coffer surname uses a naked rider on a dolphin, the symbol in the Arms of Taranto. These Arms are in the colors of the Arms of Bavaria, and the colors of the leaves used as a symbol by the Toronto Maple Leafs. The Bavarian Illuminati was founded on May 1, the day that in witchcraft is called Maypole day, when a POLE from a MAPLE tree was used to honor Bel, the European Baal cult. Compare "maypole" to "maple."
It can be added that while heraldic motto terms are often code for kin, the "victoria" motto term of the Coffers above suggests the Victoria/Fichter surname, one of which uses a vertical bar that in heraldry is called a "pale," quite apparently for the Pale/Palley surname and/or its branches. In the English language, a term like "Palley" can change to "Pelleg," explaining why a 'y' and a 'g' are similar letters. Thus, for starters, we can begin to see that Pallegrino's were from a Caiaphas line of the Coffer kind.
I fully expect Hebrews after the Biblical Peleg to be in Occitania with lines from his brother, Joktan. I would then expect lines from Caiaphas to have merged with Peleg-ites. Naturally. It may be true that all of Poland was settled by lines from Peleg.
We saw above that the Pale/Palley bend is colors reversed to the one used by Jacques de Molay, and besides the fact that his first name smacks of "Jacob," he as a Templar leader traces to the Rennes-le-Chateau theater. I traced Caiaphas lines to Rennes-le-Chateau over several recent weeks and months by other means.
In the third update of last month (November), I claimed to unveil that "fiscal cliff" was Masonic code in-part for the Fisk, Fish, and Fisher surnames...enveloping the mythical grail cult called, "Fisher king." The Fichter variation of the Victoria surname above is a Fisc variation because the Fisks use a black pale with gold stars upon it, the colors of the stars beside the black pale in the Victoria/Fichter Coat. Cliffs/Cleaves use a black "fesse" with the same gold stars upon it, you see. You do see, don't you? You are not blind like Caiaphas, are you?
In the last update, the Super/Soper surname was linked to Cupers/Copers, and then while I've been tracing (for several weeks) the Cliffs/Cleaves and Clavers/Cleavers to "Glaphyra," wife of the Biblical Herod Archelaus, the Cupers/Copers must trace, along with Coppers/Coopers, to "Kypros/Cypros, the mother of Herod "the great" and therefore the grandmother of Herod Archelaus. A brother of Herod Archelaus, Herod II, married a daughter of a Sadducee, and Caiaphas was himself a Sadducee (because the chief priesthood belonged to Sadducees).
At this point, it needs to be asked while Jerry Mathers was the boy actor who played Beaver Cleaver in "Leave it to Beaver." Why was the Cleaver surname chosen for the television series? Don't Mathers trace exactly to the Glaphyra bloodline in north Africa?
Let me repeat here for new readers that the fiscal cliff phrase being tossed around by Illuminati suspects was first introduced as: "Super Committee and the Fiscal Cliff." Then, the Super/Soper Coat uses an "engrailed" black saltire cross in the black-and-white colors of the engrailed cross of Sinclairs who use a "Commit" motto term. Now you know: there is a revamping of the global monetary system taking place, in efforts to bring it into line with a satanic social engineering project, effected by a modern Illuminati circle(s). It is a conspiracy, and part of a multi-point plan to bring the masses into satanism by other names. I know it's a multi-point plan because a group cannot effect such a thing without strategies on paper, and careful planning to cause all points to succeed in a general sequence. The last parts of the plan are the worst of all, and all previous points are stepping-stones to accomplishing the final steps.
In the last update, the Keon/Owen surname became a topic along with Caiaphas-suspect Ovens/Owens / Hoffingtons/Ovendens. These lines are those which may have named COVENarum, where Herod Antipas, a brother of Herod Archelaus, was banished by Caesar. Covenarum is beside Foix. It may not be coincidental that the top part of the Coven/Gowen Coat, called a "Chief," is in the colors of both Coffer surnames. It was pointed out that the Keon/Owen Crest is identical to the right half of the Mieske Coat, thus tracing the Keons/Owens to Mieszko of Poland, exactly where this Jacobovici / Pellegrino investigation is expected to trace.
I now find that the Crest of the Jacob Coat uses a variation of the Keon/Owen Crest. The angle of the sword in both cases is at the same angle, important because some versions of this symbol show the sword perfectly straight with the line of the arm. The arm in the Jacob Crest holds "a sword by the blade," suggesting that the Blade surname applies as kin to the Jacobs. The Blade/Blate surname, use pheons in the white color of the Pilate pheons, interesting because "Blate" and "Pilate" are similar terms. But the point here is that the Blade/Blate saltire is in the colors of the Scottish Frank saltire while English Franks use the same Coat but in the colors of the Pollock saltire. The German Frank surname shows the same arm (in armor) as the Jacob / Mieske surnames, and then allow me to repeat that German Pohls use the Mieske bull (the Joktan ox?).
One can therefore glean a kinship between Pollocks and Jacobs, and because Pollocks use an "AUDacter" motto term (might the "acter" part be for Joktanites?), they trace to the de-Poles of Foix, and then Foix is beside Aude, Roquefeuil, and Rennes-le-Chateau. Where is Caiaphas hiding in all this? For one, I say he's in the green Shield of Roquefeuil, Pollocks, Franks, Coffers and Blades/Blate's. It is not likely coincidental that Pilate's use the same colored pheons as Blade's/Blate's, or that the Blade's/Blate's use a saltire that is the Pollock-and-Frank saltire, for Roquefeuil-rooted Pollocks and Alans were virtually one. [The next update expounds on this topic. As I become more and more familiar with it while uncovering more clues, I hope to be able to explain the Caiaphas - Pilate - Herod kinship in Templarism in an undeniable and forthright way].
The Acton surname smacks of Ashtons who use a star in colors reversed from the stars of Pulciphers/Polesdons. Astons, first found in the same place as Ashtons and Pulsiphers/Polesdons, use a bull, the Mieske and Haught symbol. The Acton Crest uses nearly the Mieske sword-and-arm. This paragraph favors a trace of Actons to "Joktan" where Poles were founded by Peleg lines. "Haught(on)/Houghton" can then be viewed as a Joktan variation. Why didn't I think of that before? Or did I already? My memory fails. Haughts/Haughtons are even "HOCTOR," much like the buried Pollock motto term, acter.
We do need to ask whether surnames using Chiefs (top third of Shields) are doing so as secret code for the Caiaphas line. The Alan-like Lannoys and Lyons both use GREEN lions, important because English Lannoys shop feathers from a military helmet, the symbol on the other side of the Herod coin above. Bauers are important to this David-Cameron investigation because, while the Cameron Crest shows the Rothschild Arms, Rothschilds were born of the Bauer surname. Actually, they were born from Mayer Bauer who lived first at a house called, Red Shield, and then at a house on the same street called, Green Shield. Does it make sense that the Rothschilds, claimed to be satanists by many, are from Caiaphas / Herod?
Irish Dole's/Doyle's (evoke's the Sherland / Sherlock / Holms topic of the last update) use a "vincit" motto term that can be code for the Vincents...whom have been traced hard in recent weeks to Rennes-le-Chateau's Da-Vinci-code circles. French Vincents use a Shield-on-Shield in the two colors of the Dole/Doyle Shield. (For new readers, the Vincent Shield-on-Shield is colors reversed to the Shield-on-Shield that is the Arms of Rennes-le-Chateau).
Entering either "Levine" or "Levi" gets the "Jewish" Levi surname. It suggests that the Sadducee line married by the brother of Herod Archelaus leads to this Levi surname. A primary Sadducee line that I trace to Rennes-le-Chateau is evident in the black-on-gold lion of the Vincent Coat above, for I see it as the Sitler lion. The Sitlers were a branch of Settle's and green-Shielded Stars with all-seeing-eye. The cat in the Star Crest is of the same design as the cat in the Crom Crest, and then these Croms use the same three white QUATreFOILS as the English Vincents.
The Sitler trefoil traces, as will all treFOILs, to the Fellers and therefore to Roquefeuil, the ancestry of Rockefellers. The three Feller trefoils are in the colors of the three Vincent quatrefoils. Let's now go back to the article above on the hoax perpetrated by David Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici:
Ten limestone ossuaries were found, with six of them bearing epigraphs although only four of them were recognized as such in the field. The archaeological team determined the ossuaries to be of little note, and delivered them to the Rockefeller Museum for analysis and storage.According to Jacobovici, Cameron, and religious studies professor James Tabor, one of the unmarked ossuaries later disappeared when it was stored in a courtyard outside the museum. This claim has been criticized by both Joe Zias, former curator of the museum, and Kloner.
The ossuary that disappeared became key in "proving" one of the Da-Vinci-hoax tenets. It was possibly taken to tamper with so that it could provide the key evidence. It just so happens that Tabers use a grape bunch. English Tabors show a "POSSINT" motto term, and then in a blue-apple riddle having to do with treasure that supposedly funded the construction of the Magdalene church in Rennes-le-Chateau, another code was "POUSSON." It doesn't look like a coincidence.
The article continues: "The BBC first aired a documentary on the Talpiot Tomb in 1996..." I've known for a fact that the BBC, at least in 2001, was operated as a globalist Illuminati tool. I now find that one BBC founder, George Villiers, has a surname using the same-colored scallops as the Poussons/Poissons.
Note the arm with fist shape between the wings in the Crest of German Tabors. It's the Communist fist, isn't it, one used by dictatorial Rothschilds? Isn't that the Rothschild/Rothstein / Cameron arrow in the Tabor Coat? These Tabors were first found in the same place (Silesia) as Sitlers. Roets trace to the Kerns of Silesia as well as to the Round part of the Round and Table surname group.
The "chiele" motto term of Camerons was linked to the surname group (e.g. Kills/Keele's) that can trace to "Quillan," smack beside Rennes-le-Chateau, where the Magdalene church has black and white checks, the colors of the Kill/Keele and HohenZollern quadrants. The Chiele/Cheel surname happens to use the red and white "nebully" border shown in the last update, belonging also to Amore's, Marina's, and Time's/Timms. The latter were expressed in the last update as a branch of Time-Warner and Turner Broadcasting elements, liberal schemers in global social engineering along with BBC. My advice to them is that they had best hurry because their time is running out. And please do fall flat on your faces in your haste so that the poor who inherit the earth can walk on your backs in triumph.
The Jacob Coat shown above uses the greyhound design of the Lys surname, first found in the same place (Ile-de-France = Paris) as French Levi's. One could get the impression that "Lys / Lee / Ley " and "Levi" are related terms. There is some word online that Pollocks trace to king Clovis himself, the reported founder of the fleur-de-lys, a symbol in the Lys Coat above the greyhounds. I now trace "Clovis" to "Glaphyra," but the point is that German Jacobs, first found in Silesia, use the moline cross in the red color of the Borgia/Burg moline, important because Borgia's of Spain were traced from Safor/Gandia to Foix-Candale (at Foix), the latter being the family wherein the de-Pole's were involved...who should trace to Pollocks. Clovis was a Merovingian, and the Magdalene cult at Rennes-le-Chateau was a Merovingian one.
Spanish Jacobs use a fat cross in the colors of the same of Irish Burghs, which needs repeating to assure that the Jacob moline is the Borgia moline. One can now bring into the picture the Pullen Coat using the bend in the colors of the sameFoix/Foy bend, important because Irish Burgs show a "foy" motto term. Thus, Burghs and Borgia's are tracing to Foix along with Pole-like Pullens, and the lion in the Burgh Coat happens to be in the colors of the Sitler / Vincent lion.
The next update is already in progress. It's an important set of revelations tracing Pontius Pilate harder than ever to the Attila Huns. It also comes across a large number of keys for tracing important Templar surnames to Rua, the ruler of Huns immediately before Attila and Bleda. It's a mind-blowing revelation on the coat-tails of the Petitbois entity.
I happened to go over and re-do a chapter of mine, Law and Grace, this week, and because this update is shorter than most others, I'll add that chapter here in case it interests you:
Law and GraceOne of the most devilish teachings going around these days is that Christians are not to obey the Law of God lest they fall from Grace and become "legalistic," that dirty little condemning word that is used unjustly against those Christians who see otherwise.
The teaching implies this: the one who attempts to obey God's Law is going to end up being a self-righteous, fallen hypocrite worthy of condemnation, while the one who merely rests in the Grace of God, giving thanks, is the true believer who pleases God and receives salvation. This is worse than ridiculous; it's outright at enmity with God, and it tends to expose the goats, the Grace-Only crowd that has somehow come to believe that calculated effort in honoring the Law with deliberated good deeds is somehow a work of the flesh.
God forbid that we should do a kindness to someone all on our own initiative! And what greater thanks can we offer God than when we do a kindness to someone, or meet their need, all on our own initiative? Wouldn't it be true that God is waiting for us to grow up, and to do good works all on our own initiative?
Put it this way, that we should only expect the goats among us to gravitate toward the Grace-only teaching, and that goats are likewise going to become church leaders among us, teaching that very thing.
I understand the concept of being confident in the forgiveness of God. I understand the importance in being happy for the complete forgiveness that we receive. The forgiveness causes us to be thankful, relaxed, and eager for making God happy in return. In our thankfulness, we tend to obey God. But that's the point; forgiveness was given in the first place so that we would make God happy, to think about Him too, not just our own affairs. If you don't like the word, obedience, then what other word will you use? How about conformity? Yes, the forgiveness of God coupled with the reception of His Spirit makes us conform out of gratitude. Conform to what? To all that God's laws wished for us to conform to. Therefore, do we dump the laws as though they didn't matter? No, for the laws help us to understand what God is like. Ask king David who meditated on His laws. What for? To conform.
Why do we want to conform? Is it because we fear punishment otherwise? That's just the beginning of wisdom. Don't we want to be wiser still? Then do more than conform out of fear. Conform because you really love the way God thinks, because you want to think as He thinks. If you don't like God, or the way He thinks, you're not going to fool Him by conforming to His laws in efforts to escape condemnation. Ask the Pharisees. Legalism should be defined as trying to obey and honor God when you don't like how God thinks. They hated the way Jesus spoke because they hated the way God thinks. But they wanted to be saved, and so clung to the Law with that hope. When they met God face to face, they didn't know Him.
Works of the Law without love for Jesus is dead. But works of the Law is not big-bad legalism for that reason. Grace was granted specifically for the purpose of leading to good works, as Ephesians 2:10 reveals. What great measure of insult do we do to Grace if we neglect the good works? Indeed, because Grace is merely the springboard, vehicle, or door to our performance of good works, it's the good works that are the Desired end-purpose of our faith...i.e. good works hold priority over Faith and Grace. There are good works, and then there are Good Works, the capitalized ones are those that God does through us.
But do we neglect good works done by our own initiatives as though they don't count or matter or please God? If you take one brick off the heavy load of your friend, doesn't it matter to God? Haven't you done it to Jesus too? Is it no good unless God makes you take the brick off? Must God do it through you to make it a genuine good deed?
I do not understand those who keep harping about the futility of trying to earn our salvation by works, because I've never met one Christian who is trying to earn salvation by works alone, without faith in Jesus. I get the impression that such harping is to erode in our minds the high value of good works.
I would like my preacher to condition everyone in the fellowship to be kind to one another, to live as family, to sacrifice for one another, to get beyond the superficial niceties of Sunday mornings. But evangelical churches today are gearing up for success, and using techniques of the corporations to find successful methods of "growing". Growing what? The church programs? There's a difference between church growth and growth as God would have us grow.
By the way, I am not opposed to evangelicals. I chose their churches over Catholicism, Anglicanism, or Presbyterianism. I can't help but wonder, however, at the methods being used to grow evangelical churches. I always wonder what is in the minds of pastors as they perform their jobs. Are they thinking about the condition of the flock, or something else? I asked a pastor point blank: do you cater you sermons based on what you think your flock is needing at the time? He said no. Instead, he said that he trusts the Holy Spirit on what should be said in sermons. Yes, but while the sermon is being prepared, doesn't it strike the pastor's mind that God is concerned about the condition of certain persons who will be in attendance? How can a pastor create sermon after sermon and not recognize that God is seeking to repair the lives of the flock, or, once repaired, to improve its health?
If the only thing that matters is how many new people will flock to hear the exciting sermons, then that pastor doesn't know how God thinks. That pastor is legalistic, wanting to be obedient for the wrong reasons. He needs the image of obedience in order to be respected, and so he does some things that make him appear holy. But if all he does is preach the word without tending to the needs of the flock, does he really even love the people of God?
Church leaders know that if you give your money to one another, there will be less for their offering plate. Beware church leaders who remind you over and over again to give ten percent of your income to the offering plate. The most basic commandment of God, that one church member be kind to another church member, is thereby minimized or eradicated altogether. It is difficult for us to appreciate one another when we don't do kind things for one another, and it doesn't take much guess work to figure that a church not practicing kindness will end up turning on one another, even while they shake hands and smile at one another.
I believe that we can fall away from Faith; in fact, we can be spit out of the mouth of God if He can't stand the sight of us due to our works, or lack thereof. Are you one of those who has been led to believe that God is just too loving to be that way? If you put a rotten chestnut in your mouth hoping for a good one, are you too loving to the chestnut not to spit it out? Does your abounding love make you chew it with twisted face, and then swallow like you really enjoy that acid taste?
Can we agree that God is a normal person who reacts logically? God's love is such that, if He spits you out of His mouth, He'll take you in again once the rot has been eradicated...by you. Yes, we've got to decide to eradicate the things we've decided to do that leave a bad taste in his mouth. It's our job, not His. You can't go back to the bars seeking to be wooed by a lover who has never been circumcised of heart, by one who cares not to know God, and then claim "saved by Grace." We can be forgiven if we stop that activity, but we can't be forgiven if we don't stop. God's mercy is huge, providing that we conform.
In a sense, God's mercy is not free at all; it takes effort to be worthy of it. God's mercy is free only in the sense that we don't deserve it, and He lavished mercy on us in hopes that we will react suitably. But the everyday, common effort it takes to be worthy of mercy is minute if we happen to like or love being like God. In that case, it's no work at all; it's instead pleasure and fulfillment. The job of the devil and of the humanist is to make you disrespect or hate God for the way that He is. But what does the Bible say? It says that when Jesus comes, His saints will see God as He is, and will conform to Him? Why? Is it because He's unlovely or unlikable?
We are to wait for the Holy Spirit, some say, to make us perform good works. Yes, we are to keep in touch with the Spirit (i.e. with the "Vine"); otherwise we go the way of corruption. When it comes to whether or not we help others in need, the Spirit will not normally force us to act; it's our decision and responsibility. We remain in the Vine when we choose the right; we disconnect from the Vine when we choose the wrong. Does remaining in the Vine mean that we just suck grape juice all day long? Doesn't it mean that we continue to value Jesus so that our decisions in life, which are our works, continue to please God, and for that reason God will chose to use us for Good Works with capital letters?
Carrying out good works is from our heart, not from our flesh. What twisted pastor has so distorted this concept of good works that he should call it an act of the flesh? If anything comes from "the flesh," it isn't a good work, for "the flesh" is by definition a work of evil. Anything done for the benefit of others comes from the heart. The Holy Spirit is given to us to teach concern for others, especially those in the fellowship of believers. This concern for others is the fulfillment of the Law of God. Dare we call it "legalism"?
Grace is the forgiveness of all disobedience; dare we teach that a willful obedience is a falling away from Christ? That's ludicrous, for Grace was granted to us that we might repent from past disobedience to the Law, and turn instead toward obeying it. Law, Obedience, Love and Good Works are essentially one and the same, except that Law carries the additional element of penalty.
What else is there to obey under the New Testament if not the Mosaic Law, for the Law of Jesus is not fundamentally different than the Law of Moses. Indeed, the New-Testament writings are an exposition on how to obey the Law of Moses, with a New-Covenant forgiveness in the Blood added in to replace old Temple activities. And when Jesus said that he didn't come to eradicate the Law, he magnified it's responsibilities, making it even harder to obey than before. That's because of two things: 1) He carries an iron rod with the goal of straightening out / perfecting the saints; and, 2) He knows that His people will only be too happy to comply once they experience the Holy Spirit. If the devil's job is to make us hate God, the Holy Spirit's job is to make us Love God.
Unless Jesus tells us what the target is, how can we conform? But if He tells us what the target is, that's Law. Does he say, "Here's the target, but if you don't try to hit it, don't worry about it; I still love you"? If He says, "This is the target," then that is the Law. The difference in the Jesus dispensation is that the penalty can be eradicated for not hitting the target...so long as we try to hit it. The day that we stop trying to conform is the day that we backslide out of Grace.
Watch out; the freedom that the goats boast about and enjoy from the Law might also be Deemed freedom from Christ, not freedom in Christ. Let me shock some of you right now by saying that we can and must earn our salvation. Surely, obedience is work, wherefore "earning our salvation" is an appropriate phrase to use. If you think that God makes us automatically obedient when we receive the Spirit, then the epistles, and the seven letters of Revelation, were needless writings, and the warnings and promptings in the epistles, and in the seven letters, were wasted breath. What did Jesus mean when he warned in those seven letters that we are to conquer with good works? Didn't he imply that we might fall short of conquering? Is "conquering" not the same as earning our salvation? With Faith -- which is Love for Jesus that the Holy Spirit provides -- we can conquer. You can't earn Grace, but you can earn salvation if you receive the Grace. Or put it this way, that if you receive the Grace gladly, you will tend to earn salvation naturally.
We can earn salvation in the sense that God deems us worthy of it for trying to hit the target. We cannot earn salvation if the only way is to hit the target everytime. We cannot fool God into thinking that we are trying when we are not. The one who Loves God will try naturally. The one who loves God will love to hit the target because it's the right thing to do. But the Christian life is even more than hitting multiple targets of what is good and right; it's also being a Friend of God. If we be a friend, He will makes us a Friend with a capital. If we initiate the good thing for love of Him, He will respond and reinforce the initiative...though sometimes what we think is a good initiative is not so good in His eyes. Ask the church builder who fails because he's not thinking properly about the condition of the flock.
There can be no earning of salvation without the Blood of Christ to forgive sins. But once forgiven, we must pass the tests before being saved. That's why new Christians are often eager to please and serve God. They know that's what God is calling them to, and perhaps they imagine that they can be pillars for God when they don't yet realize what small blips on the screen they really are. But God recognizes the sincere motives behind the zeal, and wells up in joy for such newborns.
Put it this way, that we are saved and forgiven initially due to no good works of our own. We are freely granted the Spirit when we ask for it no matter how great our sins to that point. But we must then maintain our salvation. Yes, by effort and making right decisions. The one who fails God after receiving the Spirit will lose his/her salvation, but it depends on what "fails" means. If we find ourselves loving God less due to a peril or mishap in our lives, the question is whether we will wait for the bad feelings to pass so that we can fall in love with God all over again. But if use the peril or mishap to heap scorn on God, then God's target becomes a stick to our backsides until we recognize our folly. That is, we are back "under Law" and the penalty thereof must be applied.
If we do more than heap scorn on God, for example if we start to enjoy ridiculing Him, God may decide to forgo the stick to our backside because He really doesn't want us to change anymore. There comes a point where God doesn't want a person due to a devilish attitude. These people become disconnected from the Head. They were once Christians, but then they found that hating God made them feel proud, and even good. Many of these types became leaders for the kingdom of Satan, the one who has a proud chest and wears a mask of colored light.
God will judge whether or not I am worthy to enter His kingdom. My conscience will indicate whether or not I am failing Him, or how well or poorly I am getting along in any matter. But it's my responsibility to reflect on how I'm doing. If I don't, God might deem that I really don't care to hit the target. But if I'm concerned about my Spiritual walk, then God knows too. However, I don't want to be biting my nails daily in dread of losing salvation...unless I'm earning it by my sinful, worldly choices. God is kind, and will save me even with my pants on fire, but there is a bar that I must jump over in order to make it at all. If I'm worried about whether I'll get over that bar, then I can't be doing very well at all. If I hope to get in with my pants of fire, I will probably be rejected because I'm probably operating below the bar.
I am the type to ignore the once-saved-always-saved teaching; it's just my preference. I do believe that there is truth to that phrase, but it's God alone who knows who will be saved once and for all. Yes, God has many who are saved who will always be saved, but Jesus said that some will not be saved, and God knows those too before they disconnect from Him.
Paul taught that without the Blood of Christ, nothing is satisfactory, but Jesus taught that without an acceptable level of obedience, the Blood will not be Applied to our sins. My Bible tells me that I am in this "race" to earn a crown of life. Eternal life is, time and time again, portrayed as a reward for my work in Christ. And isn't "reward" another way of saying "earning"? Some will say that good works only earn certain Heavenly rewards, but not eternal life itself. I beg to differ. It's only those who expend their talents -- so to speak, meaning those who perform good works -- who receive a welcome into the Kingdom when Jesus returns. Paul follows up by stating that we were created anew (i.e. born again) for the very purpose of performing good works (Ephesians 2:10).
Does this mean that I've got to be concerned in every waking morning to do a good deed for my fellow man? Must I worry that, if I fail to do a good deed today or this week, I will fail to jump the bar? If I'm worried about it, then I probably don't want to do a good deed so that it would be spoiled in God's sight anyway. Legalism is doing a good deed while not really wanting to. But if I want to, I won't be concerned about getting over the bar because I'll be flying over it. So, I should do whatever good is sincere, and this is not legalism. Rather than seeking to do a big thing with the wrong motives, for example by trying to get over the bar of God, I'd do better with a small kindness out of sincerity. But if I gravitate to doing small things only, am I really being sincere?
If you choose to view obedience not as a price to pay, but as a privilege to enjoy, then you are doing very well and are a fine example to others. You are happy that God is pleased with you, and you want to add to your good fortunes with God. Then there is the Grace-only advocate who will keep reminding you that you can't earn your salvation with good works. What is the motive for reminding us time and time again? Are they not implying that good works are somehow degenerative?
If the Grace-only advocate is trying to say that doing good works for the express (selfish) purpose of hoping to be saved is in vain, I think I can agree with it. But it should be framed in the right way lest one get the impression that good works play no part in salvation. Yes, it's good to feel like we've added points to our score with God, but if there is never any attempt to please God, works are in vain. If we behave in a way wherein the Law alone exists, but have no relationship with God, then even if we conquer the Law valiantly, we obey in vain. Ask the rich man who didn't want to follow Jesus but who obeyed all the Law.
Obedience is not always easy and joyful; it often takes struggle and pain, for which reason Jesus urges us to "overcome" (in the seven letters of Revelation 2 and 3). If we suffer for doing good, then we are most pleasing. It is not necessarily an insincere work if we do it while suffering.
Suppose that you don't really want to do a good thing but know in your heart of hearts that you've just got to in order to live with yourself. Let's say that in this case you are definitely not happy about it due to the cost to you. By the fact that you do it anyway, you've done a good deed right there that pleases God. It's not the good deed that you grudge about that God appreciates; it's the fact that you did it anyway. You had the choice; you picked the right choice. But if you pick the right choice and do it because you sincerely want to, then you have conformed to God. It's your other choice whether to gripe about it or to be valiant. If you ignore the cost, whether it be pain or money, you will be wearing the face of God for a time. If that alone is your reward, then you know God.
Therefore, the Law is wonderful and gives life, not death, to those who strive to obey it. Our shortcomings (i.e. sins) will then be covered by the Blood. Anyone who does not obey the Law satisfactorily will not be covered by the Blood. God decides what is satisfactory for every individual receiving Christ; the lukewarm believer will not make it. Who measures the temperature? Not me. I'm in the danger zone too, capable of being too lukewarm, so don't go by what I do, go by what the Bible says. You do not know whether or not I will make it; I do not know.
One might argue that a little healthy fear of condemnation keeps one above the bar. Another will argue that a confident faith will keep one above the bar. Does God really want you to know that, once saved, always saved? Not if you're prone to flirting with the bar. Does God want Christians to exercise a healthy fear of condemnation? Not if they're prone to flying high above the bar.
How high is the bar? The one who has an unhealthy fear of condemnation has the bar too high. The one who rejoices and trusts in once-saved-always-saved may have the bar altogether eliminated. I don't want to live in fear of condemnation for my shortcomings. Such fear might make me misjudge how I view myself. I may get an inferiority complex, thinking that I'm never sincere enough in anything I do for others. Feeling worthless is no way to operate. Didn't Jesus say something about peace? Doesn't salvation bring peace? Isn't that to be interpreted as anti-fear? When He said to fear God, he was speaking to the one flirting with the bar. But to Peter he said better things because Peter was zealous. He wanted to try, to please God.
Being humble is not the same as viewing oneself as worthless. Being humble is doing great things and thinking modestly about yourself, knowing that others can do the same big things if they try. You are not humble if you do something great and think of yourself as special, better than others. It's important to have the correct perception of your own cosmos. Relativity is important. You must measure yourself against the size of the universe, but you are even smaller in comparison to God. Where is your special now?
I will not be happy living for God if convinced that I'm floundering on the bar. Why bother joining a fitness club if I`m too lazy or dishonest with myself to exert the forces needed to improve my body? Why be a Christian floundering at the bar? Kick it and get it behind me. Much of the Law handed down by Jesus has to do with getting the attitude right. If we don't, there will be a penalty to pay. It is a law if there is a penalty.
Is there not one soul in your church who needs you, or something that you own? You can judge whether or not you're now a goat or a sheep by how you reacted to that last statement. You need to fear being a goat. You have the choice of re-shaping your thinking if you don't at this time have any compulsion for helping others. First, you've got to be able to appreciate others, but if you think yourself too highly to be with others, that's why God calls us to be humble. The good news is that goats can become sheep on a dime, by merely wanting to do so. I don't think it's true to say, once a goat, always a goat.
Not everything is cut and dry. You may be a sheep, and the people at your church may be in one huge goat pen. If you think that's true, you may be right, or you may be wrong. What might be your motive for viewing them as goats? What might be your motive for viewing them as sheep? We are made too small to fully discern the complicated network of human motives, but if we listen to our conscience, we have a better chance to. I'm not sure if anyone has ever caught the conscience telling a lie. It's so determined to tell the truth that it sometimes turns our faces red apart from our permission. The devil knows that a rock concert and listening to the conscience are opposite poles. This is why Christians are more familiar with silent rooms than the sons of the devil.
The argument of those who err goes like this: since we can never achieve salvation by good works, because we end up coming short of the Law's requirements, the mere attempt to fulfill the Law is death. One may as well toss out the entire Bible...which, from start to finish, places the responsibility upon us. God is not going to say to me, "There goes John again, trying to obey My Laws, away to Hell with that hypocrite."
I hope that "Law" doesn't conjure up in your mind Temple activities or things like circumcision; what I mean by "Law" is what Jesus meant: compassion for others and resisting sinful activities. In short: righteousness.
Jesus obeyed the Law of Moses always, but we can obey the Law sometimes. If He obeyed the Law of Moses, don't you think that we should (try) too? If He didn't obey the Law of Moses, what Law did he obey? Faith in Jesus Christ itself is our struggle to obey God's Law; the one who has the effort will be given more Holy-Spirit power so that a fuller obedience (and greater rewards) can be attained. But the one that doesn't have the effort, everything he thinks he has in Christ will be taken away. Isn't that what Jesus said?
God has a problem. He can't change. We're going to have to accept it; there is no other God. He permits unspeakable evil to befall the world. Animals eat one another alive. Our faces are subject to a humiliating slow distortion as the years progress. Man is a weakling, really, even in his prime. The trees are hardly as beautiful as He could have made them. Man lives merely on a giant rock, covered only with dirt. It's not Hell, but it's not Heaven either. You must have asked the same questions about Him too.
Prior to herbicides, man was too weak in most cases to bother fighting an all-out war against the determined weeds that dirt hands those who grow our foods. Yes, dirt is "magical" because the One who created plants is an awesome mind, but it's plain to see that He is not happy with the world. The creation moans, and we suffer in this situation if we start to dwell on these things. How can we love God more when we ask these sorts of questions? Couldn't God have been more lovable as well as awesome? Why must the farmer fear each year of crop failure or lousy growth, when growing foods is such a fundamental need of man? It's God who made us to need food. It's not our fault. Why do we need to work all day to secure our basic human needs, and why does God allow kings and other rulers to take much of what's left over? Why did Jesus have to say, "You will always have the poor among you"? Why didn't God just eradicate poverty? Why did He create an awesome cosmos to show His glory, yet under the sky the most-important part of the creation languishes?
Couldn't He have been more giving toward us so that we would love Him more? Instead, nature grows little food for humans in the wild. Man is left to toil to grow food. Thunder speaks of God's power, and we see His wisdom in the rain cycle, but why is thunder fearful rather than a pleasant sound? When lightning strikes the ground, why couldn't it bring a blessing rather than a split tree? Did God want to be feared more than He wanted to be loved? The sunny blue sky might claim otherwise, but then the dark grey clouds have a voice too that speak dreary. Yet some cloud formations are an inspiring view.
Why is there good and evil in the creation? Should we cite only the praiseworthy parts and not the terrible parts? Don't we want to understand God's dark side? Who really is this Cosmic Being that we are called to love with our whole hearts and minds?
The stars are not dreamy at all; they are the same chaotic spots night after night with no specific story to tell...except that God is greater than we can conceive. The dark cosmos and the blue skies together shroud His true nature. We can't see past either one to see His house. How can a lover expect to be loved if he keeps Himself hidden?
The beautiful pictures given us of galactic clouds by astronomy are fakes; the colors are not real, but are created by keeping a camera lens open for a long time. You wouldn't see anything so beautiful if you were to tour the universe. This creation is so temporary, given so that we might believe in a Creator, that we might understand his giant-ness in every way. But the creation is not his greatest achievement in love. He does not show much love toward us in the creation. It keeps us alive, true, but it also results in pain and suffering. Has man disappointed Him that much? He lets the rain and the sun (and other good things) to fall on the good and the evil, but there's the problem: the evil. On the flip side, He also allows evil to fall both on the good and the evil, and there's the problem: God's dark side.
The devil's sons would want you to believe that God's dark side is cruel or sadistic, like one giving some good and hopeful things in life so that we might experience a worse ironic pain, what God really truly wants for us because He delights in torturing us. It's like when a man with a gun allows his victim to run for freedom but then shoots him in the back. But this cannot be the true nature of God's dark side. The problem is clearly the evil, and God's dark side is not its author. God's dark side is His being struck with disappointment, sorrow, regret, all very painful for Him, and due to evil. His reaction to evil is a mixed creation. The First Story tells us that the problem was good and evil mixed together. The First Story tells us that man would chose evil.
The First Story tells us that, rather than being coached by God toward a victorious life, man chose to jump out on his own initiatives, ignoring what God might grant with his good coaching skills. Man even mistrusted God's motives. We have His problem, the problem that He gave to us due to the problem that we first gave to Him. His problem is that He remains hidden, what he really doesn't want to do. We might mistrust him all the more because of it. We don't know whether to jump out on our own, or to trust His coaching skills and His agenda for us. The humanist has jumped out on his own.
God doesn't want to appear to us (yet) for reasons not (yet) revealed. Perhaps he doesn't want to show us his face in grief while His heart is in a state of depression. Have you ever tried to celebrate with a crowd you despise for its godlessness? How much worse the knots in your throat if you're chosen to give a celebratory speech before it? The prepared kind words just won't come out right. It's not a good time for you to appear at the stage before the ignorant crowd.
Can God be in a state of depression? The Bible says just that. There are many ways to react toward disappointment and regret; weeping, for one, anger for another, but also walking away and turning the back to mankind. Yet another way is to face the problem and come to terms with it: man has become sorely sick in his view of God, and in his way of life, and he needs correction. This is when God gets into our faces with a whip. His punishment on us is as striking as the pain we inflict in Him.
But wait. If we don't cause Him pain, but instead cause Him joy, the reaction toward us is not going to be a cruel backlash or torturous ordeal. The story of Jesus is that God, in his depressed state, has decided not to give up on us. He's willing to let us live, and to correct us with more love than we deserve. He's decided to place Himself inside of us to the extent that He does reveal Himself sufficient that we no longer harbor reasons for jumping out on our own. We let the Holy Spirit be our coach after all, and we no longer believe the devil sons who tell us that God is naturally cruel or non-existent.
Correct us with more love than we deserve? Yes, so that we might know the truth concerning His nature. He really does want to love us, if only we don't cause Him pain. How much pain has He bourne over these past centuries? Don't ask the pagans, for they are oblivious. His pain is the center of all creation, yet the pagans missed it because they went astray to the ends of the earth. Now they want to go to the ends of the universe totally oblivious of God's existence.
The furnace of pain within God burns much hotter for the brutal and twisted deeds of pagans. There is no way for them to escape the bursting of this crackling furnace on Reaction Day. There will indeed be a Big Bang when the Almighty God can no longer contain His anger. It's true that God cannot do everything; He cannot contain His anger forever. It's not wise for Him to do so; but for the time being, while Salvation goes forth to those who grab it, the furnace of anger will be contained.
The Holy Spirit that comes into our hearts when we grab onto Jesus is the side of God that gives us more love than we deserve so that the devils deeds in us will be extinguished. It's a good plan. It works. So far, I have not heard a satisfactory explanation as to why His Son had to die a cruel death in order to allow this plan into effect. If God is angry with man's sins, why should the death of his own sinless son appease the anger?
But Jesus is not merely the son of God. He is God himself coming into full view. God didn't send someone else to take the pain on our behalf; He sent Himself. Humanists would like you to believe that God is cruel for sending his own son to take the awful pain. Not true. God did not send his own son like I have a son. God chose Himself to take the pain, like pain upon pain, to eradicate the pain forever.
He thought it good and right to die for us. Can we glean the reason? Yes, for it reveals his dark side. It's not dark as in cruel, but dark as in depressed. It's dark as in serious. There has been a serious problem that He wants us to acknowledge. God came to die to kill His anger. I don't understand it because I can't comprehend His pain. There is no doubt that it was a twisted pain, like an ulcerous growth on His heart with twisted knots and tentacles reaching every part of His body. This body (so to speak) had to be destroyed, and resurrected anew. The ulcer on His heart had the name of our sin written upon it, and both the sin and the pain were killed on the Crucifixion Day.
From that point on, God had a family to dwell with that would grow a much better heart; He lived in that family, His new Body, and abandoned the old body wracked by pagans and old Israel alike. He started a new Life on that one page of eternity. He no longer had Life if it wasn't with His new Body. The Church would provide Him with a happy, healthy heart.
The problem was serious to the point of no solution but total destruction of the creation, which for God was a bad solution because it would only lead to more painful regret. We understand this because God made us like Him, with the ability to understand His feelings. God is not just a powerful force without feelings. He is very "human," as His Son has revealed. People could not tell that Jesus was God if all He did was speak and eat with them, even though He had a different sort of personality.
He snuck into the human domain and did His strange Work. The most intelligent creature on the earth had no idea what the plan was. It was Wonderful in His sight. It solved the problem. Not that the killing of Himself should appease His anger for our sins, but that the result of killing Himself should create new people with good deeds blessing His heart. That's what appeased the anger as well as relieving the pain and escorting out the dismal depression.
The lump that was rest of mankind -- those who saw no meaning in the Resurrection -- would be abandoned at the Resurrection and given to a pre-determined Day of Visitation, Furnace Day. This Day would not be like a surgical knife or torch to remove the lump from God's body, because the lump was removed on Resurrection Day. The lump was tossed out along with God's old tortured body (so to speak). Furnace Day would rather be a Relished Day of Satisfaction. On that day, God's old body will be incinerated, and the ashes given to the winds of time as a monument to the Lesson of History.
So, God seeks those who feel sorry for what He has endured. The Crucifixion is accepted only by those who feel sorry for what He has endured. And it's a personal thing. We don't feel sorry for what He has endured due to the sins of the whole human race, but for our own sins. But God is not One to keep us feeling sorry for Himself. No sooner do we accept his Plan and beg to be made part of his new Body that he joins us to His new Heart, not the old one of pain and sorrow, but like the heart of the Father when He first met Jesus on Resurrection Day. On that Day, the Creator felt like giving a celebratory speech.
There is no longer need for a Law on paper when one has Love for God. No police officer hands you a speeding ticket or warning if you don't speed. But no police officer stops you to congratulate you for driving within the accepted speed limits. On the other hand, God congratulates and even rewards you when you cause His heart to well up in more joy. And it reminds Him that His sacrifice was not in vain. Do the governments that pagans serve reward citizens for good obedience? With what will the governments reward citizens if governments never have enough to satisfy themselves? But the Father is an endless well as large as the incomprehensible size of the universe.
Is space nothingness, or is it something of a creation itself? If we try to image no space existing in the beginning, we don't know what to replace it with. Should we imagine a huge block of solidity in the place of space? Impossible. We simply cannot comprehend eternal distances, nor the existence of space. Space cannot be nothingness because nothingness must be much smaller, not of eternal dimensions. We cannot comprehend the beginnings of God. That's how big He is. He just is. There is no such thing as forever if He just is. There is no tomorrow for the I Am. We have yet to see the new Creation in the world of Everything Is. But I'll bet the trees will be much nicer there. And every lightning strike will bring a bag of candies to the dwellers nearby. And the only people there will be those who felt God's pain, and those who lived accordingly so as to spare him further pain.
Pharisees did not usually keep to the Law strictly, but with fanfare they kept to their erroneous interpretation of the Law. Some of the Pharisees did teach the Law correctly, although Jesus said that they didn't practice what they taught. Moreover, the better Pharisees who taught a strict keeping to the Law yet had the problem of rejecting the One who gave the Law. Their God was not the true God. Their God was a tool for their political power. This empty form of obedience was the truest legalism if the term is defined in a negative sense. Dare we lump anyone who is born again into that pile? Legalism in the negative sense is to keep the Law without faith in Christ. Keeping the Law with Faith is not that sort of legalism. Just because God doesn't hand out tickets for disobedience does not mean that we are not to keep the Law. The reason that He doesn't hand out tickets is because we keep the Law, not because the Law is no longer in effect.
The Pharisees had Law-Only, for which reason they would die in their sins. Legalism in the negative sense is Law-Only. The one who has Law-and-Grace is not to be compared with a Pharisee, yet this comparison is seemingly made repeatedly by the Grace-Only believers. One could get the wrong impression if they don't pay attention to how they phrase their arguments. Goats will respond that the Law was given only to reveal sin, and can now, for all practical purposes, be ignored. So why didn't Jesus ignore it?
The true meaning of "legalism" is the strict carrying out of the Law, to the letter. Is that wrong? Would God say, "Hey you, Mary, what is this I hear, you keeping my Law to the very letter; come give an account of yourself?" Didn't Jesus say that not one iota, not one comma, will be eradicated from the Law until all things are fulfilled? How legalistic of Jesus. Yes, legalism is right in good if defined as keeping legal. It's probably better to keep legal for the wrong reasons than to be altogether a lawbreaker. There is nothing to fear in keeping legal.
Yet the Faith-only crowd speaks against Jesus time and again when arguing that legalism is sinful. They say that we are not to give careful thought to Law, but rather are to believe in Jesus. But how can a person divorce the two? What are the Faith-only people trying to say? Are they misreading what Paul said on this matter? They don't seem to be saying that Faith is necessary along with legal conduct, but that no one should try to keep legal lest they spoil their faith by doing so. Paul almost said that, but not in the final analysis.
Grace-Only teaching is like the wide door to destruction, in my opinion. It's not the narrow way. For it is not the mere see-ers, speakers, teachers and watchers of the Word, but it's the doers of the Law who find the narrow gate. All the rest are goats with nasty dispositions toward the sheep.
I understand the concept wherein the Apostles wanted not to lay a heavy burden on the Gentiles who were coming to Christ, that the Mosaic laws relating to the Temple should not be placed upon their backs. But that wouldn't eradicate what Jesus said:
"Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men likewise shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven..."(Matthew 5:19).John goes on to say that "His commandments are not heavy" because we are born again in the Holy Spirit, Who helps us to overcome sin. In fact, in verse 4, the definition of "faith" is "overcoming the world." And "overcoming" can't exist without our working at it. So, salvation is by Faith-and-Overcoming. That is, in the phrase "faith in Christ" there is implied an overcoming of sin by the power of Christ. But if our faith is to merely believe in Jesus with our mind, then as James said, even the devil believes that.
"Increase our faith," the apostles once asked Jesus. And Jesus did not increase their power of faith at that time, that they might be like magicians doing powerful works. Instead, in effect he said, "Obey God as if it were your own personal business, concerned about the increase of the Kingdom, and not as your quota to merely receive your pay." It's a liberal paraphrase, I know, but it's the essence of the Lord's response. Only fleshy believers ask what they "hafta do" to receive salvation, but the Spirit makes us "wanna do." Our natures are changed by the indwelling Spirit so that we want to see a good world with good people doing good to one another. It's a Body of God standing up successfully to this challenge that will make Furnace Day a happy day, like when a cancer is cut out of the human race.
Romans 7 reads: "you were put to death to the law through the body of Christ" (v 4). So you see, the Law was not put to death, but we were put to death...our flesh, that is. Paul is speaking a figurative thing concerning a real thing, that Christ separated us from an aspect of the Law of God. That aspect is the PENALTY of the Law, not the Law itself. To put it another way, Paul is saying that we died and paid the penalty required of the Law because we joined Christ who was the one who paid the penalty. That is Grace. God was making salvation easy in this regard, even free.
When we die to the Law, it doesn't mean that the Law has been done away with. The Law always kills, but we were separated from that fate. Upon this separation, we are not abandoned in the wilderness or in a vacuum or even under the shadow of the executioner's hatchet. We were stolen from one dispensation and then attached to another. We were in prison and then set free to live in a beautiful house. We no longer obey the Mosaic Law as on tablets, as when criminals in jail read their books to pass the time, but we now live with the Mosaic Law written in our hearts, as per Jeremiah 31:33, and we recognize that the Holy Spirit in our hearts is that writing on our hearts.
Because we have the Holy Spirit in our hearts to help us, the New-Testament Law was made more stringent, as per the Lord's sermon on the mount in Matthew 5-7. Yet the goats tell us that the Law was done away with. In effect, Jesus said, "You have heard the Law of Moses, that it said such and such a good thing, well now I'm directing you to make it stringent upon yourselves; if you so much as hate a brother you're killing him." No problem at all, for His people will not hate their own family. But those that do will be rejected at the door to the House when they seek entrance. Jesus made the law more stringent in order to reject those who kept the Law of Moses with their feet but not with their hearts. The chief priests and Jews who hated His brothers will not enter the House.
Paul said, "the law is (S)piritual" (v 14). It is also holy (v 12). And if it's holy, we must keep it. We must not trash it, or view it as passé. Only the wrath of God that was inherent in the Law is to be done away with. Jesus' death did away with that Wrath for us that we might not be appointed to it. But obviously, the Wrath in the Law still applies to those who don't have Christ. If you haven't been killed by Christ, the Wrath still remains on you. Paul was saying that you need to be killed in order to be released from the Law's penalty. This is your personal sacrifice.
It's a real sacrifice, not the killing of your physical body, but your willing abandonment to the way you've been, and to an acceptance of life with God active inside you. You shouldn't want to rest until you feel / sense God's Spirit inside you. If you are serious about it, God will direct you through the transition, if you beg for Him to do so. I had to beg because I became a lousy person thanks much to the lousy friends I kept; others might do better and receive by merely asking. Other might receive without even asking, by just wishing/desiring.
We are to delight in the Law, says Romans 7:22, even while our flesh wars against it. We do not trash the Law just because our flesh doesn't like it. Ask the teenager whose jumpy testosterone can't enjoy his new car if it needs to be kept within the speed limit. Everything inside him screams to break the sound barrier. That's why God created women, to tame the wild young man. But not all woman conform to God so as to be useful. In my case, girls ruined me because I was a loverboy. I started to find girls who reduced me to a piece of junk. I woke up one day like a wreck at the scrap yard. Only one blinker worked, and God's eye caught sight of my SOS one dark cold night in the midst of all the steel. Otherwise, I would have been completely crushed. When God sees a ruin, he knows it's an opportunity to make a son.
What was Paul speaking about in particular when he says that the flesh wars against the Law? The sexual drive comes to mind first of all. That's the drive that wishes there were no Law of God to confine it. But like a super-charger sports car curving round the cliff sides without guard rails on the side of the road, a sex maniac who spurns the Law of God is bound to roll to his death. Paul must have been lucky because he said he did not inwardly burn. Or, God chose him due to that reason.
But Paul did have testosterone, enough to pave his own way to his own martyrdom like a crazy thrill seeker bent on cheating death. I sense that he loved to travel. I sense that he desired to be a leader. He comes off as a world-class man unafraid even of Caesar. He didn't like to be confined by Law. He wanted to break out of that mold, which is fine so long as one does better than merely satisfying the Law. "Going by the book" was too "slow" for Paul in his fast lane, so Paul found ways to excite his soul by serving God. The excitement and joys of building churches replaced his fleshy desires (perfect, just what God wanted), and yet he had some fleshy concerns that cropped out. God had to give him a thorn right in his center spot to jam his inclinations a little. I'm not laughing, because it hurts where I have my thorns when I laugh.
When in the end our lusty flesh has had many victories over our banged-up spirits, we have the Grace that replaces the Wrath and thereby Conquers death on our behalf. But only if we conform to the Law. Like Paul, we should loath going only "by the book," by which I mean to say merely satisfying the Law. We should fly higher, where God lives. You can find God in His workshop. That's right, He's working. Christians have the ability to conform to the Law and then do some work with God too. That's flying high.
Some teach that when Isaiah likens righteousness to filthy rags, we are always incapable of achieving righteousness. But just because we can't achieve perfect righteousness everytime doesn't mean there cannot exist a righteous person. The Bible clearly reveals righteous people...those who strive for righteousness even while they fail from time to time. They do not continue to sin as though married to it. They watch their steps in areas where they know they're fallible.
The sexual drive knows no stoppage until the old-age axe arrives. But what we do with it while it thrives is what matters. Fornication, going from one woman to another, is illegal in God's House. God protects the women in His House from predators by making a law on their behalf. Relieving oneself is a much better option for the Christian without a spouse, and it's very advisable not to apply hunting methods for sex. If converting the flesh nature to Godliness is the goal, then using the sex drive while showing love to a spouse must be made a fine art. There are takers (sadly) and there are givers; Christians should enjoy giving pleasure, not just because it's more enjoyable / rewarding for the giver, but because it doesn't reduce one to a fiend. Stealing is against the law. If you take without giving, it's like stealing. There are ways to express kindness and affection in nakedness and sex, which has the added bonus of keeping your spouse a human rather than creating a sex toy.
I can perhaps see why God might not like to have these comments here. The Bible never gets explicit on sexual-fulfillment advice, probably because people can handle this all on their own. But I'm not trying to give sexual advice as much as to say that, even in this area, giving is the Godly standard involved. I'm also wanting to say that, if you're trying to decide whether God is to be in your life but are worried that sexual pleasure is something He won't tolerate, then you should perhaps wonder at what He meant sex to be when it was created. Did God make it feel good because He doesn't want us to enjoy it?
Paul makes mention that sexual satisfaction is important, and even calls it the duty of a man to fulfill his wife. Personally, I wouldn't want my wife to demand it as a duty, as that seems to make me something of a serviceman, but I get the point: we need to be satisfied, and it veers on a danger zone not to be when married. Therefore, it's very important for married people to be desirable, for not allowing issues to separate them from common fellowship. For women, sexual satisfaction involves the real sense of being loved, and of course men appreciate that sense too. Surely, God intended sexuality to include that elements, something that demented pornographers don't care to consider. If one spouse becomes unattractive, physically or otherwise, I can see problems, and that's another evil that our Creator permitted when decreeing that the loveliness of youth should evolve into the horror of old age. The only good part is that we have a lot of time to accept and prepare for the shock. Imagine going fro a 20-year old face and body to that of an 80-year old in two mornings.
God allowed our genes to malfunction, spoiling things because He was sorely disappointed with man; He will not allow man to mock Him and get away with it while enjoying his life thoroughly.
There is a good point to be made here in the intimacy department. No one considers it work to give the partner pleasure, because the giver receives pleasure / reward in return. I can hear someone say, "not much in my case." It should be the same way in any other area of giving. We are really kissing and hugging others whenever we do a kind thing on their behalf. These deeds should not be considered burdensome because, when we partake in them as the givers, we secretly have the primary, leadership role with the most to receive. We get to enjoy it too. The receiver might not like someone coming onto their turf to do a good deed; it may be deemed a humiliating experience. But I can think of more difficult things in life to handle. Be hospitable. Good deeds for one another are opportunities to have fellowship. Open your house, open your heart. Let the giver give heartily. If it's not a good day for it, try to play along. Give thanks.
If you have Law-and-Faith, you will be a castle on the Rock. Jesus said it plainly: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law..." (Matthew 5:17). How can we then use Paul to contest against these words of God? Only by twisting Paul's meanings. Consider the following statement made by a pastor, C.H. Fisher, a post-tribulationist:
One might argue that there are some good things in the Law. That may be so, but the package deal that was given to Moses has been replaced with the indwelling of the Giver."Only "some good things" are in the Law? That "may" be so? Isn't that a wee bit shy of the reality? Mr. Fisher makes it sound as though there's a distinction between Law and the Holy Spirit of New-Testament times. He teaches that the Law of Moses has been done away with and replaced by the Holy Spirit. But look at what God has to say:
"But this is the [New] Covenant that I shall cut with the house of Israel...I will put my laws in their inward parts" (Jeremiah 31:33).It doesn't sound like a doing away of the Law to me. It sounds like a reinforcing of the Laws, a re-location to where it can be more effective and affective.
Wouldn't you know it, Fisher is a "full gospel" charismatic, teaching that they are a few notches above others in their spirituality, always looking down on others. Full-gospel-ites feel that they are the only ones who truly understand God...all others are legalistic, merely practicing Christianity in their flesh because they haven't got the extra indwelling of the Spirit. For placing themselves at the head, full-gospel-ites could be the last. And some won't even get in. Full-Gospel-ites say that being born again is not the same as receiving the full compliment of the Holy Spirit. They say that one must first be born again, then later must receive the Spirit's power to perform gifts. I don't read that in the Bible, and will not assume that some parts of Acts reveals it. It seems to me that this doctrine deteriorates the value of the true born-again experience while seeking to implant something else, perhaps even supplanting the initial experience with a false-prophet spirit. "Full Gospel" gives me the jitters, like Christians who think they have the spirit of prophecy when they don't, or like Christians who think they hear from God regularly when they don't.
Fisher writes: "Legalism goes back to putting flesh in charge of man’s salvation and ignores the work of Christ." Phooey! He's saying that some Christians are reverting or degenerating into Law Obedience, as if striving to obey the Law is somehow "of the flesh" and contrary to the work of the indwelling Spirit. Isn't that the very advice that the devil would give?
Striving to obey the Law is not a work of the flesh. Fisher needs to correctly interpret "works of the flesh." He's turning a Godly endeavor into a satanic one because the phrase is defined by the Bible on par with works of the devil. He continues: "Legalism keeps us struggling in our flesh, striving to obey the Law, wrestling needlessly with what we are supposed to be dead to." It is one thing if one were to teach that attempting to obey the Law without Christ's forgiveness is a vanity. It is also acceptable to argue, as does the apostle Paul, that attempting to obey the Law without the Spirit will be frustration. But Fisher is saying much more.
I don't care how he frames it, Fisher is asserting that we're not supposed to try to obey the Law. What insanity is that? God is trying to have us obey the Law by placing the Spirit within us, and then it's supposed to be a work of the flesh if we try too? Can't we try along with God? Are we to be dumb dolls with wind-up strings, dead in action unless God does the entire work or speaks the words through us?
How is it a work of the flesh for a Christian judge to discern and dispense true justice all on his lonesome? How is it a work of the flesh for a Christian politician do treat the public fairly all on his lonesome? How is it a work of the flesh for a Christian doctor to use wisdom for saving an accident victim all on his lonesome, all on his own initiative? How is any good deed an act of the flesh in contrast / contradiction with an act prompted by the Spirit of God? What insanity is that, Mr. Fisher? How is choosing not to commit adultery when tempted an act of the flesh? I don't care whether it's a pagan or a Christian making such a choice, it can never be deemed a work of the flesh. Give your head a shake, Mr. Fisher, and please leave the teacher's pulpit for the sake of your listeners.
It's one thing to start an entire Christian organization on flesh power that God does not support, and quite another thing to make the right choices, day in and day out, because you've learned the laws and thinking of God. If a child honors his mother and father because he heard the Ten Commandments, and if he does so all on his lonesome without the prompting of God, will God withhold His admiration? Will God frown on the child because it's a work of the flesh? When Fisher says, "Legalism keeps us struggling in our flesh, striving to obey the Law, wrestling needlessly with what we are supposed to be dead to," he means to make us think that trying to make the right decision is destructive to us.
"Poor child" that needs to struggle trying to honor his parents. No, not "poor child," but that's exactly what God wants to see, a struggle, if that's what it takes.
Not everyone struggles at all times when making the Godly choices. Sometimes the right choice comes easy and naturally. When we grow in the Word, we make the right choices more often. We can actually do this on our own initiatives. The Spirit is there to remind us of what the right choice is if it appears that we are about to make the wrong choice. The Spirit may prompt us to do the right thing if we neglect to do it. The Spirit may reprimand us later for doing what we should not have done.
When Jesus said, "Apart from me you can do nothing," he was speaking no doubt to his Apostles about church building. We can't build churches or evangelize on our own power and please God because we are then trampling in His turf. It's God who converts people. The Church belongs to Him. He is responsible for growing the church, and it has to be done his way. Each member of the Church is taught by God. If it's done on human effort alone, it's not going to amount to anything in God's economy. It may amount to something in this world, but it's "nothing' so far as God is concerned.
When a Christian decides to do the right thing all on personal initiative, isn't the Spirit there assisting and protecting? What does the term "disciple" imply if not a "disciplined" obedience, and a "struggling" to obey, if that's what it takes? Is a man Spiritual only if he cruises through the Christian life? If he strives to conform, is he less than Spiritual?
I don't know what comes to your mind with the term, "strive," but let it not be synonymous with "hairy" or "frantic" or "nervy" or even "uncomfortable." What I mean by the term is mean that we take life's issues to task. When we are at work and know that God wants us to work for the boss like we were working for self, we take it to task. We don't just wait for God to pull our doll string so that we automatically comply. We apply ourselves because we've been taught by God. He teaches, we act. He prompts, we act. He commands, we act. If it hurts to do the right thing, all the better for constructing a better person. Yet Mr. Fisher says that a struggle to obey is destructive.
Anyone who attempts to conform to God's will, even with the Spirit within, will run straight into the flesh and thereby find frustration, but isn't that the very fight of faith that we are called to engage? Put to death the flesh, not the Law. Obey the law, not the flesh. The flesh is contrary to the Law. But to say that attempting to obey the Law is a fleshy operation is exactly what the devil would teach.
Fisher again: "the Holy Spirit is the law of God written in our hearts and minds." Then he says, "Please read all the scriptures concerning law in the New Testament and you will easily see that the Mosaic Law was fulfilled, done away with, made obsolete..." Whoa, devil, is that you speaking?
It was for people like Mr. Fisher that Jesus said the Law would not be done away with until all things are fulfilled. If he thinks that point in time was at the Resurrection, then the devil has come to us in sheep's clothing. It's not as though Mr. Fisher doesn't have access to a Bible. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said that the Law and the Prophetic books are to remain until sky and earth disappear. But even if Jesus didn't say this, how can Mr. Fisher admit that Jesus fulfilled it, yet it is sinful for us to fulfill it too. How can he on the one hand accept the need for Jesus to fulfill the Law, yet render that same Law obsolete during the time that we become Christians?
When the Temple curtain was ripped at the Crucifixion, it was not a sign from God that the Law was being abolished, but rather that the Old Covenant was abolished. The Law was retained, and fused into a New Covenant with the Blood of the Lamb. The Old Covenant was a deal: I'll be your Almighty Father. Obey My Law, or else I'll cease to be your Almighty Father and turn into your Almighty Enemy. The New Covenant is a second, better chance: I'll Be your Father. Obey My Law with Jesus in your heart and mind, or I'll spit you out of my mouth into the place prepared for the devil and his angels.
When Jesus said in Matthew 22:40 that all the Law hangs on two commandments, wasn't he referring to, and advocating obedience to, the Mosaic Law?
When the Old Covenant was done away with at the Crucifixion, the Temple duties and sacrifices were done away with. If Paul or some other Apostle ever said that Christians are not to regard the Law, it was to such things as that. As we know, Paul railed against forceful circumcision. Peter taught that it's fine to eat what was deemed unclean under the Old Covenant. There is no blatant direction in the New Testament to keep the Sabbath or the other Holy Days involving the temple...though I personally do no work on the seventh day (if it's for making income) because I like that law. I like God's laws. I only wish that life were not so burdensome due to worldly demands. Sometimes I say some nasty words in my most frustrating moments. They are my bending moments, usually taking place in the early part of the day when I'm not warmed-up yet to take on difficult tasks. I also complain about the nasty way that the world around me has made its insane choices; I am not a better man because of it.
The human environment that we live in determines how we practice Godliness. God is not happy with the way that our society rubs Christians the wrong way, or makes them less than what they could be in Christian practice. This is a battle in itself, to ignore the world as anything to adopt or conform to, and to sail on in God's will anyway. This is a great deed.
Another deed toward our neighbor, even though we haven't painted the windows of someone incapable, is to make up our minds not to do any evil to any neighbor. Or, at work, we make up our minds not to be devious, spiteful, coldhearted, masked, livid, etc. These are works of the flesh. If we make up our minds not to use such measures on others, we have been successful in good deeds. But don't stop there. Let's make up our minds to be a positive factor for others as we brush lives with them, as much as we find the openings to do so. With age in Christ, this gets easier and better-applied. Don't be jolted if at first you find it difficult. None of us are super Christians until we've been conditioned. We may hope to be super by the time our hair goes grey, but it's doubtful. It's the job of the sons of the devil to roughen up the smooth days that we desire, because they know we think we are better than them. And we are better, in the Godly department. We have a serious problem if we are not.
I understand why you may not want to reveal to certain persons that your are a Christian, because these types seem prone to ruining your days once they know who you are. I know what it's like to work in the midst of the most degrading, corrosive workmen. I guarantee you, I don't want to be there, no matter that they need correction. I feel as though these types would mock at correction, and then persecute me with their fleshy works applied impishly against me.
When we make up our minds to be sincere, we are doing a good deed, for sincerity rubs off on others. Whether or not they know we are Christians, we can rub off on them as they can rub off on us. We keep the world from becoming savage, though they may not recognize it or give us credit for it. When we make up our minds to be considerate and understanding, we are the spice of the earth. We kill spiritual disease, or at least keep it from growing to maximum proportions. This is what God came to do within us, to make us better than those in the world. The irony is that, as Paul predicted, the people of the world in the end times would take on a form of godliness yet denying the power of God in their lives. At times, these people seem to be better Christians than Christians. But that can only be true on a Christian's bad day / moment. We do have them, and our enemies are sure to point them out.
Don't let charismatics use Paul's words in 2 Timothy 3 to make you think that he was speaking about Christians who don't "prophecy" or "heal" as they do. The power of God that Paul was speaking of does not appear to mean such things. Paul was not speaking on Christians who have a form of godliness yet deny His powers of prophecy, because in the first couple of verses (of chapter three), he is clearly speaking on the general condition of the end-time world, listing a host of fleshy attitudes that the masses would hold dear to. And Paul says that we should turn away from them. As James says, don't be stained by them.
Recognize them, greet them, play your part with them because they work with you, give them water if they are thirsty (so to speak) or ask for it, but don't allow yourself to become like them. It's your good deed for God to resist them. And be proud of goodness and Godliness, so that the Light of your day is not extinguished, as their god would like it to be, but of course don't walk proud or snotty. Be proud on the inside of the magnificent power that you have from God to escape their flesh-governed ways.
One of the reasons that I appreciated becoming self-employed was to get away from the coarse / disheartening minds in my line of work. I praise God that two of my sons have jobs today with Christian owners. If the people at your workplace are extinguishing the Light of your days, another job may be a good idea. Count the cost to your spiritual condition, which means much more than the extra money that your job may be providing as compared to another job.
"Striving" to serve God doesn't mean you need to be in a crisis mode. It means to learn and apply God's principles in various situations. Christians who rail against "legalism" will use "striving to adopt God's principles" as a phrase without a problem, yet they won't use "Gods Law." Just to let you know, I am ashamed of the way I've handled all sorts of situations. When compared to yours, they might not look so bad. But when compared to the way Jesus would handle things, I haven't always done well. Jesus is the Target. We strive to hit the center. Is that legalism? Do we fall from Grace when we strive to obey Jesus? Is it a work of the flesh if we apply ourselves in this way?
Before ending here, the delight of forgiveness needs to be addressed. The lightening of our loads by the forgiveness is a great power that we have access to and should utilize. When prosperity gospel-ites tell us that we have free access to the promises of God, they often make us think it has to do with financial prosperity or something like it. No, that would be more a feeding of the flesh. The gifts of God start with the lightening of our guilty-ridden minds and souls. God has determined to forget / overlook our sins, unless we are in the process of sinning. I have no idea how he handles it, whether it's difficult or easy on Him, but that's the message of the Apostles. His work for us is to forgive, and I doubt that it's always easy. If we apply ourselves to Him, then of course we make it easier on Him. This is just logic; God has feelings that we understand, so treat Him like you understand His feelings.
The Holy Spirit within stirs at times in such a way as to make us feel accepted, guiltless. You will feel this stirring within when you've decided to apply yourself to the Words of Jesus. I have sensed it hundreds of times during thoughts on Him. It comes at any time by complete surprise. So far as I can recall, never once has the Spirit spoken to me during these episodes with words that I can hear, yet He speaks in another way, by conveying a sense of love, acceptance and/or pleasure that is easily recognized. It's like a taste of Heaven, like the promise of things to come.
Not all who teach Grace-Only are goats or wolves, just as not all who teach pre-trib are goats or wolves. But the goats will gravitate both toward Grace-Only and Pre-Trib. Some sheep are among the goats because the goats have an appearance of proper, educated Christianity. Some sheep wrongly teach and practice the same errors, therefore. It's not for me to judge who the sheep and goats are, but goats can be gleaned by their thinking only for themselves, wherefore when it comes to church, goats are bound to seek positions of honor, and to ignore the sheep while raising other goats to high positions. But sheep must be concerned with their own affairs too, so we can't judge one as a goat just because we see a sheep looking out for self.
As for reward in Heaven, eternal life is great enough, but of course the quality of that life is what matters. Some get more reward than others because they've done more good deeds. But rewards are not from good deeds alone, or for working the works of God alone, because maintaining Faith is itself a struggle at times, when evil spirits invade our spaces. If I read the Bible right, the quality of the Faith we keep here determines the quality of our personal eternities. I'm not at all in-the-know on how that works on the practical level. I can't even begin to tell you what the New Creation will be like. If you fuss over this creation, then you'll rave about the next one. You don't want to miss out. Be there.
NEXT UPDATEEspecially for new or confused readers
MYTH CODES 101
shows where I'm coming from.For serious investigators:
How to Work with Bloodline TopicsHere's what I did when I had spare time on my hands:
Ladon Gog and the Hebrew RoseOn this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence -- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find -- that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents
