Daily Archives: December 27, 2020

Fauci’s army of defenders rise up after Rubio says that Covid-19 hero LIED about masks & herd immunity — RT USA News

Leave a reply

Fauci's army of defenders rise up after Rubio says that Covid-19 hero LIED about masks & herd immunity

FILE PHOTO ©  Alex Wong / Getty Images / AFP

As Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) learned the hard way, Dr. Anthony Fauci has apparently ascended into the rarefied air of mainstream-media reverence where criticism is off limits and allegations of wrongdoing must be crushed.

“Dr. Fauci lied about masks in March,” Rubio tweeted on Sunday. “Dr. Fauci has been distorting the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity.” 

It isn’t just him. Many in elite bubbles believe the American public doesn’t know what’s good for them so they need to be tricked into doing the right thing.

The tweet came after Fauci admitted in a New York Times interview earlier this month that he purposely changed his estimates of how many Americans will need to be inoculated against Covid-19 to achieve herd immunity, partly to manipulate public opinion. And when pressed in July as to why he had told Americans in March that it wasn’t helpful for the general public to wear masks, he said, “Back then, the critical issue was to save the masks for the people who really needed them because it was felt that there was a shortage of masks.”

 Also on rt.com

Fauci admits to LYING about Covid-19 herd immunity threshold to manipulate public support for vaccine, moves goal post to 90%

And yet, when Rubio pointed those things out, members of the media pounced. “Marco Rubio is casting doubt on the expert that has guided America through the Covid crisis while the president that Rubio continues to support has spread lies and conspiracies about the virus,” MSNBC producer Kyle Griffin said.

Daily Beast editor Molly Jong-Fast suggested that Rubio was being hypocritical by juxtaposing his comments about Fauci with a picture of him being injected with a Covid-19 vaccine.

But journalist Noah Blum pointed out that there was no contradiction between Rubio’s actions and words. “Fauci copped to doing both those things for the reasons Rubio says,” Blum tweeted. “How does that make getting the vaccine hypocritical? An extremely lame attempt at a dunk.”

Podcast host and Daily Beast contributor Erin Ryan joined in the defense of Fauci, asking Rubio, “How are you not just completely tired of yourself yet.”

READ MORE: Covid expert Fauci says pandemic’s ‘WORST YET TO COME’ (yet again)

Edward-Isaac Dovere, a writer for the Atlantic, attacked Rubio by changing what he said. Rubio got the vaccine himself, then said Fauci is overstating the need for vaccinations, Dovere tweeted. As podcast host Stephen Miller, Daily Caller reporter Chuck Ross and Washington Examiner reporter Jerry Christmas all pointed out to Dovere, Rubio made no such claim.

“Many have told Dovere he distorted Rubio’s statement,” independent journalist Glenn Greenwald said. “It’s obvious, but he’ll leave it up. The Atlantic is a liberal magazine whose readers hate Rubio. The prevailing media standard: If you affirm your readers’ ideology, there are no editorial standards. Anything goes.”

— Read on www.rt.com/usa/510881-rubio-fauci-lied-masks-vaccination/

Twelve Times The ‘Lockdowners’ Were Wrong | ZeroHedge

Leave a reply

Authored by Phillip Magness via The American Institute for Economic Research,

This has been a year of astonishing policy failure. We are surrounded by devastation conceived and cheered by intellectuals and their political handmaidens…

The errors number in the thousands, so please consider the following little more than a first draft, a mere guide to what will surely be unearthed in the coming months and years. We trusted these people with our lives and liberties and here is what they did with that trust. 

  1. Anthony Fauci says lockdowns are not possible in the United States (January 24):

When asked about the mass quarantine containment efforts underway in Wuhan, China back in January, Fauci dismissed the prospect of lockdowns ever coming to the United States:

“That’s something that I don’t think we could possibly do in the United States, I can’t imagine shutting down New York or Los Angeles, but the judgement on the part of the Chinese health authorities is that given the fact that it’s spreading throughout the provinces… it’s their judgement that this is something that in fact is going to help in containing it. Whether or not it does or does not is really open to question because historically when you shut things down it doesn’t have a major effect.”

Less than two months later, 43 of 50 US states were under lockdown – a policy advocated by Fauci himself.

  1. US government and WHO officials advise against mask use (February and March)

When mask sales spiked due to widespread individual adoption in the early weeks of the pandemic, numerous US government and WHO officials took to the airwaves to describe masks as ineffective and discourage their use. 

Surgeon General Jerome Adams tweeted against masks on February 29. Anthony Fauci publicly discouraged mask use in a nationally broadcast 60 Minutes interview on March 7. At a March 30 World Health Organization briefing its Director-General supported mask use in medical settings but dissuaded the same in the general public. 

By mid-summer, all had reversed course and encouraged mask-wearing in the general public as an essential tool for halting the pandemic. Fauci essentially conceded that he lied to the public in order to prevent a shortage on masks, whereas other health officials did an about-face on the scientific claims around masking. 

While mainstream epidemiology literature stressed the ambiguous nature of evidence surrounding masks as recently as 2019, these scientists were suddenly certain that masks were something of a magic bullet for Covid. It turns out that both positions are likely wrong. Masks appear to have marginal effects at diminishing spread, especially in highly infectious settings and around the vulnerable. But their effectiveness at combating Covid has also been grossly exaggerated, as illustrated by the fact that mask adoption reached near-universal levels in the US by the summer with little discernible effect on the course of the pandemic.

  1. Anthony Fauci’s decimal error in estimating Covid’s fatality rates (March 11)

Fauci testified before Congress in early March where he was asked to estimate the severity of the disease in comparison to influenza. His testimony that Covid was “10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu” stoked widespread alarm and provided a major impetus for the decision to go into lockdown. 

The problem, as Ronald Brown documented in an epidemiology journal article, is that Fauci based his estimates on a conflation of the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) and Case Fatality Rate (CFR) for influenza, leading him to exaggerate the comparative danger of Covid by an order of magnitude. Fauci’s error – which he further compounded in a late February article for the New England Journal of Medicine – helped to convince Congress of the need for drastic lockdown measures, while also spreading panic in the media and general public. As of this writing Fauci has not acknowledged the magnitude of his error, nor has the journal corrected his article.

  1. “Two weeks to flatten the curve” (March 16)

The lockdowners settled on a catchy slogan in mid-March to justify their unprecedented shuttering of economic and social life around the globe: two weeks to flatten the curve. The White House Covid task force aggressively promoted this line, as did the news media and much of the epidemiology profession. The logic behind the slogan came from the ubiquitous graph showing (1) a steep caseload that would overwhelm our hospital system, or (2) a mitigated alternative that would spread the caseload out over several weeks, making it manageable. 

To get to graph #2, society would need to buckle up for two weeks of shelter-in-place orders until the capacity issue could be managed. Indeed, we were told that if we did not accept this solution the hospital system would enter into catastrophic failure in only 10 days, as former DHS pandemic adviser Tom Bossert claimed in a widely-circulated interview and Washington Post column on March 11. 

Two weeks came and went, then the rationale on which they were sold to the public shifted. Hospitals were no longer on the verge of being overwhelmed – indeed most hospitals nationwide remained well under capacity, with only a tiny number of exceptions in the worst-hit neighborhoods of New York City. 

A US Navy hospital ship sent to relieve New York departed a month later after serving only 182 patients, and a pop-up hospital in the city’s Javits Convention Center sat mostly empty. But the lockdowns remained in place, as did the emergency orders justifying them. Two weeks became a month, which became two months, which became almost a year. We were no longer “flattening the curve” – a strategy premised on saving the hospital system from a threat than never manifested – but instead refocused on using lockdowns as a general suppression strategy against the disease itself. In short, the epidemiology profession sold us a bill of goods.

  1. Neil Ferguson predicts a “best case” US scenario of 1.1 million deaths (March 20)

The name Neil Ferguson, the lead modeler and chief spokesman for Imperial College London’s pandemic response team, has become synonymous with lockdown alarmism for good reason. Ferguson has a long track record of making grossly exaggerated predictions of catastrophic death tolls for almost every single disease that comes along, and urging aggressive policy responses to the same including lockdowns. 

Covid was no different, and Ferguson assumed center stage when he released a highly influential model of the virus’s death forecasts for the US and UK. Ferguson appeared with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson on March 16 to announce the shift toward lockdowns (with no small irony, he was coming down with Covid himself at the time and may have been the patient zero of a super-spreader event that ran through Downing Street and infected Johnson himself). 

Across the Atlantic, Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx cited Ferguson’s model as a direct justification for locking down the US. There was a problem though: Ferguson had a bad habit of dramatically hyping his own predictions to political leaders and the press. The Imperial College paper modeled a broad range of scenarios including death tolls that ranged from tens of thousands to over 2 million, but Ferguson’s public statements only stressed the latter – even though the paper itself conceded that such an extreme “worst case” scenario was highly unrealistic. A telling example came on March 20th when the New York Times’s Nicholas Kristof contacted the Imperial College modeler to ask about the most likely scenario for the United States. As Kristof related to his readers, “I asked Ferguson for his best case. “About 1.1 million deaths,” he said.”

  1. Researchers in Sweden use the Imperial College model to predict 95,000 deaths (April 10)

After Neil Ferguson’s shocking death toll predictions for the US and UK captivated policymaker attention and drove both governments into lockdown, researchers in other countries began adapting the Imperial College model to their own circumstances. Usually, these models sought to reaffirm the decisions of each country to lock down. The government of Sweden, however, had decided to buck the trend, setting the stage for a natural experiment to test the Imperial model’s performance. 

In early April a team of researchers at Uppsala University adapted the Imperial model to Sweden’s population and demographics and ran its projections. Their result? If Sweden stayed the course and did not lock down, it could expect a catastrophic 96,000 deaths by early summer. The authors of the study recommended going into immediate lockdown, but since Sweden lagged behind Europe in adopting such measures they also predicted that this “best case” option would reduce deaths to “only” 30,000. 

By early June when the 96,000 prediction was supposed to come true, Sweden had recorded 4,600 deaths. Six months later, Sweden has about 8,000 deaths – a severe pandemic to be sure, but an order of magnitude smaller than what the modelers predicted. Facing embarrassment from these results, Ferguson and Imperial College attempted to distance themselves from the Swedish adaptation of their model in early May. Yet the Uppsala team’s projections closely matched Imperial’s own UK and US predictions when scaled to reflect their population sizes. In short, the Imperial model catastrophically failed one of the few clear natural experiment tests of its predictive ability.

  1. Scientists suggest that ocean spray spreads Covid (April 2)

In the second week of the lockdowns several newspapers in California promoted a bizarre theory: Covid could spread by ocean spray (although the paper later walked back the headline-grabbing claim, it is outlined here in the Los Angeles Times). According to this theory – initially promoted by a group of biologists who study bacterial infection connected to storm runoff – the Covid virus washed down storm gutters and into the ocean, where the ocean breeze would kick it up into the air and infect people on the nearby beaches. As silly as this theory now sounds, it helped to inform California’s initially draconian enforcement of lockdowns on its public beaches. 

The same week that this modern-day miasmic drift theory appeared, police in Malibu even arrested a lone paddleboarder for going into the ocean during the lockdown – all while citing the possibility that the ocean breeze carried Covid with it.

  1. Neil Ferguson predicts catastrophic death tolls in US states that reopen (May 24)

Fresh off of their exaggerated predictions from March, the Imperial College team led by Neil Ferguson doubled down on alarmist modeling. As several US states started to reopen in late April and May, Ferguson and his colleagues published a new model predicting another catastrophic wave of deaths by the mid-summer. Their model focused on 5 states with both moderate and severe outbreaks during the first wave. If they reopened, according to the Imperial team’s model, New York could face up to 3,000 deaths per day by July. 

Florida could hit as high as 4,000, and California could hit 5,000 daily deaths. Keeping in mind that these projections were for each state alone, they exceed the daily death toll peaks for the entire country in both the fall and spring. Showing just how bad the Imperial model was, the actual death toll by mid-July in several of the examined states even fell below the lower confidence boundary of its projected count. While Covid remains a threat in all 5 states, the post-reopening explosion of deaths predicted by Imperial College and used to argue for keeping the lockdowns in place never happened.

  1. Anthony Fauci credits lockdowns for beating the virus in Europe (July 31)

In late July Anthony Fauci offered additional testimony to Congress. His message credited Europe’s heavy lockdowns with defeating the virus, whereas he blamed the United States for reopening too early and for insufficient aggressiveness in the initial lockdowns. As Fauci stated at the time, “If you look at what happened in Europe, when they shut down or locked down or went to shelter in place — however you want to describe it — they really did it to the tune of about 95% plus of the country did that.” 

The message was clear: the United States should have followed Europe, but failed to do so and got a summer wave of Covid instead. Fauci’s entire argument however was based on a string of falsehoods and errors. 

Mobility data from the US clearly showed that most Americans were staying home during the spring outbreak, with a recorded decline that matched Germany, the Netherlands, and several other European countries. Contrary to Fauci’s claim, the US was actually slower than most of Europe to reopen. Furthermore, his praise of Europe collapsed in the early fall when almost all of the lockdown countries in Europe experienced severe second waves – just like the locked down regions of the United States.

  1. New Zealand and Australia declare themselves Covid-free (August-present)

New Zealand and Australia have thus far weathered the pandemic with extremely low case counts, leading many epidemiologists and journalists to conflate these results with evidence of their successful and replicable mitigation policies. In reality, New Zealand and Australia opted for the medieval ‘Prince Prospero’ strategy of attempting to wall themselves from the world until the pandemic passes – an approach that is highly dependent on their unique geographies. 

As island nations with comparatively lower international travel than North America and Europe, both countries shut down their borders before the as-of-yet undetected virus became widespread and have remained closed ever since. It’s a costly strategy in terms of its economic impact and personal displacement, but it kept the virus out – mostly. 

The problem with New Zealand and Australia’s Prince Prospero strategy is that it’s inherently fragile. All it takes to throw it into chaos is for the virus to slip past the border – including by accident or human error. Then heavy-handed lockdowns ensue, imposed with maximum disruption at the spur of the moment in a frantic attempt to contain the breach. 

The most famous example happened on August 9 when New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern declared that New Zealand had reached 100 days of being Covid-free. Then just two days later a breach happened, sending Auckland into heavy lockdown. It’s a pattern that has repeated itself every few weeks in both countries. 

In early December, we saw a similar flurry of stories from Australia announcing that the country had beaten Covid. Two weeks later, another breach occurred in the suburbs around Sydney, prompting a regional lockdown. There have been embarrassing missteps as well. In November the entire state of South Australia went into heavy lockdown over a single misreported case of Covid that was mistakenly attributed to a pizza purchase that did not exist. While both countries continue to celebrate their low fatality rates, they’ve also incurred some of the harshest and most disruptive restrictions in the world – all the result of premature declarations of being “Covid-free” followed by an unexpected breach and another frantic lockdown.

  1. “Renewed lockdowns are just a strawman” (October)

In early October a group of scientists met at AIER where they drafted and signed the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement calling attention to the severe social and economic harms of lockdowns and urging the world to adopt alternative strategies for ensuring the protection of the most vulnerable. Although the statement quickly gathered tens of thousands of co-signers from health science and medical professionals, it also left the lockdown supporters incensed. They responded not by scientific debate over the merits of their policies, but with a vilification campaign. 

They answered by flooding the petition with hoax signatures and juvenile name-calling, and by peddling wildly false conspiracy theories about AIER’s funding (the primary instigator of both tactics, ironically, was a UK blogger known for promoting 9/11 Truther conspiracies). But the lockdowners also adopted another narrative: they began to deny that lockdowns were even on the table. 

Nobody was considering bringing back the lockdowns from the spring, they insisted. Arguing against the politically unpopular shelter-in-place orders in the fall only served the purpose of undermining public support for narrower and more temperate restrictions. The Great Barrington authors, we were told, were arguing with a “strawman” from the past. 

Over the next several weeks in October a dozen or more prominent epidemiologists, public health experts, and journalists peddled the “lockdowns are a strawman” line. The “strawman” claim saw promotion in top outlets including the New York Times, and in an op-ed by two principle co-signers of the John Snow Memorandum, a competing petition that lockdown supporters drafted as a response to the Great Barrington Declaration. 

The message was clear: the GBD was sounding a false alarm against policies from the past that the lockdowners “reluctantly” supported in the spring as an emergency measure but had no intention of reviving. By early November, the “strawman” of renewed lockdowns became a reality in dozens of countries across the globe – often cheered on by the very same people who used the “strawman” canard in October. 

Several US states followed suit including California, which imposed severe restrictions on private gatherings up to and including meeting your own family for Thanksgiving and Christmas. And a few weeks after that, some of the very same epidemiologists who used the “strawman” line in October revised their own positions after the fact. They started claiming they had supported a second lockdown all along, and began blaming the GBD for impeding their efforts to impose them at an earlier date. In short, the entire “lockdowns are a strawman” narrative was false. And it now appears that more than a few of the scientists who used it were actively lying about their own intentions in October.

  1. Anthony Fauci touts New York as a model for Covid containment (June-December)

By all indicators, New York state has suffered one of the worst coronavirus outbreaks in the world. Its year-end mortality rate of almost 1,900 deaths per million residents exceeds every single country in the world. The state famously bungled its nursing home response when Governor Andrew Cuomo forced these facilities to readmit Covid-positive patients as a way to relieve strains on hospitals. The policy backfired as most hospitals never reached capacity, but the readmissions introduced the virus into vulnerable nursing home populations resulting in widespread fatalities (to this day New York intentionally undercounts nursing home fatalities by excluding residents who are moved to a hospital from its reported numbers, further obscuring the true toll of Cuomo’s order). 

New York has also fared poorly during the fall “second wave” despite reimposing harsh restrictions and regional lockdown measures. By mid-December, its death rate shot far above the mostly-open state of Florida, which has the closest comparable population size to New York. All things considered, New York’s weathering of the pandemic is an exemplar of what not to do. 

Cuomo’s policies not only failed to contain the virus – they likely made it far more deadly to vulnerable populations. Enter Anthony Fauci, who has been asked multiple times in the press what a model Covid response policy would look like. He gave his first answer on July 20th: “We know that, when you do it properly, you bring down those cases. We have done it. We have done it in New York.” 

Fauci was operating under the assumption that New York, despite its bad run in the spring, had successfully brought the pandemic under control through its aggressive lockdowns and slow reopening. One might think that the fall rebound in New York, despite locking down again, would call this conclusion into question. Not so much for Dr. Fauci, who told the Wall Street Journal on December 8: “New York got hit really badly in the beginning” but they did “a really good job of keeping things down, and still, their level is low compared to the rest of the country.”

— Read on www.zerohedge.com/political/twelve-times-lockdowners-were-wrong

Major Covid Vaccine Glitch Emerges: Most Europeans, Including Hospital Staff, Refuse To Take It | ZeroHedge

Leave a reply

All is not going according to plan in the biggest global rollout of what is arguably the most important vaccine in a century, and it is not just growing US mistrust in the covid injection effort that was rolled out in record time: an unexpected spike in allergic reactions to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (and now, Moderna too) may prove catastrophic to widespread acceptance unless scientists can figure out what is causing it after the FDA’s rushed approval, and is also why as we reported yesterday, scientists are scrambling to identify the potential culprit causing the allergic reactions.

Making matters worse, Europe rolled out a huge COVID-19 vaccination drive on Sunday to try to rein in the coronavirus pandemic but even more Europeans than American are sceptical about the speed at which the vaccines have been tested and approved and reluctant to have the shot.

While the European Union has secured contracts drugmakers including Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca, for a total of more than two billion doses and has set a goal for all adults to be inoculated next year, this is looking increasingly like a pipe dream: according to recent surveys, the local population has expressed “high levels of hesitancy” towards inoculation in countries from France to Poland, with many used to vaccines taking decades to develop, not just months.

“I don’t think there’s a vaccine in history that has been tested so quickly,” Ireneusz Sikorski, 41, said as he stepped out of a church in central Warsaw with his two children.

“I am not saying vaccination shouldn’t be taking place. But I am not going to test an unverified vaccine on my children, or on myself.”

Smart: why take the risk of getting vaccinated when others will do it, resulting in the same outcome.

Surveys in Poland, where distrust in public institutions runs deep, show that fewer than 40% of people planning to get vaccinated. Worse, according to Reuters on Sunday, only half the medical staff in a Warsaw hospital where the country’s first shot was administered had signed up. And if the doctors don’t trust the vaccine, one can be certain that the broader population will refuse to take it.

The situation is similar in Spain, one of Europe’s hardest-hit countries, where 28-year-old singer and music composer German summarizes the skepticism of a broad range of the population, and plans to wait for now.

“No one close to me has had it (COVID-19). I’m obviously not saying it doesn’t exist because lots of people have died of it, but for now I wouldn’t have it (the vaccine).”

A Christian Orthodox bishop in Bulgaria, where 45% of people have said they would not get a shot and 40% plan to wait to see if any negative side effects appear – meaning only 15% of the population will actually volunteer for a vaccine in the near future –   is in the tiny minority when it comes to taking the vaccine.

“Myself, I am vaccinated against everything I can be,” Bishop Tihon told reporters after getting his shot, standing alongside the health minister in Sofia. He spoke about anxiety over polio before vaccination became available in the 1950s and 1960s.

To be sure, the establishment is pounding the table on why the vaccines are safe despite the record short time in development (even though not even the “scientists” can explain what is behind the spike in vaccine allergic reactions), and claiming that the new technology behind the mRNA vaccine is all one needs to know… when it is precisely this new technology that is sparking the skepticism.

“We’ll look back on the advances made in 2020 and say: ‘That was a moment when science really did make a leap forward’,” said Jeremy Farrar, director of the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, which is backed by the Wellcome Trust. Oxford also received $750MM from Bill Gates in June in the billionaire’s quest to vaccinate the world against Covid.

Only problem: nobody in Europe seems to care about these “scientific” justifications. Independent pollster Alpha Research said its recent survey suggested that fewer than one in five Bulgarians from the first groups to be offered the vaccine – frontline medics, pharmacists, teachers and nursing home staff – planned to volunteer to get a shot.

An IPSOS survey of 15 countries published on Nov. 5 showed then that 54% of French would have a COVID vaccine if one were available. The figure was 64% in Italy and Spain, 79% in Britain and 87% in China.

Since then things have gone far worse, and a more recent IFOP poll  showed that only 41% people in France would take the shot. This means that a vast majority will not.

Not even in Sweden, where public trust in authorities is absurdly and inexplicably high, is there a universal trust in the vaccine, with at least one in three saying they won’t get the shot: “If someone gave me 10 million euro, I wouldn’t take it,” Lisa Renberg, 32, told Reuters on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, in a paradoxical attempt to force more to sign up – not realizing that it will only have the precisely opposite effect – Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki urged Poles on Sunday to sign up for vaccination, saying the herd immunity effect depended on them. Critics have accused Warsaw’s “nationalist leaders” of being too accepting of anti-vaccination attitudes in the past in an effort to garner conservative support. Well… let’s check back on said attitude in 10 years and see if perhaps it was the right one.

For now, however, the more European governments pressure their populations to get immunized, the fewer the people who will actually sign up and the worse the vaccine rollout will be, that much we can be 100% sure of.

— Read on www.zerohedge.com/medical/major-covid-vaccine-glitch-emerges-most-europeans-including-hospital-staff-refuse-take-it

The Future of Vaccines — Christian Research Service

Leave a reply
James Corbett
The Corbett Report
corbettreport.com

If the Gateses and the Faucis and the representatives of the international medical establishment get their way, life will not return to normal until the entire planet is vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. What many do not yet understand, however, is that the vaccines that are being developed for SARS-Cov-2 are unlike any vaccines that have ever been used on the human population before. And, as radically different as these vaccines appear, they represent only the very beginning of a complete transformation of vaccine technology that is currently taking place in research labs across the planet. This is a study of The Future of Vaccines.

View article/transcript or listen to podcast HERE.

(If this YouTube video goes down you can still find it at the above link.)

The Future of Vaccines — Christian Research Service

December 27th The D. L. Moody Year Book

Leave a reply

Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.—Exodus 20:12.

THE one glimpse the Bible gives us of thirty out of the thirty-three years of Christ’s life on earth shows that He did not come to destroy the fifth commandment. The secret of all those silent years is embodied in that verse in Luke’s Gospel—“And He went down with them and came also to Nazareth, and was subject to them.” Did He not set an example of true filial love and care when in the midst of the agonies of the cross He made provision for His mother?[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. 232). East Northfield, MA: The Bookstore.

December 27 Life-Changing Moments With God

Leave a reply

We do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Lord, here I have no continuing city. I have a better and an enduring possession for myself in heaven.

I will not fear, for it is Your good pleasure, Father God, to give me the kingdom.

Now for a little while, if need be, I have been grieved by various trials. There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest.

I who am in this tent groan, being burdened. You, my God, will wipe away every tear from my eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.

The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in me. My light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for me a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.

Thank You for keeping my eyes on my eternal future, on the glorious future Your people have in You, Lord God!

2 Corinthians 4:18; Hebrews 13:14; Hebrews 10:34; Luke 12:32; 1 Peter 1:6; Job 3:17; 2 Corinthians 5:4; Revelation 21:4; Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17[1]

 

[1] Jeremiah, D. (2007). Life-Changing Moments With God (p. 386). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

December 27, 2020 Evening Verse Of The Day

Leave a reply

Spiritual Blindness and Spiritual Sight

he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” But they cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears, and they rushed upon him with one impulse. (7:55b–57)

A Spirit-filled believer keeps “seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God” (Col. 3:1). In the midst of his circumstances, Stephen gazed intently into heaven. He was looking for Jesus (cf. 1:10, 11), and he did not look in vain. He saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Stephen was one of the few in Scripture blessed with a glimpse into heaven, along with Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–3), Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:26–28), Paul (2 Cor. 12:2–4), and John (Rev. 4:1ff.). God opened Stephen’s eyes to see the blazing Shekinah glory that revealed the presence of God the Father, with Jesus standing at His right hand. To him was granted the privilege of being the first to see Jesus (before Paul and John) in His glorified state after His ascension.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, Jesus is described as being seated at the right hand of God (Matt. 22:44; 24:46; Luke 22:69; Acts 2:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:11–12; 12:2). He is seated in terms of His redemptive work, which is forever completed (Heb. 10:12). Stephen sees Jesus standing to show His concern for him. He also stands to welcome Stephen into heaven.

So enthralled was Stephen with his beatific vision that he burst out, Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. For the Sanhedrin, such a statement was the last straw, their tolerance for this blasphemer was exhausted. Stephen’s use of the phrase Son of Man may have been the sharpest dagger, because it took them back to the trial of another prisoner. Like Stephen, Jesus was accused of blasphemy by false witnesses, yet He kept silent. Finally, in frustration, the high priest demanded that He speak: “ ‘I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven’ ” (Matt. 26:63–64). For that so-called blasphemy of claiming to be the Son of God and Son of Man who would sit on God’s right hand, they had executed Jesus. Stephen’s vision and words describing who he saw throws that claim Jesus made right back in their faces. Jesus claimed He would be at the right hand of God; Stephen now asserts that He is there! They must either execute Stephen too or admit they were wrong when they had Jesus murdered.

The Sanhedrin chose to silence the truth by killing Stephen. Crying out with a loud voice, they covered their ears (so as not to hear any further blasphemy) and rushed upon Stephen with one impulse. Thus did they prove true the Lord Jesus Christ’s description of them as “blind guides of the blind” (Matt. 15:14; cf. Matt. 23:16, 24). They continued in the sorry tradition of their fathers by rejecting yet another of God’s messengers to them. And having rejected and killed the Messiah, it is not surprising that they reject and kill one of His most faithful heralds.

Luke’s choice of hormaō (rushed) vividly portrays the Sanhedrin’s fury. It is the word used to describe the mad rush of the herd of demon-possessed swine into the Sea of Galilee (Mark 5:13; Matt. 8:32). It is also used in Acts 19:29 to describe the frenzied mob that rushed into the theater at Ephesus. To put it in terms of modern English vernacular, they lost it. Casting aside dignity and propriety, the highest court in Israel was reduced to a howling, murderous mob.[1]

55–56 While his hearers gave vent to their annoyance, Stephen remained calm, fully controlled as before by the Spirit of God, when suddenly, as he kept his gaze fixed upward, a vision of the glory of God met his inward eye. Much more real to him in that moment than the angry gestures and cries of those around him was the presence of Jesus at God’s right hand. “Look!” he exclaimed. “I see the heavens parted and the Son of Man standing at God’s right hand.”

Not many years before, another prisoner had stood at the bar before the same court, charged with almost the same offenses as Stephen. But when the hostile evidence broke down, the high priest adjured the prisoner to tell the court plainly if he was indeed the Messiah, the Son of God. Had he said “Yes” and no more, it is not clear that he could have been convicted of a capital offense. “Messiah” was not his chosen self-designation, but if the question was put to him like that, he could not say “No.” He went on, however, to reframe his answer in words of his own choosing: “you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Almighty, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). No more was required: Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy and judged to be worthy of death. Now Stephen in the same place was making the same claim on Jesus’ behalf as Jesus had made for himself: he was claiming, in fact, that those words of Jesus, far from being false and blasphemous, were words of sober truth which had received their vindication and fulfilment from God. Unless the judges were prepared to admit that their former decision was tragically mistaken, they had no option but to find Stephen guilty of blasphemy as well.

This is the only New Testament occurrence of the phrase “the Son of Man” outside the Gospels. Apart from this instance, it is found only on the lips of Jesus. It has its Old Testament roots in Dan. 7:13–14, where a human figure (“one like a son of man,” in the literal rendering of the Aramaic) is seen coming to the enthroned Ancient of Days “with the clouds of heaven” to receive universal dominion from him. The un-Greek idiom “the Son of Man” (more literally “the son of the man”) means “the ‘one like a son of man’ ” who is to receive world dominion, but since it was not in current use as a technical term, Jesus could and did employ it freely of himself and fill it with whatever meaning he chose. The background in Dan. 7:13–27 links the “one like a son of man” closely with “the saints of the Most High,” whom the New Testament identifies with Jesus’ disciples and their converts.

Jesus’ reply to the high priest’s question combines Daniel’s description of the “one like a son of man” coming with the clouds of heaven and the oracle of Ps. 110:1 in which the king of Israel is invited by Yahweh to sit at his right hand. This oracle underlies the description of Stephen’s present vision. But Stephen sees the Son of Man not sitting but standing at God’s right hand. Is there any significance in this change of verb?

Some commentators have thought not; C. H. Dodd, for example, remarks that the verb to stand “has commonly the sense ‘to be situated’, without any necessary implication of an upright attitude.” But in allusions to the oracle of Ps. 110:1 the participle “sitting” is so constant that this exception calls for an explanation. Various explanations have been offered. “He had not yet taken definitely his seat,” says William Kelly, “but was still giving the Jews a final opportunity. Would they reject the testimony to Him gone on high indeed, but as a sign waiting if peradventure they might repent and He might be sent to bring in the times of refreshing here below?” But from Luke’s point of view this was no “final opportunity” for the Jews; they continue to receive further opportunities to the very end of his narrative.109

More plausibly, Jesus has been pictured as rising up from the throne of God to greet his proto-martyr; J. A. Bengel, who takes this view, quotes to the same effect from the sixth-century Christian poet Arator. Others have understood Stephen to foresee the glory of Christ’s advent: “Christ rises in preparation for his Parousia,” says Huw Pari Owen.111 A refinement of this interpretation is proposed by C. K. Barrett: Jesus is indeed standing because “he is about to come,” but Luke believed that “the death of each Christian would be marked by what we may term a private and personal parousia of the Son of man.”

Most probably Stephen’s words should be taken closely along with Jesus’ promise: “everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God” (Luke 12:8; in Matt. 10:33 “the Son of Man” is replaced by “I”). That is to say, Jesus stands up as witness or advocate in Stephen’s defense. Stephen appeals from the adverse judgment of the earthly court, and “in the heavenly court … this member of the Son of Man community is already being vindicated by the head of that community—the Son of Man par excellence (C. F. D. Moule). If, at the moment when he was about to begin testifying before the Sanhedrin, Stephen had some foreview of this beatific vision, no wonder his face shone like an angel’s (6:15).

Did Stephen’s vision of the Son of Man involve an appreciation of his exercising world dominion? According to William Manson, “Stephen grasped and asserted the more-than-Jewish-Messianic sense in which the office and significance of Jesus in religious history were to be understood.… Whereas the Jewish nationalists were holding to the permanence of their national historical privilege, and even the ‘Hebrew’ Christians gathered round the Apostles were, with all their new Messianic faith, idealising the sacred institutions of the past, ‘continuing stedfastly in the temple’, ‘going up to the temple at the hour of prayer’ which was also the hour of the sacrificial service, sheltering under the eaves of the Holy Place, Stephen saw that the Messiah was on the throne of the universe.”

This may be a just assessment of Stephen’s thought, but nothing like certainty on this is attainable. Manson’s interpretation is part of his case for seeing Stephen as the antecursor of the writer to the Hebrews. What may be said with some confidence is that Luke treats the ministry of Stephen as an introduction to the Gentile mission, in which Christ’s claim to world dominion began to be vindicated. The vindication of his sovereign claim by the Gentile mission appears again as the theme of James’s speech at the Council of Jerusalem (15:14–18).

In short, the presence of the Son of Man at God’s right hand meant that for his people a way of access to God had been opened up more immediate and heart-satisfying than the temple could provide. It meant that the hour of fulfilment had struck, and that the age of particularism had come to an end. The sovereignty of the Son of Man was to embrace all nations and races without distinction: under his sway there is no place for an institution which gives religious privileges to one group in preference to others.[2]

7:55–56 / But Stephen seems no longer to have been aware of those who sat in judgment of him. Looking up into heaven (see 1:11 for the direction and 3:4 for the look) he saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God (v. 55). Luke says that Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit (v. 55), meaning that this vision was not simply the result of a momentary inspiration, but the climax of a life lived in the Spirit (see note on 2:4 and disc. on 4:8 and 6:3). He was characteristically a man “full of the Holy Spirit.” It was to the Spirit, therefore, that he owed his theological insights (see disc. on 6:12–14), and now by the same Spirit—for this is the implication of the passage before us—those insights took on definite shape in his mind’s eye. Look! he cried, I see … [Jesus as] the Son of Man—the celestial figure of Daniel 7:13ff. (see disc. on 6:12ff.)—standing at the right hand of God (v. 56). But why standing? Elsewhere Jesus is represented as sitting (cf., e.g., 2:34; Mark 16:19; Heb. 1:3, 13). The thought may be that he had risen to receive Stephen into heaven or to plead his case in the heavenly court, as though two trials were in progress: this one, conducted by the Sanhedrin, and another, which alone would determine Stephen’s fate (cf. Matt. 10:28). Jesus had promised, “Whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God” (Luke 12:8). But Jesus’ reference had been to the final judgment, and in line with this, C. K. Barrett has suggested that this was for Stephen a glimpse of the Parousia (see disc. on 1:10f.). “Only dying Stephen was in a position to see the coming Son of Man. It was at the ‘last day,’ in the hour of death, that the Son of Man would be seen” (“Stephen,” p. 36). There is a difficulty with this in that Christian death is usually thought of in terms of going to Jesus, not of Jesus coming to meet the Christian. On the other hand, the Son of Man terminology is frequently found in the Gospels in connection with teaching about the Parousia. Barrett, therefore, may well be right. Apart from the Gospels, and indeed, apart from the word of Jesus himself, this is the only place in the New Testament where he is called Son of Man, though there may be a hint of the title in 17:31 (Rev. 1:13 has an allusion to Dan. 7:13). It was certainly not part of Luke’s vocabulary.[3]

7:55–56 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, sees the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. This vision of God’s glory carefully balances with the glory of God at the beginning of the speech in 7:2 and marks it off as a unit. Stephen’s vision confirms his point that God dwells not in temples made by human hands but in heaven. It also reveals that “worship of the God of glory from now on includes worship of Jesus standing beside him as risen lord, the vindicated Son of Man, fulfilling the vision of Daniel” (cf. Dan. 7:13–14).[4]

56. Behold, I see the heavens. God meant not only privately to provide for his servant, but also to wring and torment his enemies; as Stephen doth courageously triumph over them, when he affirmeth plainly that he saw a miracle. And here may a question be moved, how the heavens were opened? For mine own part, I think that there was nothing changed in the nature of the heavens; but that Stephen had new quickness of sight granted him, which pierced through all lets, even unto the invisible glory of the kingdom of heaven. For admit we grant that there was some division or parting made in heaven, yet man’s eye could never reach so far. Again, Stephen alone did see the glory of God. For that spectacle was not only hid from the wicked, who stood in the same place, but they were also so blinded within themselves, that they did not see the manifest truth.3 Therefore, he saith that the heavens are opened to him in this respect, because nothing keepeth him from beholding the glory of God. Whereupon it followeth that the miracle was not wrought in heaven, but in his eyes. Wherefore, there is no cause why we should dispute long about any natural vision; because it is certain that Christ appeared unto him not after some natural manner, but after a new and singular sort. And I pray you of what colour was the glory of God, that it could be seen naturally with the eyes of the flesh? Therefore, we must imagine nothing in this vision but that which is divine. Moreover, this is worth the noting, that the glory of God appeared not unto Stephen wholly as it was, but according to man’s capacity. For that infiniteness cannot be comprehended with the measure of any creature.

The Son of man standing. He seeth Christ, reigning in that flesh wherein he was abased; so that in very deed the victory did consist in this one thing. Therefore, it is not superfluous in that Christ appeareth unto him, and for this cause doth he also call him the Son of man, as if he should say, I see that man whom ye thought ye had quite extinguished by death enjoying the government of heaven; therefore, gnash with your teeth as much as you list: there is no cause why I should fear to fight for him even unto blood, who shall not only defend his own cause, but my salvation also. Notwithstanding, here may a question be moved, why he saw him standing, who is said elsewhere to sit? Augustine, as he is sometimes more subtle than needs, saith, “that he sitteth as a judge, that he stood then as an advocate.” For mine own part, I think that though these speeches be diverse, yet they signify both one thing. For neither sitting, nor yet standing, noteth out how the body of Christ was framed; but this is referred unto his power and kingdom. For where shall we erect him a throne, that he may sit at the right hand of God the Father, seeing God doth fill all things in such sort, that we ought to imagine no place for his right hand?

Therefore, the whole text is a metaphor, when Christ is said to sit or stand at the right hand of God the Father, and the plain meaning is this, that Christ hath all power given him, that he may reign in his. Father’s stead in that flesh wherein he was humbled, and that he may be next him. And although this power be spread abroad through heaven and earth, yet some men imagine amiss that Christ is every where in his human nature. For, though he be contained in a certain place, yet that hindereth no whit but that he may and doth show forth his power throughout all the world. Therefore, if we be desirous to feel him present by the working of his grace, we must seek him in heaven; as he revealed himself unto Stephen there. Also, some men do affirm ridiculously out of this place, that he drew near unto Stephen that he might see him. For we have already said, that Stephen’s eyes were so lifted up by the power of the Spirit,2 that no distance of place could hinder the same. I confess, indeed, that speaking properly, that is, philosophically, there is no place above the heavens. But this is sufficient for me, that it is perverse doting to place Christ any where else save only in heaven, and above the elements of the world.[5]

55–56. Although Stephen was a man full of the Spirit (6:5) he experienced a special filling with the Spirit which enabled him to enjoy a heavenly vision. Gazing upwards into heaven (here conceived spatially as lying up above the sky) he was able to see the glory that hides God from view and the figure of Jesus standing at the right hand of God. He cried out that he could see the heavens opened, and the Son of man. The picture is reminiscent of the baptism of Jesus, when the opened heavens were also a sign of revelation from God. The description of Jesus as the Son of man is unusual outside the Gospels; this title is found almost exclusively on the lips of Jesus himself and was scarcely used in the church as a confessional title. The point must be that Stephen sees Jesus in his role as the Son of man; he sees him as the One who suffered and was vindicated by God (Luke 9:22), i.e. as a pattern to be followed by Christian martyrs, but also as the One who will vindicate in God’s presence those who are not ashamed of Jesus and acknowledge their allegiance to him before men (Luke 12:8). This probably explains why the Son of man was seen to be standing, rather than sitting at God’s right hand (2:34). He is standing as advocate to plead Stephen’s cause before God and to welcome him into God’s presence. It has been suggested that what Stephen receives is a kind of proleptic vision of the parousia or second advent of Jesus; the individual Christian finds that Christ comes to him in the moment of his death.29 In any case, what is significant is that the dying Stephen is welcomed into the presence of Jesus; the implication is that, as Jesus was raised from the dead, so too his followers will be.[6]

55. But Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit and looked intently into heaven. He saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56. He said, “Look, I see heaven open and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.”

Observe these points:

  • Faith. Amid the storm lashing the hall of the Sanhedrin, Stephen appears to be an island of serenity. Once again Luke reports that Stephen is full of the Holy Spirit (see 6:5, 10), who now causes him to look heaven-ward. Incidentally, Luke employs the same words for the phrase to look intently into heaven as he used to describe the apostles looking toward the sky at the time Jesus ascended (1:10).

Stephen is permitted to see God’s glory, not in a vision, but in reality. At the beginning of the trial Stephen’s face had a heavenly glow like the face of an angel (6:15). At the conclusion of the trial he sees God’s glory. Although Scripture asserts that no one is able to see God and live, God’s glory has often been revealed to man (compare Ps. 63:2; Isa. 6:1; John 12:41).

In addition to observing God’s glory, Stephen sees Jesus standing, not sitting, at the right hand of God. We do not need to make much of the possible difference between standing and sitting. The standing position possibly denotes that Jesus is welcoming Stephen to heaven (see 1 Kings 2:19). The expression “at the right hand of God” refers to the highest honor given to Jesus at the time of his ascension.

Stephen’s trial resembles that of Jesus. When Jesus stood trial before the Sanhedrin, the high priest asked him whether he was the Son of God. Jesus answered in the affirmative and added that his audience would see “the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64; see also Heb. 1:3, 13).

  • Fulfillment. “Look, I see heaven open and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.” Stephen is inviting his audience to look up to heaven and see Jesus in person at his place of honor. He calls Jesus “the Son of man,” which is the title Jesus used exclusively for himself to reveal that he fulfilled the messianic prophecy that speaks about the rule of the Son of man (Dan. 7:13–14). According to the Gospel accounts, people never refer to or address Jesus by that name. Stephen’s remark is the exception to that practice. Why does he use this title? Because Stephen fully recognizes that Jesus as the Son of man has fulfilled the messianic prophecy (Dan. 7:13–14) and has been given all authority, power, and dominion in both heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18)
  • Effect. The effect of Stephen’s invitation to look into heaven is not one of wonder and reverential fear on the part of the Sanhedrists but one of anger and hate. The Jews regard Stephen’s words as blasphemy. Just as the high priest at Jesus’ trial tore his priestly garments and cried out, “He has blasphemed” (Matt. 26:65), so the members of the Sanhedrin deem Stephen to have blasphemed the name of God. In view of their Hebrew creed, “Hear, O Israel! the Lord is our God, the Lord is one!” (Deut. 6:4), Stephen no longer teaches monotheism. When Stephen says that he sees Jesus standing next to God, they hear him say that Jesus is God. Therefore, Stephen is a blasphemer.

In conformity with the law of Moses, anyone who blasphemes the name of God must be put to death; the members of the assembly must throw stones at him so that he dies (Lev. 24:16). In short, the members of Israel’s supreme court say that the charges of blasphemy, which the Hellenistic Jews have brought against Stephen, are proven to be true now that Stephen claims that Jesus is God.

  • Heaven. Where is heaven? If we visualize Stephen standing in the hall of the Sanhedrin, he would not have been able to look up into the sky. The text gives no indication that the meeting had moved outdoors at this point. How do we explain the appearance of Jesus to Stephen? God opened Stephen’s eyes so that he could see heaven and gave him the ability to view heaven as if it were in proximity to Stephen. Somewhat of a parallel is Paul’s conversion experience on the way to Damascus. Paul heard Jesus’ voice but his companions heard only sound (9:7; also compare 2 Kings 6:17). Heaven, then, is up and around us in a dimension that we are unable to see. When God opens the eyes of believers, as some Christians experience on their deathbed, he permits them to look into heaven.[7]

[1] MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1994). Acts (Vol. 1, pp. 222–223). Chicago: Moody Press.

[2] Bruce, F. F. (1988). The Book of the Acts (pp. 154–157). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

[3] Williams, D. J. (2011). Acts (p. 146). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

[4] Garland, D. E. (2017). Acts. (M. L. Strauss & J. H. Walton, Eds.) (p. 76). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books: A Division of Baker Publishing Group.

[5] Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (2010). Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles (Vol. 1, pp. 314–316). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

[6] Marshall, I. H. (1980). Acts: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 5, pp. 157–158). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[7] Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (Vol. 17, pp. 278–279). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

December—27 The Poor Man’s Evening Portion

Leave a reply

For he that is entered in his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.—Hebrews 4:10.

My soul! see to it, that among other blessed evidences of thine union and rest in Christ thou hast this also: “We which have believed,” the apostle saith, “do enter into rest.” Our dependence on, and knowledge of Jesus, are such, that we really and truly enjoy the blessings of redemption. And as God the Father, when he had finished creation, rested from all his works which he had made; and as Jesus, when he had finished redemption, entered into his glory; so true believers, when they have once found Christ, and redemption in his blood, no longer weary themselves in the works of sin, or the works of self-righteousness, by way of justification before God; but cease from every thing in self, and rest with complacency and delight in the rich, free, and full salvation that is by Christ. My soul! what sayest thou to this blessed testimony of thine interest in Jesus? Is Jesus to thee the resting place from sin, from sorrow, from guilt, and the wrath to come? As God the Father rests in him, well pleased for his righteousness’ sake, dost thou rest in him? Oh! the felicity of such a rest! Jesus is indeed the rest, wherewith the Lord causeth the weary to rest, and this is the refreshing! “Return to thy rest, O my soul, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee!”[1]

 

[1] Hawker, R. (1845). The Poor Man’s Evening Portion (A New Edition, p. 353). Philadelphia: Thomas Wardle.

December 27 – What is the “latter rain”? — VCY America

Leave a reply

December 27
Zechariah 10:1-11:17
Revelation 18:1-24
Psalm 146:1-10
Proverbs 30:33 

Zechariah 10:1 – David Wilkerson believes the “latter rain” is spiritual, talking about a revival move of the Holy Spirit. While the timing of the “latter rain” is a matter of eschatological dispute, Wilkerson adds helpful caution to his desire for Holy Spirit revival: “Many so-called Holy-Ghost movements vanished quickly because they were man-centered — focusing on gifts, blessings, self-improvement, happiness.”

However, we’re probably safer taking a narrower interpretation – within the context of the chapter, it’s referring to God’s future dealing with Israel not the Church. As the latter rain follows the early rain, God will deal with Israel again as merciful as in the past. Note the frequency of the word “again.”

  • “I will bring them again… they shall be as though I had not cast them off” (Zechariah 10;6)
  • “they shall remember me… turn again” (Zechariah 10:9)
  • “I will bring them again” (Zechariah 10:10)

Zechariah 10:4 – John MacArthur identifies this as a Messianic prophecy.

  • He notes “the corner” is the “precious cornerstone” in Isaiah 28:16, and the “stumbling stone” of Romans 9:32, and described in 1 Corinthians 1:23, Ephesians 2:20, Daniel 2:34, and Matthew 21:44.
  • He compares “the nail” to Eliakim in Isaiah 22:23, but where “the Eliakim nail will be cut off, not the nail that is referring to Christ. “
  • He argues that the “battle bow” is identified with Zechariah 9:13 and Revelation 19:11.

Zechariah 11:12-13 – 1 Peter 1:11 comes to mind – Zechariah must have wondered why God included this – and it wasn’t until Matthew 27:9-10 that it was identified as a Messianic prophecy. The New Testament attributes it to Jeremiah, the first of the prophets in the Hebrew Bible.

Zechariah 11:16 – God is raising up a bad shepherd? Similar to the lying spirit of 1 Kings 22:23, to bring judgment upon His people.

Revelation 18:4 – In 2 Corinthians 6:17, God says to come out from unbelievers – if you lose your father He will be a father to you.

Apocalypse 28. The destruction of Babylon. Revelation cap 18. Mortier’s Bible. Phillip Medhurst Collection

Revelation 18:24 – Many people wonder why God doesn’t judge the wicked – the problem is their timetable isn’t God’s. God will judge the wicked – He keeps track of every wrong.

Psalm 146:4 – Note the contrast – man returns to his earth (dirt), as opposed to the Maker of the earth (Psalm 146:6). Trust in the LORD!

Proverbs 30:33 – As James 1:20 tells us, “For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.”

December 27 – What is the “latter rain”? — VCY America

December 27 Hard Work

Leave a reply

Keep your spiritual fervor.
(Romans 12:11, NIV)

He worked by day and toiled by night,
He gave up play and warm sunlight.

Dry books he read, new things to learn,
And forged ahead success to earn.

He plotted on with faith and pluck,
And when he won, they called it luck.

Mary I. Smith said, “The only place you will find success before work is in the dictionary.” Listen: “I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me” (Acts 20:24, NIV). The clock meant nothing to Paul, because he was on a mission. He was not affected by the weather, the circumstances, or the opinions of others; all that mattered to him was fulfilling his destiny. Child of God, are you looking for an example or looking for an excuse? The Bible is not a book of shortcuts. It’s a workbook! Listen: “Work while it is day.” “Ever abounding in the work of the Lord.” “The people had a mind to work.” “Keep your spiritual fervor.”

After a concert, a fan rushed up to the famed violinist, Fritz Kreisler, and said, “I’d give my whole life to play as beautifully as you do.” Kreisler replied, “I did!” That’s the price of success, and it costs each of us exactly the same.

 

“Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men” (Ephesians 6:7, NIV).[1]

 

[1] Gass, B. (1998). A Fresh Word For Today : 365 Insights For Daily Living (p. 361). Alachua, FL: Bridge-Logos Publishers.

Biden’s “One Horse Pony” Problem: Why The Hunter Biden Scandal Is No Dead Horse | ZeroHedge News

3 Replies

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

President-elect Joe Biden has a pony problem. During the primary, Joe Biden bizarrely responded to a woman who asked why voters should believe that he could win a national election by saying “You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier.” That encounter came to mind when Biden this week mocked Fox reporter Peter Doocy, who violated the virtual news blackout on the Hunter Biden story. by asking about the scandal. Biden immediately walked off stage and then stopped and said “Yes, yes, yes. God love you, man — you’re a one-horse pony, I tell you.”

Like many kids this Christmas, many voters are still angling for a pony. Biden has spent months mocking the Hunter Biden story – and anyone asking about it.  When CBS News reporter Bo Erickson asked Biden about his son’s scandal, Bo Erickson drew a similar rebuke from Biden.  He simply asked ‘Mr. Biden, what is your response to the New York Post story about your son, sir?’ Biden’s response was again a personal attack: “I know you’d ask it. I have no response, it’s another smear campaign, right up your alley, those are the questions you always ask.”Biden also blew up at a question that referred by the scandal by a NBC reporter and at a Fox reporter who asked about his son.

It is just not working.

The media openly worked to bury the Hunter Biden scandal before the election, but the ponies keep finding their way back. The problem is when you one reporter like Doocy who refuses to be corralled and insists on an answer to a serious question.

The question last week was a good one.  Doocy yelled out “Mr. President-elect, do you still think that the stories from the fall about your son Hunter were Russian disinformation and a smear campaign like you said?”  Biden’s response of “yes, yes, yes” seemed to continue a discredited claim (indeed, “disinformation”) put out by figures like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff who assured the pubic that the allegations against “this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin.” Some 50 former intelligence officials, including Obama’s CIA directors John Brennan and Leon Panetta, also insisted the laptop story was likely the work of Russian intelligence. Cable hosts and journalists laughed at the laptop story as fake news to justify the blackout on coverage before the election.

Then the pony showed up again. After the election, it was confirmed (as some of us discussed in columns before the election) that Hunter Biden is under federal investigation. The laptop appears to be genuine. The emails appear to be genuine. And Doocy continued to ask the obvious questions.

Biden is still hoping that he can continue to mock and the media will continue to do the rest.  One reporter yesterday did raise the scandal but only to ask if Biden discussed it with Attorney General candidates (the campaign already said that Biden was going to allow the Justice Department to reach its own conclusions).  There are other obvious questions, including whether a key business associate of the Bidens, Anthony Bobulinski, is lying. Either Tony Bobulinski or Joe Biden is lying. Bobulinski is repeatedly praised by Hunter Biden in the emails and identified as the person in control of transactions for “the family.” He has directly contradicted Joe Biden’s denial of any knowledge or involvement in his son’s dubious dealings.

There is a reason why Biden may not want to answer that question. If he calls Bobulinski a liar, Biden would be hit with a defamation lawsuit within days. He would then be forced to go under oath in a defamation. Such depositions present their own dangers. Just ask Bill Clinton.  So it is not a pesky pony but a sworn deposition that Biden may be trying to avoid.

The same problem exists on other questions.  For example, not only were Joe and Jill Biden included as “office mates” with controversial Chinese investor (and associate of Hunter) Gongwen Dong, but emails also refer to unsecured loans going to the Biden family and shares going to “the big guy.”  The “big guy” appears to be Joe Biden. Moreover, Biden spent the election denying that his son did nothing wrong and made no money from China. The question is when Biden learned of the federal investigation and whether he was aware of the dealings over multimillion dollar unsecured loans (as well as alleged gifts like a valuable diamond to his son).  Answering those questions falsely could trigger congressional investigation and then more ponies would show up.

That is the problem with a bunker press strategy of denial and isolation.  Like water, truth has a way of coming out. Clearly many in the media will continue to be in the bag for Biden. However, horses tend to gather where the water is found.  First, there was one pony (Doocy). Then another showed up (Erickson). Before you know it, you have a herd and a threat of a stampede.  Then it could be too late.

In mocking comment to Doocy, Biden was clearly trying to say a “one-trick pony.” That trick however was once called “journalism” back in the day when reporters doggedly demanded answers, particularly on questions like influence peddling. So many of us still hoping for ponies – and even some answers – for Christmas.

Source: Biden’s “One Horse Pony” Problem: Why The Hunter Biden Scandal Is No Dead Horse

Trump Took a Wrecking Ball to Media Credibility—Can Biden Repair It?

Leave a reply

Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty

A few days after winning the 2016 election, Donald Trump—perhaps the most press-friendly, or rather press-addicted, political figure in recent American history—confided to CBS News’ Lesley Stahl his rationale for relentlessly attacking the mainstream media.

“You know why I do it?” the 45th president told the 60 Minutes correspondent. “I do it to discredit you all and demean you all, so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.”

Four years later, as Trump petulantly grapples with the inevitable, namely that Joe Biden will soon dislodge him from the Resolute Desk, he can legitimately claim at least one major triumph: His ceaseless barrage of “fake news,” “terrible reporter,” “wise-guy questions,” “third-rate,” “disgrace,” and “enemy of the American people”—a smear he first unleashed (via Twitter, of course) on Feb. 17, 2017—has done measurable, maybe irreversible, damage to the credibility of U.S. journalism.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

Source: Trump Took a Wrecking Ball to Media Credibility—Can Biden Repair It?

Did Edward Snowden Commit Crimes In Releasing Information on the Deep State’s Illegal Collection of Data on Americans? | The Gateway Pundit

Leave a reply

Many are calling for the pardon of Edward Snowden for uncovering the spying of all Americans by the Deep State.

What Snowden did was uncover our government’s spying on Americans illegally:

 

Snowden released information on the theft of data and the NSA’s plans to release use it for their own purposes:

 

Snowden’s information showed the Deep State is spying on everyone and then using it for their own purposes – perhaps even selling the data to thugs around the world for personal gain:

 

Snowden is being persecuted for standing up to the Deep State.

 

Edward Snowden is the victim or Deep State retaliation.

(We highly recommend you watching the movie – Snowden.)

Source: Did Edward Snowden Commit Crimes In Releasing Information on the Deep State’s Illegal Collection of Data on Americans?

Edward Snowden Interview With John Stossel, Who Now Believes Snowden Is A Hero | RealClearPolitics Videos

Leave a reply

Journalist John Stossel sits down with NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden to discuss his life in exile in Russia, the possibility of a pardon from President Trump, and more.

Source: Edward Snowden Interview With John Stossel, Who Now Believes Snowden Is A Hero

Sidney Powell Releases Massive 270-Page Document Detailing Widespread Election Fraud

3 Replies

Pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell recently released a massive 270 page document to Zenger News including affidavits, evidence and testimony from many witnesses and sources detailing alleged fraud in the 2020 election.

Powell has been on the frontlines of fighting the alleged fraud in the 2020 election, bringing many serious accusations to the table.

Zenger wrote, “Powell contends that documents in the binder prove direct foreign interference and fraud tainted the Nov. 3 presidential election, and that President Donald Trump was re-elected. The entire binder is reproduced here for exclusively.”

Check out some of the findings below:

Source: Sidney Powell Releases Massive 270-Page Document Detailing Widespread Election Fraud

DANGER: IMF wants search history, purchases to influence credit score — Capstone Report

Leave a reply

Careful what you search on Google and buy on Amazon. The International Monetary Fund wants to use your search history and purchases to set your credit score.

According to Gizmodo, “The researchers see the possibility of using the data from your browsing, search, and purchase history to create a more accurate mechanism for determining the credit rating of an individual or business. They believe that this approach could result in greater lending to borrowers who would potentially be denied by traditional financial institutions.”

Good grief. China’s social credit system is coming to the West and it will do so via Big Tech.

But pay attention. This will be all about that last sentence: “They believe that this approach could result in greater lending to borrowers who would potentially be denied by traditional financial institutions.”

In other words, equity.

You’ve heard that word regarding healthcare. It was what drove the evil idea that the elderly should not receive the COVID-19 vaccine first because “old people in this country are too white to save.” Or, as Tucker Carlson put it, “when you’re the right color, you’re essential.”

And so it will be with the credit score based on search history and sales transactions.

Just think about the possibilities for punishing conservatives and rewarding Leftists.

Search for racial reconciliation, and you get positive points. Search on the evils of Critical Race Theory and you’ll lose points. Buy a book promoting Intersectionality and you’ll gain points. Buy a book by John MacArthur or Founders or someone in the Conservative Baptist Network and you’ll get placed on the naughty list.

One of the main reasons the US and West needs a secure 5G system is to prevent China’s dominance of our private data. Would any of us feel comfortable with foreign autocrats controlling our data? Why are we OK with Tech Tyrants?

China is not the only threat. As, Gen. Robert Spalding tweeted, “No, when I say secure I mean encrypted, so that no one can hit the rewind button on your life. Democracy is not sustainable in a digital panopticon.”

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1342836969089466368&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwordpress.com%2Fread%2Ffeeds%2F4509432%2Fposts%2F3096996097&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px

The general is right: Democracy is unsustainable in a system where Big Tech and/or Big Brother are capable of punishing Wrongthink.

We face a dangerous time. Our rights hang in the balance as Big Tech and the progressive Deep State are poised to extend their powers over ever increasing parts of your life.

Think about how important your credit score is to your future. For some jobs, part of the pre-employment screening is to pull a credit report. Your ability to purchase a car that you need for work or the dream of owning a home might be denied you because you read the wrong websites.

This idea promoted by the IMF is a warning. It is a warning that the Progressive Revolutionaries are determined to destroy every conservative. The financial system will become one way to shape the civic culture.

Now is the time to become the contrerévolution. As Hannah Arendt said, “In theory as in practice, only a counter-movement, a contrerévolution, could stop a revolutionary process which had become a law unto itself.”

Progressives are run amok in America and the West. Only if we recognize it and organize against it can we hope to win the War of Ideas and save liberty.

This War of Ideas is unfolding in many theaters. It is happening in the Southern Baptist Convention as we counter the Woke tyrants leading our institutions. This is why it matters if Democrat billionaires are spending money to influence the Southern Baptist Convention.

It is happening in the secular world too as scholars push against the dominance of Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.

And it will happen in our everyday lives.

If we love liberty, then we must act now against the looming tyranny.

DANGER: IMF wants search history, purchases to influence credit score — Capstone Report

Did 330,000 Americans Die ‘From’ the China Coronavirus Or Is It Closer to 20,000 Who Died ‘From’ the China Coronavirus? | The Gateway Pundit

Leave a reply

How many Americans really died FROM the China coronavirus? 

On Christmas Day the government’s television channel, PBS, reported on the the China coronavirus first thing.  This is all they talk about but they never mention China, they label the pandemic COVID-19:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made the announcement last night to help prevent the spread of new highly contagious COVID variants in Britain. That comes as the U.S. death toll surpassed 330,000. And hospitalizations nationwide hit a new record high yesterday, more than 120,000.

But this reporting is questionable. We reported in August that the CDC admits that only 6% of all deaths in the US classified as Coronavirus deaths actually died from the China Coronavirus alone.

SHOCK REPORT: This Week CDC Quietly Updated COVID-19 Numbers – Only 9,210 Americans Died From COVID-19 Alone – Rest Had Different Other Serious Illnesses

SHOCK REPORT: This Week CDC Quietly Updated COVID-19 Numbers – Only 9,210 Americans Died From COVID-19 Alone – Rest Had Different Other Serious Illnesses

Yes, this was from the CDC’s own reporting.  So today it looks like less than 20,000 deaths in the US (330,000 x 6% = 19,800) over the past year have actually been due to the coronavirus only.  The remainder of the deaths reported by the CDC include accidents, overdoses, suicides and those presumed to have had the coronavirus upon their death.

So basically many local and state governments are shutting down their local businesses and institutions due to over-inflated statistics regarding the number of Americans who died from this China oriented coronavirus.

Source: Did 330,000 Americans Die ‘From’ the China Coronavirus Or Is It Closer to 20,000 Who Died ‘From’ the China Coronavirus?