Daily Archives: January 5, 2020

January—5 The Poor Man’s Evening Portion

And Melchisedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.—Genesis 14:18.

Was it not in the evening of the day, when Abraham, returning from the slaughter of the kings, met this illustrious person? And will Jesus, my Melchisedek, meet and bless me in the evening of this day, after my return from conflicts, trials, and exercises? I would fain indulge the sweet thought. Surely this Melchisedek could be no other than Jesus. And did he love his people then—and doth he not love them now? Did Jesus witness their battles, and come forth and refresh them? And is he not Jesus still? Sit down, my soul, and attend to what the Holy Ghost saith of this Melchisedek; and see whether, through his teaching, thou canst make no discoveries of Jesus. Was this Melchisedek priest of the most high God? And who but the Son of God was ever sworn into this office with an oath? Was Melchisedek a priest for ever? Who but Jesus was this? Had Melchisedek neither beginning of days nor end of life? And who but Jesus is the first and the last? Was Melchisedek without father, without mother? And who of Jesus shall declare his generation? Did Melchisedek bless the great father of the faithful? And hath not God the Father sent his Son to bless us, in turning away every one of us from our iniquities? Did the king of Salem bring forth bread and wine, to refresh the Patriarch and his people? And doth not our King of righteousness bring forth at his supper the same, as memorials of his love? yea, his own precious body, which is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed. Precious Jesus, thou great Melchisedek! bring forth anew, this night, these tokens of thy love. Make thyself known to me in breaking of bread and prayer. And whilst thou art imparting to me most blessed views of thyself, give me to apprehend and know thee, and richly enjoy thy soul-strengthening, soul-comforting presence. And oh! for grace from thee, Lord, and the sweet influences of thine Holy Spirit; that, like the Patriarch Abraham, I may give thee tithes of all I possess! It is true, I have nothing, and am nothing; yea, in myself, am worse than nothing. But of thine own would I give thee. Like the poor widow in the gospel, I would cast all my living into thy treasury. The two mites, which make a farthing, my soul and body, do I give unto thee. And those are both thine, by creation, by gift, by purchase, and by the conquest of thy grace. Take, therefore, all; and enable me to present my soul and body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto the Lord, which is my reasonable service.[1]


[1] Hawker, R. (1845). The Poor Man’s Evening Portion (A New Edition, pp. 6–7). Philadelphia: Thomas Wardle.

January 5 Streams in the Desert

Lord, there is none beside thee to help.” (2 Chron. 14:11, R. V.)

REMIND God of His entire responsibility. “There is none beside thee to help.” The odds against Asa were enormous. There was a million of men in arms against him, besides three hundred chariots. It seemed impossible to hold his own against that vast multitude. There were no allies who would come to his help; his only hope, therefore, was in God. It may be that your difficulties have been allowed to come to so alarming a pitch that you may be compelled to renounce all creature aid, to which in lesser trials you have had recourse, and cast yourself back on your Almighty Friend.

Put God between yourself and the foe. To Asa’s faith, Jehovah seemed to stand between the might of Zerah and himself, as one who had no strength. Nor was he mistaken. We are told that the Ethiopians were destroyed before the Lord and before His host, as though celestial combatants flung themselves against the foe in Israel’s behalf, and put the large host to rout, so that Israel had only to follow up and gather the spoil. Our God is Jehovah of hosts, who can summon unexpected reinforcements at any moment to aid His people. Believe that He is there between you and your difficulty, and what baffles you will flee before Him, as clouds before the gale.—F. B. Meyer.

“When nothing whereon to lean remains,

When strongholds crumble to dust;

When nothing is sure but that God still reigns,

That is just the time to trust.

“’Tis better to walk by faith than sight,

In this path of yours and mine;

And the pitch-black night, when there’s no outer light

Is the time for faith to shine.”

Abraham believed God, and said to sight, “Stand back!” and to the laws of nature, “Hold your peace!” and to a misgiving heart, “Silence, thou lying tempter!” He believed God.—Joseph Parker.[1]


[1] Cowman, L. B. (1925). Streams in the Desert (pp. 5–6). Los Angeles, CA: The Oriental Missionary Society.

January 5th The D. L. Moody Year Book

He came unto His own, and His own received Him not, but as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sans of God.—John 1:11, 12.

HIM—mark you—not a dogma, not a creed, not a myth, but a person![1]


[1] Moody, D. L. (1900). The D. L. Moody Year Book: A Living Daily Message from the Words of D. L. Moody. (E. M. Fitt, Ed.) (p. 10). East Northfield, MA: The Bookstore.

Sunday Talks: Secretary Mike Pompeo -vs- The Media… — The Last Refuge

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appeared on Fox News, CBS, NBC and ABC to discuss the killing of Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani and the current status with Iran.  Here’s the roundup:

CBS Margaret Brennan clutches her pearls and sits aghast at the audacity of the United States to kill a terrorist on foreign soil: “what right do you have” she condescendingly snarls, positioning herself as more experienced in the world than Secretary Pompeo.


ABC George Stephanopoulos is shocked, s.h.o.c.k.e.d, that U.S. policy would mean Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani could be killed.


Fox News Chris Wallace worries “what if Iran responds”? What happens if we end up fighting with Iran? D’oh. Iran has been at war against us for decades.


via Sunday Talks: Secretary Mike Pompeo -vs- The Media… — The Last Refuge

Obama stopped Israel from killing Soleimani in 2015, threatened to shoot down IAF strike on Iran | Jihad Watch

Just whose side was this man on? Yes, of course, he was just trying to avoid a costly war with Iran. That’s why he gave the mullahs billions that they used to finance jihad terrorist groups.

“Report: Obama Administration Stopped Israel From Assassinating Soleimani in 2015,” by Tyler O’Neil, PJ Media, January 3, 2020:

When President Donald Trump gave the order to kill Iran’s Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani, he not only made an arguably proportionate response to the invasion of the U.S. Embassy this week but he also reversed a policy of the Obama administration. According to a report from 2018, Israel was “on the verge” of assassinating Soleimani in 2015, but Obama’s officials foiled the plan. In fact, they reached out to Iran with news of Israel’s plans.

The Trump administration, on the other hand, gave Israel a green light to assassinate Soleimani, according to a January 1, 2018 report from the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida. The paper quoted a source in Jerusalem as saying that “there is an American-Israeli agreement” that Soleimani is a “threat to the two countries’ interests in the region.” According to HaaretzAl-Jarida is generally assumed to be a platform for the Israeli government to disseminate its message to other Middle Eastern governments.

According to the report, the agreement between Israel and the U.S. came three years after Washington thwarted an Israeli attempt to kill the Iranian general.

“The report says Israel was ‘on the verge’ of assassinating Soleimani three years ago, near Damascus, but the United States warned the Iranian leadership of the plan, revealing that Israel was closely tracking the Iranian general,” Haaretz reported.

The incident “sparked a sharp disagreement between the Israeli and American security and intelligence apparatuses regarding the issue.” That sounds like an understatement.

President Barack Obama frequently snubbed Israel, considered by many to be America’s best ally in the Middle East. Yet the news that the Obama’s administration prevented Israel from assassinating the Quds Force leader seems particularly significant, since the Obama administration also kept a list of approximately 500 American soldiers who were murdered by Iranian IEDs. Since the Quds Force spearheads Iran’s operations outside the Islamic Republic, Soleimani would arguably be responsible for all of those deaths.

When Trump finally gave the order to kill the Quds Force leader, it came after multiple attacks against Americans and American facilities in Iraq — attacks that arguably traced back to Soleimani himself….

There is much more. Read the rest here.

We had this news back in 2015. “‘Obama Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike,’” by Mark Langfan, Israel National News, January 3, 2015:

The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

Following Obama’s threat, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly forced to abort the planned Iran attack.

According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back.

The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

Al-Jarida quoted “well-placed” sources as saying that Netanyahu, along with Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon, and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, had decided to carry out airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear program after consultations with top security commanders.

According to the report, “Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army’s chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran’s nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel’s security.”

The sources added that Gantz and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets reportedly even carried out experimental flights in Iran’s airspace after they managed to break through radars.

Brzezinski’s idea

Former US diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for Obama in 2008, called on him to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to former President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast.

“We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.’”…

Source: Obama stopped Israel from killing Soleimani in 2015, threatened to shoot down IAF strike on Iran

Britain Backs Trump on Iran, Deploys Royal Navy to Persian Gulf

The United Kingdom defended the actions of the Trump administration in Iran, saying the United States is “entitled to defend itself” against Iranian aggression and deploying the Royal Navy to the Persian Gulf to protect shipping vessels flying the British

Source: Britain Backs Trump on Iran, Deploys Royal Navy to Persian Gulf

Pompeo: U.S. would have been ‘culpably negligent’ if Soleimani left alive

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the U.S. airstrike in Baghdad killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, against criticism from Democrats, while backing up President Trump’s threat that more action would come if Iran retailiates against.

Source: Pompeo: U.S. would have been ‘culpably negligent’ if Soleimani left alive

Christians Beheaded for Christmas, The West Goes Back to Sleep | Gatestone Institute

  • How much bigger and more extended must this war on Christians become before the West considers it a “genocide” and acts to prevent it?
  • The day after Christians were beheaded in Nigeria, Pope Francis admonished Western society. About beheaded Christians? No. “Put down your phones, talk during meals”, the Pope said. He did not speak a single word about the horrific execution of his Christian brothers and sisters. A few days before that, Pope Francis hung a cross encircled by a life jacket in memory of migrants who lost their lives in the Mediterranean Sea. He did not commemorate the lives of Christians killed by Islamic extremists with even a mention.
  • German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that her priority will be fighting climate change. She did not mention persecuted Christians. Meanwhile The Economist wrote that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a passionate defender of persecuted Christians, politically “exploits” the issue.
  • “The United Nations has held inquiries and focuses its anger on Israel for defending itself against that same terrorist organization [Hamas]. But the barbarous slaughter of thousands upon thousands of Christians is met with relative indifference”. — Ambassador Ronald S. Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress, The New York Times, August 19, 2014.

Source: Christians Beheaded for Christmas, The West Goes Back to Sleep

Gov. Huckabee reacts to Dems slamming Trump for threats against Iran: ‘Why can’t the left appreciate what this president has done?’

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee reacted on Sunday to Democrats slamming President Trump for threats against Iran asking, “Why can’t the left appreciate what this president has done?”

Source: Gov. Huckabee reacts to Dems slamming Trump for threats against Iran: ‘Why can’t the left appreciate what this president has done?’

Iran Puts an $80million Bounty on Trump’s Head, Threatens to Attack the White House and Announce They Will No Longer Abide by the 2015 Nuclear Deal After Top Military Leader Called the President a ‘terrorist in a Suit’ — BCNN1 – Black Christian News Network

Iran has placed an $80million bounty on Donald Trump’s head and threatened to attack the White House in response to the president’s warning that any strike on American interests in the region will bring massive retaliation.

An organizer for a funeral procession for General Qassem Soleimani called on all Iranians to donate $1 each ‘in order to gather an $80million bounty on President Trump’s head’.

The organizer made the remarks during the procession in Mashad.

Iran has also announced it they will no longer abide by any of the limits of its 2015 nuclear deal.

A statement issued by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s administration said the country will not observe limitations on its enrichment, the amount of stockpiled enriched uranium as well as research and development in its nuclear activities.

It did not elaborate on what levels it would immediately reach in its program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations watchdog observing Iran’s program, could not be immediately reach for comment.

Earlier on Sunday, the Iraqi parliament voted for U.S. troops to be expelled from the country. The vote will ‘obligate the government to work towards ending the presence of all foreign troops on Iraqi soil,’ the country’s media office stated.

As tensions escalate after Soleimani’s death, Iranian MP Abolfazl Abutorabi threatened to launch an attack on American soil in retaliation.

‘We can attack the White House itself, we can respond to them on the American soil. We have the power, and God willing we will respond in an appropriate time,’ Abutorabi said, according to the Iranian Labour News Agency.

Abutorabi went on to say that ‘this is a declaration of war, which means if you hesitate you lose’.

‘When someone declares war do you want to respond to the bullets with flowers? They will shoot you in the head,’ he added.

Abutorabi’s threat was made during an open session of parliament in Tehran, Iran, on Sunday, and just days after Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, the architect of Tehran’s overseas clandestine and military operations as head of the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force, was killed on Friday in a US drone strike on his convoy at Baghdad airport.

Click here to read more.
Source: Daily Mail

via Iran Puts an $80million Bounty on Trump’s Head, Threatens to Attack the White House and Announce They Will No Longer Abide by the 2015 Nuclear Deal After Top Military Leader Called the President a ‘terrorist in a Suit’ — BCNN1 – Black Christian News Network

David Petraeus: Eliminating Qasem Soleimani More Significant than Killing Bin Laden or Al-Baghdadi

Former General David Petraeus described President Donald Trump’s decision to eliminate Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad as the most significant action against terrorism in the Middle East.

Source: David Petraeus: Eliminating Qasem Soleimani More Significant than Killing Bin Laden or Al-Baghdadi

Obama DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson: Trump Had Constitutional and Domestic Legal Authority to Take Out Soleimani — The Gateway Pundit

Former Obama Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson spoke approvingly on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday about President Trump’s authorization of a deadly U.S. drone-fired missile attack against Iran Quds Force leader Major General Qassem Soleimani as he arrived at the Baghdad airport early Friday morning. Johnson, who also served as former general counsel for the Pentagon, was interviewed by Chuck Todd.

Johnson said, “If you believe everything that our government is saying about General Soleimani, he was a lawful military objective, and the president, under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without an additional congressional authorization. Whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military objective.”

A video clip was posted by the Trump campaign, as the rest of the media has so far ignored Johnson’s comments on Meet the Press.

Transcript via Meet the Press:


Jeh, before you were Homeland Security Secretary, you were counselor at the Defense Department.




So explain for viewers, why does Mike Pompeo keep saying terrorist? There is a legal reason he keeps saying the word terrorist, isn’t there?


No, not necessarily. If you believe everything that our government is saying about General Soleimani, he was a lawful military objective, and the president, under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without an additional congressional authorization. Whether he was a terrorist or a general in a military force that was engaged in armed attacks against our people, he was a lawful military objective. But that’s not the only question here. For a very long time, the Bush administration, the Obama administration, had been engaged in what we refer to now as shadow warfare with the Iranian government. And last Thursday night was what we refer to as a decapitation strike, where we’ve taken out a very high profile member of the Iranian government. That is a provocative, in your face act, where you kill a senior member of the Iranian government and you say, “Yes, I did it.” And I hope that this administration has carefully considered the second and third order of effects of that one very plain second order effect, which any foreign officer could predict is the reaction in Iraq. With the growing Shia political influence in that country —




— we face the very real prospect that the Iraqi government will want us out of that country.

Johnson also spoke about a new DHS advisory:

CHUCK TODD: Well, we know what happened the last time. Jeh Johnson, very quickly, your former department put out a very alarming alert last night.

JEH JOHNSON: It was very candid.

CHUCK TODD: Very candid. The Iranians ability to cyber-attack us, could they — could they temporarily cripple cities?

JEH JOHNSON: We have to prepare for that very distinct possibility. The National Threat Advisory put out last night said that the Iranian government could strike with little or no notice, on a moment’s notice, and that Hezbollah has demonstrated the capability and intent to strike the homeland. That’s a very candid statement.

Johnson made similar comments about the President’s lawful authority to strike Soleiman (apparently off camera) to CBS Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan who quoted him in an interview Sunday morning with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT):

SEN. MURPHY: Well, I don’t know any other way to describe it. This was the intentional execution of a high level official in a sovereign nation. Qassem Soleimani is an evil man. He has absolutely ordered the murder of hundreds of Americans. But he is a high level representative of a foreign government, a foreign government with a military that could- that could strike at American civilians and American service people. The question is, why didn’t the administration look at other means to try to stop this attack from happening? Reporting suggests that his own military leaders were shocked that the president chose an assassination versus more targeted strikes against other Iranian or Iranian proxy assets in the region.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. Which is why I thought it was notable when the secretary said that all cabinet members had agreed and top national security advisers. I want to ask you, because you- you’ve been critical of whether this was legal for the president to do this and specifically this authorization of military force debate. I spoke with the former Obama administration, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson. I’m sure you know him.


MARGARET BRENNAN: He used to be general counsel at the Pentagon. And he said this: “Direct engagement of a senior military official of another nation’s harder to justify under the AUMF,” which is your part of your argument. “But having said that, under existing Office of Legal Counsel opinions, it’s plain the president had constitutional authority to use lethal force against General Soleimani as vital national interests were implicated. Therefore, no congressional authorization was required.” That’s the former Pentagon lawyer, a Democrat. Why is he wrong?

SEN. MURPHY: So in this case, the president has the burden of explaining to the American public and to Congress why the strike against Qassem Soleimani was necessary to prevent future attacks against the United States. There is a general understanding that to prevent future attacks, imminent attacks, you can take action without Congress. The contention here is that by assassinating a high level Iranian official, that you are actually going to inspire and create more attacks against the United States not actually prevent those attacks. And so that–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But so they could argue though that–

SEN. MURPHY: –that’s the burden of proof that he has…

Johnson served as secretary of Homeland Security from December 2013 to January 2017, appointed by President Obama, who had previously appointed Johnson to be General Counsel for the Department of Defense where he served from February 2009 to December 2012.

via Obama DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson: Trump Had Constitutional and Domestic Legal Authority to Take Out Soleimani — The Gateway Pundit

Donald Trump launches evangelical coalition as he defends Iran decision

President Donald Trump launched his “Evangelicals for Trump” coalition on Friday night as he defended the US killing of Iran’s top military leader, Qasem Soleimani, in the face of strong criticism.

Source: Donald Trump launches evangelical coalition as he defends Iran decision

How Long Will It Take For The US To Collapse? | ZeroHedge

Article Image
https://www.zerohedge.com, by Brandon Smith

Modern day Americans have never experienced this type of event, only peripheral crises and crashes. Thanks to Hollywood, many in the public are under the delusion that a collapse is an overnight affair. They think that such a thing is impossible in their lifetimes, and if it did happen, it would happen as it does in the movies – They would simply wake up one morning and find the world on fire. Historically speaking, this is not how it works. The collapse of an empire is a process, not an event.

This is not to say that there are not moments of shock and awe; there certainly are. As we witnessed during the Great Depression, or in 2008, the system can only be propped up artificially for so long before the bubble pops. In past instances of central bank intervention, the window for manipulation is around ten years between events, give or take a couple of years. For the average person, a decade might seem like a long time. For the banking elites behind the degradation of our society and economy, a decade is a blink of an eye.

In the meantime, danger signals abound as those analysts aware of the situation try to warn the populace of the underlying decay of the system and where it will inevitably lead. Economists like Ludwig Von Mises foresaw the collapse of the German Mark and predicted the Great Depression; almost no one listened until it was too late. Multiple alternative economists predicted the credit crisis and derivatives crash of 2008; and almost no one listened until it was too late. People refused to listen because their normalcy bias took control of their ability to reason and accept the facts in front of them.

Secretary of State Pompeo: President Trump is Correcting for Obama’s “Appeasement of Iran” (VIDEO) — The Gateway Pundit

Secretary of Sate Mike Pompeo joined George Stephanopolous on Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” to discuss the current situation with Iran.

On Friday morning the United States killed General Qassim Soleimani, a top commander of Iran’s al-Quds Force, in an airstrike at Baghdad’s International Airport. The strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces. Seven people were reportedly killed in the airstrike.

The Iranians are threatening retaliation against the United States following the death of their terror leader.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Stephanopoulos that President Trump is correcting for Barack Obama’s years of appeasement with Iran.

Secretary Pompeo:  This is a regime that has been acting against America for an awfully long time and we are suffering from eight years of neglect.  We’re trying to push it back.  We’re trying to contain it.  We’re developing a strategy.  There’s a diplomatic strategy.  There’s an economic strategy.  You’ve now seen some of the military components of that strategy.  We’re trying to correct for what was the Obama administrations appeasement of Iran.

Of course, Pompeo is absolutely correct.


via Secretary of State Pompeo: President Trump is Correcting for Obama’s “Appeasement of Iran” (VIDEO) — The Gateway Pundit

Governor Huckabee on Soleimani Strike: Can You Imagine Telling Adam Schiff in Advance? He would have held a Press Conference! (VIDEO) — The Gateway Pundit

Former Governor Mike Huckabee joined FOX and Friends on Sunday morning to discuss the death of Iranian al-Quds leader Qassam Soleimani in Baghdad.

The US targeted and killed Soleimani while he was leaving the Baghdad airport early in the morning on Friday.


Democrats were outraged that they were not told about the mission prior to the strike.

Governor Huckabee tore into the current crop of Democrats in Congress.

Governor Huckabee: When Barack Obama took out Osama bin Laden we all celebrated, Republican, Democrat. It was an American celebration to get rid of this guy behind 9-11… Well, Nancy Pelosi and all of the Democrats were whining because they didn’t get notified. Can you have seen telling Adam Schiff in advance? He would have held a press conference and even given the coordinates of where the attack was going to take place. These people aren’t trustworthy. More than that, he did notify them in the 48 hours that was required.

Via FOX and Friends.


via Governor Huckabee on Soleimani Strike: Can You Imagine Telling Adam Schiff in Advance? He would have held a Press Conference! (VIDEO) — The Gateway Pundit

Key Words: Lindsey Graham slams Trump critics in Fox News interview: Kaepernick is ‘a racist,’ and AOC ‘doesn’t know anything’

Sen. Lindsey Graham didn’t hold back in a Fox News interview on Sunday when asked about two high-profile Trump critics who recently sounded off against the president’s move to take out Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani.

Source: Key Words: Lindsey Graham slams Trump critics in Fox News interview: Kaepernick is ‘a racist,’ and AOC ‘doesn’t know anything’

5 Jan 2020 – Rapture Ready News

Canada’s recent, though rare, vote against Israel at UN sparks concern in Jewish circles
Aside from the United States, Canada has been one of Israel’s most stalwart allies on the international stage, often voting against one-sided resolutions targeting the Jewish state. However, a number of recent votes by Canada at the United Nations have led to growing concern that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may be shifting towards a more critical stance on Israel.

A First: Jesus Film in Sign Language Will Reach 70 Million with Gospel
The estimated 70 million deaf people around the world who communicate by signing could have a Jesus Film in their own heart language within several years thanks to a crowdfunded project by Deaf Missions and the Jesus Film Project.

Kohler put Alexa in your showerhead and gave your toilet an app
Are you ready for the brave new world of Digital Showering? Kohler certainly hopes so, the bathroom company continuing its geek-upgrade with a new showerhead with Amazon Alexa baked in, a smarter toilet with touch-free flush, and a shower system that looks more like a Star Trek prop. Getting wet has never been so exciting.

42.4M babies killed by abortion in 2019; here’s what’s ahead for US abortion laws in 2020
In 2019, around 42.4 million pregnancies ended in abortion worldwide. According to Worldometers, which tabulates global statistics on abortion procedures based on the most current available figures from the World Health Organization, 40 to 50 million abortions are performed annually worldwide.

More than 3,000 cases of Ebola in DRC, 2,231 dead
More than 3,000 cases of Ebola have been recorded in the Democratic Republic of Congo where the hemorrhagic fever epidemic has already killed more than two thousand people since August 2018, the health authorities stated on Sunday.

Trump tells evangelicals, ‘We have God on our side’ for 2020 election; hails end of Soleimani’s ‘bloody rampage’
President Trump told thousands of cheering evangelical Christians in Florida on Friday that he believes “we have God on our side” as he kicks off what he plans will be his re-election year.

Bernie Sanders announced a new plan so anti-Israel it will leave you fuming with anger
The Democrat Party continues to prove how much they hate the state of Israel. Politicians like Ilhan Omar are pushing policies that would destroy them. And Bernie Sanders just announced a new plan so anti-Israel it will leave you fuming with anger.

Archbishop of Sydney appeals for prayer after weeks of devastating fires in Australia
With fires continuing to ravage parts of Australia, the Archbishop of Sydney has issued an urgent appeal for prayer.

Flashback: Democrat Senators Took Money from Iran Lobby Before Vote on Obama’s Nuke Deal — Iran Threatened to Out Bribed Officials
In May 2018 President Trump withdrew from the sham Iranian nuclear deal. President Trump knew the deal with the Iranian mullahs was not working and not worth the paper it was written on.

New York UN Office Recruits Paramilitary Troops for ‘Disarmament’ and ‘Reintegration’ of US Civilians
The United Nations is now accepting job applications in New York City, New York for Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration officers to “contribute to security and stability in post-conflict environments.”

Britain Sends Two Warships And Mobilizes SAS Troops To Persian Gulf As UK Prepares For Revenge From Iran In Middle East After Rocket Attack Today
Four rockets were fired at the heavily-fortified ‘Green Zone’ in Baghdad that’s home to both American and British embassies, as plans are now being made to send British troops to the Persian Gulf to protect the interests of the crown. The British embassy in Tehran is ever more at risk with fears of a hostage situation similar to the one that took place during the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Deeo Cover Insider Reveals the Deep-State-End-Game Plot to Remove “WAR CRIMINAL” Trump From Office
Both parties connected to the following important interview were traveling cross-country to their respective destinations when world events forced a conversation. The two parties were Dave Hodges, the host of The Common Sense Show and a proven source, a “Deep-Cover-Insider” (DCI) (aka “Wrecker”) with both high-level military and agency experience.

DEATH TO AMERICA: Tens Of Thousands Of Muslims Jam The Streets In Baghdad As Iran Vows Revenge For The Killing Of Top General Qassem Soleimani
As Iran trots out their professional mourners to cry and weep for terrorist Qassem Soleimani publicly, privately they are getting exactly what they hoped for. Lots of media attention combined with the possibility of pulling America into a prolonged conflict. Iran has nothing else to occupy their time with, if you take away the ‘Death to America!’ and ‘Death To Israel!’, they really don’t have much else going on. Except of course building nuclear weapons. Iran is exactly where they want to be right now.

Source: 5 Jan 2020

January 5, 2020 Afternoon Verse Of The Day

5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“ ‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7  in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mk 7:4–9). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

The Indictment (7:6–9)

Jesus responded, not by answering the Pharisees’ question but by indicting them for their hypocrisy. He would later give an answer to His disciples (vv. 17–23), but to the apostate religious leaders He offered no explanation or excuse. Instead, He confronted the calloused unbelief that characterized the false system that they embraced.

Taking them straight to the Scriptures, Jesus began by pointing to the prophet Isaiah. He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites.” The Pharisees were hypocrites because, although they looked holy on the outside, their hearts were unrepentant and corrupt. As Jesus told them on a later occasion, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matt. 23:27–28). Like the Israelites of Isaiah’s day, the Pharisees and scribes emphasized external rituals and extrabiblical regulations while completely neglecting a genuine love for God. Quoting from Isaiah 29:13, Jesus said, “As it is written, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ ” Isaiah’s words struck at the heart of the Pharisaic system, which pretended to love God, yet worshiped Him in a way that was superficial, contrived, unbiblical, and unacceptable. In case they missed the point, Jesus added, “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” The Pharisees and scribes were far more concerned with upholding rabbinic customs than obeying God’s law.

First-century Judaism, like all forms of apostate religion, elevated man-made traditions above the teachings of Scripture. The Pharisees prized their rites, rituals, and regulations, allowing that which was merely external to take the place of true worship and heartfelt obedience. Outwardly, they paid homage to God with their lips, but inwardly their calloused hearts were far away from Him. Because they had never been transformed on the inside, their attempts to worship God were inevitably hypocritical. True worship, by contrast, flows from the soul that has been regenerated and eagerly seeks to honor and submit to the will of the Lord. As Jesus explained in John 4:24, the only worship God accepts is that which is “in spirit” (from the heart) and in “truth” (according to sound doctrine). As self-righteous hypocrites who rejected the Messiah, the Pharisees failed on both counts.

These archetypal fakes were outraged that Jesus disregarded their traditions. But the Lord knew that neither He nor His disciples were bound to follow rabbinic customs. Only that which came from Scripture was authoritative; where tradition conflicted with the Word of God, tradition needed to be overturned and its purveyors openly exposed. Consequently, Jesus was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” The Pharisees and scribes accused Jesus’ disciples of committing a serious offense. In reality, it was they who were guilty of the real crimes against God. They neglected the commandment of God and influenced many others to do the same. Their hands may have been washed and cleansed, but their hearts were not. Consequently, they and their followers were headed for eternal judgment (cf. Matt. 23:15).[1]

5–8 To the question as to why Jesus’ disciples acted as they did, Jesus answered by quoting a passage from Isaiah, preceded by his own comment: “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites” (v. 6). The word “hypocrite” (hypokritēs, GK 5695) originally meant “play actor” and refers here to people whose worship is merely outward and not from the heart. Though the term is common in Matthew (thirteen occurrences), Mark uses it only here. In saying that Isaiah had prophesied about them, Jesus did not mean that Isaiah had in mind the Pharisees and the teachers of the law when he originally wrote these words but that his denunciation of the religious leaders of his day fit those of Jesus’ day. The quotation (Isa 29:13) is from the LXX, which differs slightly from the MT in the last sentence. The MT says “their fear [or reverence] of me consists of commandments taught by men.” The LXX says “vainly they worship me, teaching human commandments and teachings.” Both make essentially the same point—that their traditions and regulations pay mere lip ser vice but show no true heart for God. Their outward appearance of piety is a lie, because it is not accompanied by a “total life commitment to the one who is the true object of religious devotion” (Anderson, 185).

In v. 8, Jesus contrasts the “commands of God” with the “traditions of men.” It is clear that this great body of Jewish tradition had failed to get to the heart of God’s commands. It was supposed to fence in the law so that the people would not infringe on it. In practice, however, the Pharisees were abandoning God’s law while holding fast to human traditions.[2]

6–8 The question of the scribes receives a twofold answer. An immediate reply is provided by the pointed citation of Isa. 29:13, introduced with the ironic comment “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites!” This quotation is directly applied to the scribes and Pharisees in verse 8. A second answer is provided by the pregnant saying addressed to the crowd in verses 14 f., which exposes the deeper issue of the source of defilement which remains unaffected by cultic cleansing.

The quotation differs slightly in form from the Septuagint text and may have been drawn from a florilegium of prophetic passages used in Rome. It is probable that Jesus himself cited the Hebrew text or the Targum currently used in the synagogue. It has often been held that the charge of abandoning the commandment of God for the tradition of men (in verse 8) depends for its validity upon the Greek text where it differs from the Hebrew. This is clearly not the case. The Massoretic text contrasts formal lip-service to God with devotion from the heart and concludes, “this fear of me is a commandment of men which has been taught (to them).” This is certainly relevant to the larger issue of the oral tradition which was diligently handed down to each generation of the Pharisees. It implies that even the concern to sanctify all of life, which is presupposed in the assumption of the priestly purity laws, rests less upon the commandment above all others, the love of God with the whole heart (Deut. 6:4; cf. Mk. 12:28–34), than upon a tradition which has been received and passed on as an expression of formal piety. This gives pointedness to the charge of hypocrisy which emphasizes the contradiction between what a man seems to be in the opinion of his peers and what he is before God. In the outward appearance of their piety the Pharisees were impeccable since they scrupulously observed numerous prescriptions and commandments. It was, nevertheless, a lie because they had not surrendered themselves to God.

Jesus’ sharp rebuttal sets in radical opposition the commandment of God and the halakhic formulations of the scribal tradition. Theoretically, the oral law was a fence which safeguarded the people from infringing the Law. In actuality it represented a tampering with the Law which resulted inevitably in distortion and ossification of the living word of God. The exaggerated reverence with which the scribes and Pharisees regarded the oral law was an expression of false piety supported by human precepts devoid of authority. Jesus categorically rejects the authority of the oral law.[3]

7:8–9 holding on to human traditions … setting aside the commands of God. Jesus defines the oral tradition as merely “human” and shows it to be antithetical to God’s true “commands,” a major emphasis here (vv. 9, 13). When we live by external, legalistic decrees rather than the “spiritual sacrifices” (1 Pet. 2:5) of the heart that God demands, we fail. There is only one path to godly character: obeying God’s dictates in his word. The basic thesis is in verse 8, while verse 9 tells how they are practicing that very thing. The thing they do “best” is “abandoning” (“letting go” [v. 8]) and then “negating” (“setting aside” [v. 9]) God’s commands due to the priority of following their own “traditions.” They have turned against God in favor of their own ideas.[4]

8. You let go the commandment of God in order to cling to the tradition of men. Pharisees and scribes were guilty of placing mere human tradition above divine revelation, a man-made rule above a God-given command. The rabbis had divided the Mosaic law or Torah into 613 separate decrees, 365 of these being considered prohibitions and 248 positive directives. Then, in connection with each decree, by drawing arbitrary distinctions between what they considered “permitted” and “not permitted,” they had attempted to regulate every detail of the conduct of the Jews: their sabbaths, travel, meals, fasts, ablutions, trade, relation toward outsiders, etc., etc. One finds an example of their hair-splitting, casuistic reasoning in Matt. 23:16–18. For many other interesting illustrations see A. T. Robertson, The Pharisees and Jesus, especially pp. 44, 45, 93 ff. Thus, having an eye only for the multiplicity of the decrees and of their myriad applications to concrete life situations, they had piled up precept upon precept (cf. Isa. 28:10, 13) until at last, by most of these scribes and Pharisees, the unity and purpose of God’s holy law—see Deut. 6:4; then Lev. 19:18; Mic. 6:8; cf. Mark 12:28–34—had suffered a total eclipse.

Jesus, accordingly, accuses his opponents of having relinquished the commandment of God in order to cling to the tradition of men. If anyone but Jesus had voiced this withering criticism against the religious leaders of the day, we might feel inclined to regard it as being possibly a bit extreme. What? Did these Pharisees and scribes actually set their oral law above the written law of the Old Testament? Was not this too harsh a judgment? The answer is: not at all. In fact, there is some evidence in support of the proposition that the rabbis themselves defended that position. They said, “To be opposed to the word of the scribes is worthy of greater punishment than to be opposed to the word of the Bible.” See Robertson’s work to which reference was made in the preceding paragraph, p. 130. They probably reasoned as follows: historically the oral law preceded the law in written form; therefore the oral law has precedence. It is clear, therefore, that the opponents were not in a position to maintain that what Jesus was saying was untrue.

How must it be explained that Jesus disagreed with the position of subordinating God’s written commandment to oral tradition? The answer is, apart from the obvious fact that, other things being equal, the spoken word is less durable, more subject to change from one generation to another, than the written document, the commandment came from the Holy God, and is therefore infallible, but the tradition, a tradition of interpretation, originated with sinful men, and is therefore fallible. In the present case, as has been shown, it was frequently wretched, misleading, corrupt.

It would be entirely wrong to draw the conclusion that Jesus was opposed to tradition, that he wanted to overthrow whatever was old and was in that sense a revolutionist. Passages such as Matt. 5:17, 18; 23:1–3; Mark 10:5–9 prove that he was not. What he opposed was any man-made teaching or rule that was in conflict with the divine law. He was “old-fashioned” in the best sense of the term, for he went back all the way until beyond faulty and misleading tradition he found his Father’s original revelation and commandment.

In the present passage Jesus refers to the commandment of God, using the singular. If he was even now thinking of the precept which he was about to quote (verse 10) we can see the reason for this singular. However, it may be generic, the one command representing the entire class.[5]

7:8. Jesus made it clear there was a big difference between the traditions of men and the commands of God. True worship must come from the heart. It must be directed by God’s truth, not a set of ideas. These “traditions” were supposed to help the people keep God’s law, but they actually usurped God’s law and drove people from God. The Mishna, a collection of Jewish traditions in the Talmud, records, “It is a greater offense to teach anything contrary to the voice of the Rabbis than to contradict Scripture itself.” This is a clear example of how the “traditions of the elders” had become more important than the law—God’s Word.[6]

[1] MacArthur, J. (2015). Mark 1–8 (pp. 343–345). Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

[2] Wessel, W. W., & Strauss, M. L. (2010). Mark. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew–Mark (Revised Edition) (Vol. 9, p. 800). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] Lane, W. L. (1974). The Gospel of Mark (pp. 248–249). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[4] Osborne, G. R. (2014). Mark. (M. L. Strauss & J. H. Walton, Eds.) (pp. 117–118). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[5] Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark (Vol. 10, pp. 275–276). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

[6] Cooper, R. L. (2000). Mark (Vol. 2, p. 117). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.