ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The New World Order: Global Government

Updated on May 16, 2019
James A Watkins profile image

James A. Watkins is an entrepreneur, musician, and a writer with three non-fiction books and hundreds of magazine articles read by millions.

World Government

In 1950, James Warburg, son of the ‘Father of the Federal Reserve,’ unabashedly told the U.S. Senate in a public hearing: "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest." Four years earlier, John D. Rockefeller had provided the funds to build the United Nations in New York.

Many Americans have wanted to bring about a New World Order. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt probably did more to bring it about than any other single person.

Rex Tugwell, part of FDR’s Brain Trust, wrote a new constitution in 1974 that would abolish freedom of speech, control all communications and travel, eliminate the right to free assembly, and most importantly stamp out the free exercise of religion, even making worship a ‘privilege’ granted by the State. The Bill of Rights would be thrown out, and private ownership of guns prohibited. The Ford Foundation spent $25 million promoting Tugwell’s new constitution.

In 1993, a World Parliament of Religions gathered in Chicago to champion a new unified global religion. It concluded with a mission statement that focused on Earth worship but never once mentions God.

Rex Tugwell
Rex Tugwell

Worldwide Socialism

Why would the wealthiest men in the world want Socialism to be the New World Order? It seems counterintuitive to think the rich would want to share the world's wealth. As explained by Gary Allen, "If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is, in reality, a method to consolidate and control the wealth, the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or more accurately Socialism is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite."

As W. Cleon Skousen noted: "It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their wealth but the wealth of the whole world. To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishments of a central world-wide dictatorship."

Council of Foreign Relations

The mission of the Council on Foreign Relations, formed in 1921, is to gradually cede the power, authority, and sovereignty of the United States to the United Nations, all the while desensitizing Americans by implementing Socialism progressively. In the end, the CFR wants to rule or help rule the world through World Socialist Government.

Admiral Chester Ward, Judge Advocate General for the United States Navy in the 1950s and former member of the CFR, wrote that the goal of the organization is “submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.”

He also explained how the CFR influences our government today: “Once the ruling members of the CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the CFR prepares propaganda both to sell the changes to the public and to demonize any opposition.”

Edith Kermit Roosevelt (granddaughter of TR) wrote in 1961 about the CFR's plans for "a One World Socialist State governed by experts like themselves. The result has been policies which favor gradual surrender of United States sovereignty to the United Nations."

Luciferian Conspiracy

To bring about the Luciferian New World Order, America must be disintegrated from within, by first getting rid of the shared identity of Americans, their shared religion, values, customs, traditions, associations, and language.

Psychopolitics have been employed to bring this to fruition. Christianity is the wall blocking the New World Order. After all, the New Testament told us of its plan nearly 2000 years ago.

The Solicitor General for President Obama already admitted before the Supreme Court that under Obamacare citizens could be forced to eat broccoli. And that eventually everyone might be forced by our government to embrace the homosexual agenda, including all Christian schools, universities, charities, and finally churches.

Common Core

The new Common Core standards are, in part, a new massive data collection program on America's families, which has nothing to do with education. It is being smuggled into government schools, and its purveyors are lobbying for private schools and homeschoolers to be forced to participate.

Among other things, the globalists want to know the religious views and political views of your family, along with health care history, including the mental health of your entire household. Children will be the only ones questioned, and they will be asked to squeal on their parents if they know of any illegal activities or drug use.

Why would the federal government want private information gathered about every child in America and their families? By what authority do they gather it?

The National Center for Education Statistics will receive massive dossiers from every student. Do we want the government to have our children tell if they or their parents hold any politically incorrect views? Why would federal bureaucrats even want such information? Why would the government spend billions of dollars collecting it? Only a police state keeps enormous files of personal, private information of law-abiding citizens.

Robert Muller

The ‘father of global education’ and ‘the philosopher of the United Nations’ and its ‘prophet of hope’ was Robert Muller (1923-2010). He said that his ‘spiritual master' was the former head of the United Nations, U Thant, an Atheist Buddhist, and Communist. Both men wanted to globalize education; wanted children around the world to be taught the same lessons "to bring about lasting peace."

What would these lessons be? The Gospel? No. U Thant said, "I would attach the greatest importance to spiritual values. I would deliberately avoid using the word ‘religion.' I have in mind faith in oneself as the greatest virtue of all."

Now Robert Muller is the author of the World Core Curriculum, from which is derived Common Core. Muller spent nearly 40 years creating his World Core Curriculum, which is meant to teach children worldwide that what is best for their future is a “one-world education system, a one-world government, and one-world spirituality that includes a one-world religion.”

A One-World Religion? Isn't that what Christianity already is? Muller's religious beliefs were something entirely different, coming from an occult spirit guide he said was named Djwal Khul.

The preface to World Core Curriculum reads: “The underlying philosophy, upon which the Robert Muller School is based, will be found in the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey by the Tibetan teacher, Djwal Kuhl, and the teachings of M. Morya as given in the Agni Yoga series books.”

Alice A. Bailey, in her book Education in the New Age, wrote: “One of our immediate educational objectives must be the elimination of the competitive spirit.” She devoted her life to the destruction of Christianity so that a path is clear for her single global religion in the Age of Aquarius. Attacking individualism and establishing a global collective is a considerable part of her program. She was most assuredly anti-freedom and anti-America.

UNESCO

The first president of UNESCO, Julian Huxley, said the goal of that organization was “to help the emergence of a single world culture: world humanism,” which is Atheism/Socialism.

UNESCO has been plotting of late to cram a World Core Curriculum down the collective throats of the human race, which will "install radical new values in children"—views decidedly opposite Christian values.

Robert Muller called it "a curriculum of our universal knowledge which should be taught in all schools of the earth."

A big part of the scheme is to "combat family attitudes," to annihilate the values parents pass on to their children. The United States must go, along with its Constitution. All nation states should dissolve; individual liberty is to become a thing of the past.

Agenda 21 will take over every detail of our lives. The UN declares, “Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

Since the color red has fallen out of favor among political movements after red socialists murdered 100 million innocent souls, green is the new color of the Left. The greens, which worship not God but the environment, often laugh and call themselves watermelons, green on the outside but red on the inside.

What they want is central planning for the whole world, with them in charge, to “save the planet,” even though central planning—besides the death, terror, famine, starvation, suffering, and misery it has caused—always devastates the environment.

Julian Huxley
Julian Huxley

What Does the Bible Say?

The Bible says that the Anti-Christ will bring all of Mankind under a single world government. There is a Great Plan to eliminate national boundaries to usher in a New World Order in the service of Evil. The primary public reason given will be to end all wars.

Advocates of the New World Order hate Christ Jesus more than anything else. That is why they fought to remove any reference to Him in public schools. The Christian faith has been the most efficacious opposition to Socialism.

The schools instead substitute a disguised form of Satanism they call Secular Humanism, which naturally teaches kids there is no such thing as morals. If there are no morals, then the ends justify the means for individuals, and more importantly for the State. As Karl Marx said, "We make war against all prevailing ideas of religion. The idea of God must be destroyed."

The Carnegie Endowment, the Ford Foundation, and the Guggenheim Foundation selected the twenty historians to found the American Historical Association in 1928 and provided their funding. That association aims to rewrite history, to promote Secular Humanism and collectivism in the United States with the ultimate goal of destroying it to prepare the way for a New World Order.

Paul C. Vitz in his book Censorship wrote: “Public school textbooks exclude the history, heritage, beliefs, and values of millions of Americans. Those who believe in the traditional family are not represented. Those who believe in free enterprise are not represented. Those who are committed to their religious heritage—at the very least as an important part of the historical record—are not represented.”

The Antichrist Culture

The Antichrist Culture in America loves abortion because it negates the sacredness of unique and unrepeatable human life. It uses Social Science as a weapon of cultural warfare.

Philip Rieff says that Sociology is “a deathwork against the sacred order” that phonily claims neutrality while partisan to the Antichrist culture. It offers the therapist as a substitute for the priest. It promotes “specialists without spirit” and “sensualists without heart.” Life without soul.

The Antichrist Culture is dominated by the dynamics of lying, Rieff writes. America—the most free country in human history—was presented in the 1960s by the Antichrist as a vast penal colony in need of liberation.

The freedom offered by the Antichrist is freedom from morals, but it does not make us free. It makes us slaves to our desires. It promotes lives devoted only to entertainment and pleasure. It supports the joys of transgression as a means to alienate people from the sacred order. The goal is anomie. The result is the State as lord and master.

The Destruction of the Sacred Order

The godless culture cannot lead to higher humanity—it is unmistakably marked by a change in a downward direction. In place of commanding truths from God, we substitute human rules about minutiae. Antichrist Culture celebrates its talent at ruining sacred truths. The Antichrist denies and mocks the Bible not because it is not true but because it is true.

To the Antichrist the human being is no more significant than an insect, a mosquito no more sacred than a person. The goal of the Antichrist is to empty human beings of their identities in the sacred order. Antichrist babble produced Franz Fanon, Stalin, and Pol Pot, all of whom celebrated in blood the destruction of the sacred order.

Antichrist Culture seeks to separate man from his spiritual nature, leaving him an animal enslaved to appetites, without moral compass points, in a destabilized society. That is an immense disorder of truth—God is not the author of chaos—disorder brings death. Discard the sacred; make God out to be a fiction; ravish the Truth; worship at the altar of the supreme fantasies fathered by Marx and Freud.

Rebellion

Mein Kampf is about imposing a fictional new order on a disenchanted reality. Kulturkampf sought to disarm moral authority through law and politics, to shift the moral imagination from Church to State. Both Nazis and Marxists invented substitute religions to supplant Christianity. The Antichrist argues that faith in God involves the abnegation of intellect but then demands faith in its human substitute—as if that signifies you are smart.

To destroy a crèche in a public space but promote transgression in a public space—as in shameless conduct—passes for tolerance. ‘Values neutrality’ always means taking the side of Antichrist culture. The Truth is treated as obsolete and it is replaced by “Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.”

Obedience to God is presented as the ultimate in boredom with disobedience portrayed as exciting. The Antichrist demands ever-growing rights to transgressive behaviors. We are left with a land without civility; a nation without grace, full of Antichrist militants that no one has the balls to stand up to. But Utopia will never come. God is not mocked.

Hatred of the Human Race

The truth is the truth whether you believe it or not. Marx was a hater. The moving force behind the Antichrist is pure hatred. You can see it in Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, as well as in Picasso, Mapplethorpe, and Madonna. The last three turn their hatred toward the audience.

Antichrist Culture aims its arsenal at the dignity of civilization. Nothing is sacred, especially human beings. Antichrist culture does not imagine itself on the road to Truth. Its milestones are the destruction of the sacred truths others hold dear.

Taxpayers are forced to fund works of sacrilege. Piss Christ puts Christ in urine because the Christian Faith holds as sacred that Christ lives in the Believer, so the ‘artist' is saying, "You are piss."

The Story Has a Happy Ending

Jesus said that false messiahs would come with plans to save the world (and perhaps the whales too), to bring about a utopia (the word means nowhere). They will make predictions that are just plausible enough. But He warns that the false saviors will be in league with the Devil.

The Antichrist will not come as a seemingly evil person but as an angel of light. He will appear to be a fantastic man who pulls off miraculous feats that help people. It only takes a drop of cyanide to poison a whole glass of wine.

Satan will rule the world through the Antichrist, a global leader of high charisma; a messianic figure who will form a one-world religion and one-world government promising to save us from war, poverty, and pain. He will have a hypnotic magnetism. No one will be able to buy or sell anything without pledging eternal loyalty to him. Those who resist will be intimidated, starved, and murdered. Most people will yield to him, valuing their bodies more than their souls.

This world has a happy ending, however. Jesus the Christ comes back to vanquish the Devil and his demons forever to Hell, ushering in a new Heaven and a new Earth for all those who have believed on His Name. Only a personal faith in Christ can save you.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      3 weeks ago from Chicago

      T ~ I could not agree more with your comments. In particular, I liked this: "Common sense, would a loving God create free will beings in His image and then leave them without revealing to them who He is, what they are, His plan for all creation? NO, not a loving God!"

      Amen!

    • tsadjatko profile image

      3 weeks ago from now on

      Common sense, would a loving God create free will beings in His image and then leave them without revealing to them who He is, what they are, His plan for all creation? NO, not a loving God!

      And He has through the Prophets, the Apostles and His Word which teaches us of the fall of Satan, the creation and fall of man, mankind’s eternal destiny without acceptance of His plan of salvation.

      It’s all here right under our noses, the free gift of God your creator if we first acknowledge that there is the one God of creation, of the Bible! Reject Him?

      For what? Nothingness?

      No, reject Him and suffer 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.19Scripture says, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. I will reject the intelligence of intelligent people."

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      3 weeks ago from Chicago

      T ~ As Jesus said, "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

      "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      3 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ By no means is President Trump my idol. I simply support his policies, generally.

      God created Lucifer with free will, just as he created us with free will. Why? You mean, why didn't he make angels and human robots?

      Bob Dylan said, "You're gonna serve somebody."

      G. K. Chesterton observed that while free will includes the freedom to things it most importantly appears as the freedom not to do things—because they are wrong. Our ultimate happiness often depends on what we choose not to do. That is the heart of morality, which is why traditional Christian morality is hated by the godless because they prefer to posit that we cannot help what we are or what we do.

      The possibility of evil is necessary. If we have the freedom to do good, we must have the freedom to do bad. If I am free to pick up a man's lost wallet and return it to him, I must also be free to keep it for myself and go on a shopping spree with his credit card. If my only choice is to return the wallet, then the act cannot be called a "choice" and it hardly can be called "good." If we had no choice but to do good, then we would be puppets on a cosmic string, dancing to God's tune without any agency of our own.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      4 weeks ago from now on

      Our Idol is Trump? That is so lame, we have no idols. I suppose your idol is who? Obama? Hiliary? Slick Willie?

      Who you voted for makes them your idol? Grow up child.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      4 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      I serve no master, James. Since you agree god created Satan, who tempted Satan? And why?

      Once again, I don't hate your god or your idol Trump. That seems to be the present mantra from those on the right.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Well said, T.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ Yes, God created Satan, your master, the one you serve.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      T ~ Yes, I agree with your video. As George Roche writes in 'A World Without Heroes,' the anti-hero operates in bad faith, twists words, assaults liberty and religious faith, showers contempt on America, denigrates traditional morality, denies the goodness of our history, “to make bearable his own intellectual and spiritual barrenness.”

    • tsadjatko profile image

      4 weeks ago from now on

      Did you not read anything I said? Obviously not, because as you’ve stated often, as a diversion when I’ve challenged your left wing talking points and you are left speechless, you don’t care what I say! Which is what you are doing now, diverting the discussion from your hatred of Christ and the gospel to gibberish about me being as you put it “a non-person” lol Since you don’t care what I say so why do you comment to me? Conflicted? I think so.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      4 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      Did you not see my question, T? Who created Satan? You're so biblically astute, it should be simple for you to answer.

      So now you're speaking for Christ? By way of anonymity? LOL! You're supposed to witness openly and not hide according to your biblical star, aren't you?

      .

    • tsadjatko profile image

      4 weeks ago from now on

      Still sticking with your self deception, Randy? I could have predicted that but the easter bunny doesn’t define me. Christ defines you as a sinner who needs a savior and that is what you hate. You hate as I said, everything he stands for, you hate the thought that there is a God who created you and controls your destiny and to embrace him means admitting you are a sinner destined for eternal punishment without him. In short you are enslaved to your sin and the chains of bondage which Satan has put on you and there is no way he will allow you to break those chains by believing in Jesus Christ, setting the captive free and that is the truth.

      What’s ironic is while you want to believe Christians are enslaved to an imaginary Jesus you are enslaved to a deception of a real life Satan.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      4 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      Perhaps you can tell us who created Satan, Xtian T? Was it your god?

      ooooooh, I think it was... LOL!

      Do you hate the Easter Bunny, T? I don't hate Xtians at all. I feel bad for their relying on an invisible sky daddy for making them do good. I don't need such guidance from an invisible entity.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      4 weeks ago from now on

      James, Randy is deceiving himself, not us, if he believes “ I'd have to believe Jesus existed before I could hate him.“

      If he doesn’t believe in Jesus, who stands for everything Godly and good then he can’t believe in the devil either. So he can’t hate the devil, evil incarnate?

      So what does he hate? He obviously hates Christians who try to model their life after Jesus. So he doesn’t hate Jesus? Hard to understand that but what isn’t hard to understand is that if he hates what Jesus represents, the gospel message, the easiest way to reject it is to simply say He, and so it, doesn’t exist and this is the underlying moral reason for atheists’ rejection of Christ explained in this 4 minute interview.

      https://youtu.be/wjBZIv4CH8o

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      4 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      Once again James, I'd have to believe Jesus existed before I could hate him. And why would I hate him anyway. Do you hate Santa Claus? You don't think he's real do you? What about the Easter Bunny? Can you imagine ranting against him?

      I know it makes you feel better about your own beliefs if you think I'm only discussing this subject because of my personal hatred of a person who I think never existed. You'd be wrong...

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      T ~ “It is indeed common for men to conceal their faults, and gratify their passions in secret, and especially, when they are first initiated in vice, to make use rather of artifice and dissimulation, than audaciousness and effrontery.

      "But the arts of hypocrisy are, in time, exhausted, and some unhappy circumstance defeats those measures which they had laid to prevent a discovery. They are at length suspected, and by that curiosity which suspicion always invites, closely pursued, and openly detected.

      "It is then too late to think of deceiving mankind by false appearances, nor does any thing remain, but to avow boldly what can no longer be denied. Impudence is called in to the assistance of immorality; and the censures, which cannot be escaped, must be openly defied.

      "Wickedness is in itself timorous, and naturally skulks in coverts and in darkness, but grows furious by despair, and, when it can fly no farther, turns upon the pursuer." DR JOHNSON

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ “Such is the state of a man abandoned to the indulgence of vicious inclinations. He justifies one crime by another; invents wicked principles to support wicked practices; endeavors rather to corrupt others, than own himself corrupted, and to avoid that shame which a profession of his crimes would bring upon him, calls evil good, and good evil, puts darkness for light, and light for darkness.

      "He endeavors to trample upon those laws which he is known not to observe, to scoff at those truths, which, if admitted, have an evident tendency to convict his whole behavior of folly and absurdity, and from having long neglected to obey God, rises at length into rebellion against Him.” ~ DR. JOHNSON

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ As Dr. Johnson said: "A man is always desirous of being at peace with himself; and when he cannot reconcile his passions to his conscience, he will attempt to reconcile his conscience to his passions; he will find reason for doing what he is resolved to do. We not only do what we approve, but there is danger lest in time we come to approve what we do, though for no other reason but that we do it."

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      T ~ Yes, Randy has a deep-seated hatred of Jesus. His motives are perhaps explained by Aldous Huxley:

      “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ I have to laugh every time I see a leftist call Christians 'judgmental.' Who is it that has instituted Campus Speech Codes and banned people from Social Media for 'hate speech,' which means nothing but dissenting from leftist orthodoxy? Not Christians.

      In fact, science shows that Christians are far more tolerant than secularists. It is the Left who wants people fired from their jobs, shouted down when speaking, hounded off campus, harassed in restaurants, and banned from the public square for dissenting from their atheistic worldview.

      Psychological projection is what comes to Leftists naturally—meaning that they unceasingly attribute their own undesirable feelings and ideas to those they despise. For instance, no one is truly more intolerant than those who make ‘Tolerance’ their byword. No group projects more sheer hatred every day in social media than those who make ‘Hate’ their shibboleth. No one decries ‘people forcing their ideas down my throat’ more than Leftists who do exactly that and are proud of it. No one is more bigoted than those who scream ‘Bigot’ at those with whom they disagree. No one is more racist than those who use the word ‘Racist’ constantly as an insult. No one is more judgmental than those who say “Don’t judge!” all day every day at those they are judging to be deserving of their hatred. Those who demand Diversity demand uniformity of thoughts and words.

      Constantly I see Leftists complaining that Conservatives or Christians are ‘trying to legislate morality’ and ‘shoving your morals down our throats.’ And yet, the Left (Atheist Socialists) constantly legislates what they see as ‘moral’ and tries to prohibit what they see as ‘immoral.’

      Surely all Leftists think their holy trinity of racism, sexism, and disapproval of homosexual behaviors are all ‘immoral.’ In fact, so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ activists argued before the Supreme Court that it was ‘immoral’ to oppose what they wanted.

      Leftists all the time say it is ‘immoral’ to deny ‘global warming’ schemes to redistribute trillions of our dollars to the Third World. MLK said segregation was ‘immoral.’ Just the other day a prominent Democrat said it was ’immoral’ for a nation as rich as us not to feed all its children. Even the fight against slavery by Republicans was on the grounds that it was ‘immoral.’

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ There is only one Gospel, not four. The four books are called the Gospel 'according to' Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

      Although the message of the Gospel - the word literally means 'the Good News' - is always the same, the presentation of it can vary by employing different terms that might make more sense to a particular audience.

      The Apostle Paul did not invent Christianity; nor did he distort it in any way. He was the first person who fully grasped the meaning of the Gospel, and the man chosen to explain it to the world.

      John became the most Christ-like of the disciples. Therefore, marvelous spiritual insights were revealed to him, which he eloquently conveys in the five books he wrote of the New Testament. With words of unusual brilliance and beauty, truth and wisdom, John reveals to us the deepest spiritual teachings of our Lord. The best-loved book of the Bible today is the Gospel According to John, published in about AD - which literally means 'The Year of Our Lord' - 90.

      John Mark the Evangelist not only wrote one of the eyewitness accounts of the Gospel, in around AD 51, he also traveled with Paul and Barnabas on long missionary journeys; and worked as an interpreter for Peter in Rome.

      The Gospel According to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by an historian of the first magnitude, who in simple but elegant narratives displays a keen eye for detail, describing perfectly the towns and islands of his times. A thorough investigator who interviewed many eyewitnesses, Luke pays great attention to the roles of women in the story of the Gospel. Published in AD 63, his books are the authentic account of the birth of the Christian Church.

      Matthew became an eyewitness to the life, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. He then would exercise his gifts as a fine teacher and writer. The Gospel According to Matthew, written in about 48, is the first and the most widely read account of the words and life of Jesus.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      4 weeks ago from now on

      James, I’ll address you since Randy doesn’t care what I say but why do you think Randy expresses Christian as Xtian. Do you think he is afraid of the name of Christ? Or do you think it’s just his childish way of disrespecting Christians along the lines of using internet slang for sticking out his tongue (:P) at you every time he comments?

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      4 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      I didn't realize those guys claimed they wrote the books. "According to;" and "As told to" isn't a definitive claim of authorship. Yes, a lot of historical info is used in the Bible just as in "Gone With the Wind."

      Atlanta was real, the Civil War Battles really happened, but one cannot claim Mammy and Scarlet really existed, can they? Naturally the writers added in info to make the Bible appear factual, all novels do this.

      In my experience, religious people of all beliefs are the most judgmental of all, and believe me, I live on the very buckle of the Bible Belt. You can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a Xtian up side the head! :P

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ I did not mean 'lunatic fringe' as an insult. I assume you know that even 99.9% of atheist historians believe Jesus was a real person. They just do not believe the Gospel.

      ‘Do not judge’ is the Bible phrase most often quoted by those who do not believe in the Bible. God does disapprove of some kinds of judging but approves and actually commands others.

      We are to correct those who spread lies about God, Jesus, or the Bible; those who misrepresent or deviously take Scripture (sacred writings) out of context. ‘Judge not’ never meant ‘Do not confront evil’ or ‘Do not denounce sin.’

      The New Testament writers are not at all 'anonymous' as you claim. I wrote a short Hub that explains this in more detail: https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/New-Testa...

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ It is not true that the NT books were based on the same author's writings. That is pure speculation. Of course, I have heard of the "Q" document. Its existence is also pure speculation. Why not take Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at their word that they wrote what they said they wrote? Do you also doubt the authorship of works by Faulkner, Sartre, and Camus? You're not biased are you?

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      4 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      "You are part of the lunatic fringe."

      Isn't there something in your handbook about judging people, James? LOL!

      All of the NT authors are anonymous. The gospels as told to, or according to, indicates they are hearsay at best.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      4 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      Cynthia, I didn't say you reported Tacitus was JC's contemporary. Simply pointing out Tacitus wasn't around during JC's life. None of the NT books were written until over a decade after his supposed death, and even these were based on the same author's writings. Ever heard of the "Q" document?

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Well said, Cynthia Taggart, well said.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      T ~ Thanks for the link to that cool video.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ The magnitude of the achievements of the original Christian missionaries cannot be overstated. Everywhere they went they were opposed. Nothing could have been less likely to win converts than preaching about a crucified criminal. The eleven men Jesus commissioned to take the Gospel to the whole world were not distinguished, had no influential backers, and even in their backwater of a nation they were nobodies.

      If Jesus’s body had been discovered, there would be no Christian religion. Why would Jesus’s disciples have fabricated His being raised from the dead? They faced bitter persecution from both Jews and Romans for believing it.

      It is highly unlikely that people would be willing to die for a story they knew to be false. If He were not raised, his Apostles must have invented the story. And all these men were devout Jews, who knew they would face eternal damnation for lying about God or His Christ.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ The only writer of the Bible who was not Jewish is Luke the Evangelist. While Paul wrote the most books in the Bible (14), Luke wrote almost as many words in his two voluminous volumes: The Gospel According to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

      Even secularists admit Luke was an historian of the first magnitude. He displays a keen eye for detail, describing perfectly the towns and islands of his times. A thorough investigator who interviewed many eyewitnesses, Luke is surely as trustworthy as any historian.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Cynthia Taggart ~ Thank you for your most excellent comments. As your one expert says, "the testimonies of the ancient historians reveal how even those outside the early church regarded Jesus to have been a historical person. It remains difficult, therefore, if not impossible, to deny the historical existence of Jesus when the earliest Christians, Jewish and pagan evidence mention him.”

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ If you do not think Jesus even existed you are part of the lunatic fringe. Even those who hate him generally admit he existed. Your hatred for the Lord knows no bounds.

    • cynthtggt profile image

      Cynthia Taggart 

      4 weeks ago from New York, NY

      Randy, I wrote:

      " Cornelius Tacitus, another important Roman historian, lived approximately between AD 56 and 120. Modern historians view his Annals (which covers Roman emperors Augustus to Nero) to be the best source of information about this period in Roman history."

      Where is it said in what I wrote that Tacitus lived during the time of Jesus' miracles?

      You don't read well, do you? And you want others to believe that YOUR research is above and beyond the authority of historians who wrote about Jesus' crucifixion? Come on!! You're looking just to be contrary and contentious, ignoring facts, and then saying that because YOU researched it, your opinion is one to be accepted without question.

      There is no mention in my comment that Cornelius Tacitus lived during the time of Jesus' miracles. [If you're a "researcher," and you missed the forest in the trees in my comment, or if you extracted from texts in the past that which you WANT to true even when it isn't true, you would be disqualified as a "researcher."]

    • tsadjatko profile image

      4 weeks ago from now on

      James, you have driven your points home very well but there are three types of learners

      visual learners

      kinesthetic learners and

      auditory learners

      Maybe this video will drive home the truth to those who aren’t getting it.

      https://youtu.be/WXFwF4PosIg

      Of course, they have to want to learn before they view it.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      4 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      Interesting you find my research based on "hate", James. That's like saying I hate the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. I was born into a Xtian family, but I soon realized the Xtian faith is based on all sorts of contradictions in the New and Old Testaments.

      Xtian's try mightily to prove even the existence of Jesus while arguing against the biblical prophecies in some cases. Just because I do not buy into your beliefs is no reason to conclude I hate a person I never believe existed. Not even a good try, James.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Ron Koehler ~ Thank you ever much for coming by to read my piece. I am so glad you enjoyed it and you are quite welcome.

      I could not agree with you morewhen you say: "You must realize most will not accept it because they are under a strong delusion. Jesus said, " I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6 Most will not accept this as Truth because they are dominated by their flesh and are not Spiritually minded. They are lovers of pleasure and their own will more than lovers of God. Pawns of satan."

      There you have it, brother. Faith, Hope, and Love to you.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      T ~ Thanks for chiming in. I agree with you wholeheartedly. To those who constantly clamor, "Show me a sign!" God refuses. He is not a performing seal. He does not have to justify himself to any puny man.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      4 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ You are too hung up on the way YOU would have brought Jesus onto the world stage, like Obama some kind of political figure whom the secular world idolized. Like Elvis. How come He wasn't famous during His time on Earth like Julius Caesar? That's how you'd have done it had you been in charge of Creation.

      You know nothing of God if you don't grasp that He doesn't do things the way you or I would. He does things in a way that all but the unthinking or the dishonest or those with scales on the eyes of their hearts would grasp the supernaturalness of it all. Not like other public figures to where you could say, "See! That Jesus was just like Napoleon."

      'Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself...

      'While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth – His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.

      'Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.

      'I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.'

      Thanks to Dr. James Allan Francis for that (1926).

      There is something supernatural about that story. And those who work for the Devil spend their days trying to cast doubt on it because like their master, they hate Him.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      4 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      Cynthia, Tacitus didn't live in the time of Jesus's miracles, so his reports are simply hearsay. Josephus, on the other hand, was a contemporary and didn't mention Jesus at all. Josephus's early writing was corrupted by others in an attempt to include JC into his writings, but fortunately there are original copies which show this was simply an effort to legitimize the existence of Jesus.

      Good try, but I've researched Tacitus before, as well as Josephus and Pliny the elder who were living in Rome during JC's supposed lifetime.

    • cynthtggt profile image

      Cynthia Taggart 

      4 weeks ago from New York, NY

      Randy, Cornelius Tacitus, another important Roman historian, lived approximately between AD 56 and 120. Modern historians view his Annals (which covers Roman emperors Augustus to Nero) to be the best source of information about this period in Roman history.

      It is from Tacitus, for example, that we know that Nero blamed a devastating fire that happened in Rome in AD 64 on Christians. Wrote Tacitus: “Therefore, to squelch the rumor, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people call ‘Christians,’ hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate.”

      Though scholars do not know where Tacitus obtained the information he used in Annals, they know he had access to the Acta Senatus, the Roman Senate’s archives of its activities. Those Roman records could have contained reports of Jesus’ crucifixion, and he could have retrieved the details from there. Or he could have learned the facts while he was proconsul in Asia.

      Tacitus’ writing confirm the New Testament accounts that Tiberius and Pilate were in power when Jesus was crucified. Tacitus also points to the continued growth of Christianity in the years shortly after Jesus died, as reported in the New Testament book of Acts. His report clearly demonstrates the remarkable resolve of Jesus’ earliest followers, and the growth of the movement Jesus founded. It is because Tacitus is held in such high esteem by modern historians that his Annals carry such weight.

      Professor Casey Elledge of Gustavus Adophus College holds this view of early non-Christian sources, including Tacitus, Josephus, and Seutonius:

      “The testimonies of ancient historians offer strong evidence against a purely mythical reading of Jesus. In contrast to those who have denied the historical evidence of Jesus altogether, judging him merely to have been a mythological construct of early Christian thought, the testimonies of the ancient historians reveal how even those outside the early church regarded Jesus to have been a historical person. It remains difficult, therefore, if not impossible, to deny the historical existence of Jesus when the earliest Christians, Jewish and pagan evidence mention him.”

      https://www.josh.org/evidence-jesus-lived/

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      5 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      So Jesus thought he fit the Hebrew prophecies, James? Naturally he would claim he did, but there's no proof he ever existed. Find him mentioned anywhere else than the Bible and you'll have something to argue with.

      None of his so-called miracles are mentioned by any of those contemporary historians living in the same area as he. No zombies walking the streets, no day turning into night, no feeding the multitudes, healing the sick, or making the blind see, or raising the dead. But then, they probably wouldn't notice such everyday events. LOL!

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ I had missed your earlier comment with the link you kindly provided from Christianthinktank. I did read it just now. Your writer asks, "How people can believe Jesus was the promised Messiah." Easy. And I have already given you the answer.

      "Jesus taught his disciples that the Old Testament proclaimed His coming. Christ Jesus openly identified himself as the Messiah of Jewish prophecy."

      So either Jesus is a liar or the guy who wrote your article is mistaken. You side with him. I'll side with Jesus.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Paula ~ Thank you for taking the time to read my article. I appreciate you sharing that background on Rex Tugwell.

      I have been up in your neck of the woods! I once spent a summer on Seneca Lake, in Burdett to be exact, right near my namesake, Watkins Glen. :-)

      I drove around that area in a pretty good radius, just checking things out. Went on a winery tour as well. Very pretty country. Nice people. Relaxing atmosphere.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Awdur ~ Thank you for visiting my Hub. I enjoyed your most excellent remarks, especially this: "Students are no longer encouraged to use their imaginations.... to create..... to dream. Unfortunately, much of the nonfiction they are exposed has itself been victimized by revisionism.... which in my eyes makes Common Core dangerous to the core."

      Right on.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      T ~ Thank you for your input.

    • profile image

      Ron Koehler 

      5 weeks ago

      Thank you for such an insightful article. You must realize most will not accept it because they are under a strong delusion. Jesus said, " I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6 Most will not accept this as Truth because they are dominated by their flesh and are not Spiritually minded. They are lovers of pleasure and their own will more than lovers of God. Pawns of satan.

      For every Christian the end of the matter is Jesus returns as King, all will see it, and all will realize the Bible is God's letter to us and has been here for thousands of years.

      Until then life on Earth in Jesus is abundant with love, peace and joy for the believer HisStory is still being told and I rejoice. Dark days are ahead until The Light of Life returns.

      Grace to you and yours

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      But Randy, you don’t care what I say, your words many times, nit just here but wherever you stalk me to call me names. Of course it’s clear, you are tge expert at recognizing and parroting talking points.

      Conflicted? I think so. I’ll make a deal with you. You actually stop caring what I say and I’ll stop caring what you say. James doesn’t need me to make a fool of your comments anyway.

      Deal?

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      Randy, do you really think the historians of the day would be seeking out Jesus to see his miracles? Miracles are hard to believe unless you witness them, why do you think anyone would right about things they didn’t care to witness. There are tons of things historians of the day (who didn’t believe in God or miracles btw) never wrote about that we know happened or existed from archeological discoveries. Because historians didn’t write about them doesn’t mean they didn't exist except to a person who is so thick all he believes is manufactured left wing talking points.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      5 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      No, you're not understanding all you're reading, James. Why weren't any of JC's miracles documented anywhere besides the Bible? Because they never happened according to the known historians who were supposedly contemporaries of JC?

      JC didn't fulfill all of the predictions made by the ancient Hebrews, despite some claiming he did and despite the writers of the NT trying to write him in. I find Xtians giving lots of leeway to the ancient Hebrew claims in order to even make the case for JC being the Messiah when they wouldn't but a car with such sketchy details.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy ~ You are just not understanding what you are reading. You told me that Old Testament Prophets said the Messiah was going to be a Military Leader for the Jews to throw off the Romans. The Old Testament was finalized in 450BC - LONG before Romans came to Judea.

      But the main thing is this, on the Livius thing you gave me, you can grasp this now, it does not say the Old Testament prophesied Jesus to be what you claimed at all.

      It says that between 170 and 140 BC - 200 years after the Old Testament was done and written, SOME JEWS started saying the Messiah might come as a military commander. NOT THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS.

      Your Livius article adds, as another example, "such as the following rendering of the Song of Hannah."

      Randy the Song of Hannah is NOT IN THE BIBLE. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that.

      Your article says, "The Neofiti targum is even more explicit about messianic violence," and then the quote given IS NOT FROM THE BIBLE BUT FROM A COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE.

      It adds, "These two targums are relatively late, and it is possible that the extremely violent imagery reflects the traumas of the Jewish population after the disastrous wars against the Romans (66-70, 115-117 and 130-136).

      IN OTHER WORDS WRITTEN LONG AFTER JESUS WAS DEAD IN AD 30 AND THEREFORE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HIM BUT ABOUT A STILL YET TO COME DELIVERER.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 

      5 weeks ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      James, as I often do, after reading an article that peaks my interest, I will do some research. In this case, I looked for more info on the individuals mentioned in your article.

      I had never heard the name, "Rex Tugwell." I was totally shocked to learn that this man was born and raised until age 11, in a small rural village, about 30-40 miles from my own home town! "Sinclairville."(population at most times, a whopping 600-700 !!) After the age of 11, he moved with his family to another town in my area, about 40 miles in the opposite direction of my home town.

      I have to admit that considering where Mr. Tugwell found himself as an adult, involved closely with the President of the U.S. and having reached a level of notoriety, extensive education and infamy.....I was sort of stunned. Let's put it this way, were you to take a drive through these parts of Western NY, you'd find yourself in a small rural town of farms, livestock, grape vineyards, little to no business, industry or landmarks of any relevance. With all due respect to my beloved hometown area......."redneck" can come to mind.

      Anyway, James...I just wanted to share this. It doesn't take much to impress me, I guess! LOL Paula

      (I did no research on "Alice." Not interested in where she originated. Fact is, where she rightfully belonged was in lock-up of a psychiatric asylum.)

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      5 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      Plenty of scripture for you here, James.

      https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/m...

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ You are way off base, I answered your question fully. There are 456 prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, that's the Old Testament to us, that talk about the coming Messiah. I am not aware of any of them that say "The Messiah will be an army commander." I gave you dozens of clear verses from the Hebrew Bible about the Messiah so you could see for yourself what is said about him. I asked if you had a Bible verse that said "he will be an army officer." You sent me a link, which I followed and read every word of. He does not name one single verse of the Hebrew Bible about the Messiah. He only prattles on about his own opinions. He is not theologian or Bible scholar.

      He quoted no prophet. So no, I am not picking and choosing my prophets. Your man is not one. He is not a prophet.

      Down through the centuries, millions of Jews have become Christians. They still do today. In most cases, they no longer consider themselves Jews - the word literally means 'adherent of Judaism - but Christians - adherents of Christianity. I told you all of Jesus' original followers were Jews. So to say "No Jews believed Jesus" is flat out false. Millions of Hindus have converted to Christianity. After they do, they do not consider themselves Hindus anymore. Just because we still have Hindus in our midst does not mean "The Hindus rejected Jesus." Mostly the Jews who rejected Jesus from the beginning were the priests, who saw Him challenging their religion and their position.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      5 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      Another interesting article on the Messiah not fitting JC's life.

      christianthinktank.com/falsechrist.html

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      5 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      So you are picking and choosing which of the prophets to believe, James? And using "some" Jews to say JC was the Messiah doesn't cut it. Many more do not believe this is true.

      Sorry, typical apologetics from a Xtian viewpoint.

    • awdur profile image

      Awdur 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Great article. I can only speak to the education angle, but I am happy to say that most experienced teachers that I am acquainted with dislike Common Core at its core. Most notably, they don't dislike the curriculum in regard to its content, but rather because of its value. The Common Core reading standards almost solely revolve around nonfiction. Students are no longer encouraged to use their imaginations.... to create..... to dream. Unfortunately, much of the nonfiction they are exposed has itself been victimized by revisionism.... which in my eyes makes Common Core dangerous to the core.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      See James, as I said, Randy simply parroted a left wing talking point from that article about the messiah being a warrior - no attribution to any ancient prophet and if he investigated before parroting misinformation he would have discovered everything you have enlightened us with, btw explained by myriads of Christians devoted to study of scripture and history of Christianity. But all he knows is to parrot talking points and I’d wager he will ignore everything you said and continue to spread a lie.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ Thank you for the link to that article. The writer has no idea what he is talking about. For instance, he says, "The Jews never accepted Jesus as the Messiah because all of the predictions referred to the Messiah as a warrior akin to David. The Jewish Messiah was to be a great military leader who would lead the Jews out of political bondage from the Romans."

      The prophecies about Jesus predated the Romans coming to the Holy Land by centuries. Were there any Jews who out of their own minds thought Jesus might lead them in rebellion and overthrow the yoke of the Romans? Yes, there were. Just like there were some people who thought Obama was the Messiah.

      ‘Messiah’ means ‘deliverer’ or ‘anointed one’ and translates into ‘Christ.’ The Jews expected him to be a prophet, a priest, and a king. He is all three. The Messiah was to bring SPIRITUAL deliverance not military deliverance.

      Christ came to lead a counterrevolution against the enemy of both God and Man: Satan (and his demon henchmen). There is no doubt that Jesus knew the spiritual forces of evil are real and personal. He knew Satan to be a living individual, and when he cast demons out from people he addressed them as actual beings—not as delusions. Keenly aware of the presence of evil, Jesus cured many persons of demonic possession. He was in fact the world’s greatest exorcist, and exorcism was obviously a priority of his ministry. That is SPIRITUAL warfare.

      But the biggest problem is the assertion that "The Jews never accepted Jesus." That is a tricky, clever, diabolical deception. It should be obvious to you that millions of Jews have accepted Jesus. All 12 of His apostles were Jews, all the original members of His Church were Jews, the Apostle Paul was a prominent Jew.

      Of course, once they accepted Jesus, they were no longer known as Jews, by and large, but as Christians. Although there were then and are today “Jews for Jesus” and Messianic Rabbis. In fact, I went to Israel with a Jewish Christian Rabbi.

      All of Jesus’ original disciples were Jewish. That is well known. So to say “Jews never accepted Him” is wrong. Some did, some didn’t, just as some of every race, ethnicity, and religious background do and some don’t today. Millions of Jews converted to Christ in ancient times and since. The leaders of Judaism do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. If they did, they would no longer be the leaders of Judaism—they would be Christians.

      As Jesus had grown in popularity, the religious leaders of the Jews had grown more and more indignant and jealous. His message of grace and repentance was proving more popular than their self-righteousness. They held the common man in contempt as beneath them, but at the same time demanded their respect, and gave to charity to win their admiration.

      The Jews in charge at Jerusalem burned with hatred towards Christ because of his purity. His holiness revealed their iniquity. Jesus chastised the Jewish leaders for having bad attitudes and for leading people astray who had looked to them for guidance. The Jewish leaders wrongly believed they could accumulate merit with God by good deeds, while nourishing the deadliest of all sins: Pride.

      Jesus clearly claims he was sent from heaven by God to save people from every tribe and nation on earth. The Jews in charge bristled with resentment at this part of his message, too, believing they are God’s only people. Jesus claimed equality with God, his father. All Jews considered God to be their father, but they hated Jesus because he said God was his personal father.

      But the average Jew on the street, such as Mary Magdalene, some accepted Jesus and some didn’t. Just like today amongst all peoples.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Cynthia Taggart ~ Your commentary is brilliant. And heavy. As you said so well, 'My point is that social media and mass communications spread the false narrative that it was individualism and Christians that caused all to fail. However, even the term "white privilege" is really a cover hate of "white Christians."'

      I also agree that 'The answer lies in the fact that "spiritually" they are jealous. The evidence is in fact before our very eyes that "individualism" helped expand our world, permitting us to increase populations and have great economic expansion.'

      I am surely with you in this: 'That the deceitful lie arose that Christians were to blame for all our woes has now, through social media, been spread to the next generation as an evil, when in fact it is the "collectivism" of the New World Order that will produce more evil than any individual system possibly could.'

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      T ~ I like and approve of your comments.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      MAGA ~ Yes, I agree with you that Muslims seem more devoted to their religion when compared to Western Christians. Another factor in their growth is that they still have many children whereas Western Christians, for the most part, do not. There are certainly many lukewarm Christians in the West. As for 'gay marriage' I totally agree with what you said about it and my response was meant to convey that agreeance.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      5 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      James, only some of the portents were supposedly filled by JC. Why do the Jews not recognize JC as the Messiah?

      donlehmanjr.com/Politics/politics%2006/politics%2006d.htm

      But your reply would probably be more informative as to why they do not accept him, correct? :P

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ Are you asking me if the Hebrew Bible says the Messiah would be some kind of military commander? If so, my answer is not that I am aware of. You tell me. You seem to think so based on something.

      Here are some of the prophecies that predicted what the Messiah would be like, etc."

      His Nativity and Early Years

      The fact: Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 7:14; Jeremiah 31:22

      The place: Numbers 24:17, 19; Micah 5:2

      Adoration by Magi: Psalm 72:10, 15; Isaiah 60: 3, 6

      His Mission and Office

      Mission: Genesis 12:3; 49:10; Numbers 24:19; Deuteronomy 18:18-19; Psalm 21:1; Isaiah 59:20; Jeremiah 33:16

      Prophet like Moses: Deuteronomy 18:15

      Conversion of Gentiles: Isaiah 11:10; Deuteronomy 32:43; Psalms 18:49; 19:4; 117:1; Isaiah 42:1; 45:23; 49:6; Hosea 1:10; 2:23; Joel 2:32

      Ministry in Galilee: Isaiah 9:1-2

      Preaching: Psalms 2:7; 78:2; Isaiah 2:3; 61:1; Micah 4:2

      His Passion

      Rejection by Jews and Gentiles: Psalms 2:1; 22:12; 41:5; 56:5; 69:8; 118:22-23; Isaiah 6:9-10; 8:14; 29:13; 53:1; 65:2

      Persecution: Psalms 22:6; 35:7, 12; 56:5; 71:10; 109:2; Isaiah 49:7; 53:3

      Triumphal entry: Psalms 8:2; 118:25-26; Zechariah 9:9

      Betrayal by friend: Psalms 41:9; 55:13; Zechariah 13:6

      False accusation: Psalms 2:1-2; 27:12; 35:11; 109:2

      Silence under accusation: Psalm 38:13; Isaiah 53:7

      Mocking: Psalms 22:7-8, 16; 109:25

      His Resurrection

      Psalms 2:7; 16:8-10; 30:3; 41:10; 118:17

      His Ascension

      Psalms 16:11; 24:7; 68:18; 110:1; 118:19

      His Second Advent

      Psalm 50:3-6; Isaiah 9:6-7; 66:18; Daniel 7:13-14; Zechariah 12:10; 14:4-8

      His Universal, Everlasting Dominion

      1 Chronicles 17:11-14; Psalms 2:6-8; 8:6; 45:6; 7; 72:8; 110:1-3; Isaiah 9:7; Daniel 7:14

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      5 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      Just give me the passage describing the Messiah and his purpose. Did the prophecies predict the Messiah as a great military leader or not. You avoided my concise question, and certainly Jr. would claim to be him despite him not fitting the prophecies.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Thank you Cynthia Taggart for coming back by and leaving your warm words about my comments on Obergefell. The odd thing is, while I disagreed with MAGA about the word 'men' in our Founding Documents, my comments on Obergefell I put in a separate box to make it obvious, I thought, that I AGREE with him on that.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ You must have missed it. I answered your question thusly: "Jesus taught his disciples that the Old Testament proclaimed His coming. Christ Jesus openly identified himself as the Messiah of Jewish prophecy. Four hundred fifty-six passages refer to the coming of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible."

      Do you want a list of the 456 passages? Is that what you're saying?

    • cynthtggt profile image

      Cynthia Taggart 

      5 weeks ago from New York, NY

      MAGA, my comment was not vague or obtuse. I do not understand what you mean. But in answer to your comment on why Christianity is dissolving versus the Muslim religion (in my opinion) is because communications have collectivized persons and dumbed them down, thereby dissolving the "individual" that Christianity exalts.

      Christianity is not a religion (though some of its sects practice "collectively," like Catholic believers). That is because most people follow other people and look to the acceptance of persons as qualifying them as "good." Christianity is a "philosophy" that puts the individual ahead of all people, from which the constitution is derived. The philosophy of good and evil, for example, extrapolates from the Bible the same deep thinking. In other words, one man may appear GOOD in the eyes of other men, but in his heart be wicked behind closed doors even when the whole world will say he is good if he conforms to religious laws. The majority of people are this way. They follow others and conform to religious dictates.

      Christianity as a philosophy - the more Protestant sect - had always been more tolerant than other "religions" as to the "choices" individuals make for their own happiness, whether they be moral or sexual choices. That is because Christianity as a philosophy believes the individual will REAP what he sows. So, at least when I grew up, someone who was gay, black, white, red, or blue, could do anything they want, believe in what they want, as long as it did not infringe upon the rights of others. [And I remember AT NO TIME did I hear any anti-Semitic remarks, racial or homophobic comments made by anyone I knew.]

      What changed all that was the "lies" perpetuated by "groups" that formed against Christianity. Those groups formed in the early 1990s. That is because, politically, in order to implement more socialistic plans for a New World Order, the government knew the collective unconscious of America (i.e., respect for the individual) had to change. What arose out of that plan was a narrative that all whites (but what they meant was all "Christians") were "prejudice." That false narrative - with the help of social media - arose to spread that false narrative COLLECTIVELY. (But that was the intention. For HOW would a new order be established when the moral majority was predominantly Christian? The answer was to destroy THE INDIVIDUAL.)

      To destroy the individual government had to destroy its nemesis, Christianity. Groups began to vilify Christianity collectively to pave the way for more and swift socialistic policies that included expanding the sick (doctors stopped treating infections, for example); and crashing the economy [2008 with viral collateralized debt obligations in mortgages (see the movie THE BIG SHORT)]] to create the illusion that capitalism and individualism are UNFAIR and DO NOT WORK.]

      My point is that social media and mass communications spread the false narrative that it was individualism and Christians that caused all to fail. However, even the term "white privilege" is really a cover hate of "white Christians." The interesting thing is the fact we are called "privileged." For if we are so "privileged," why doesn't the left want the education we had, why do they not want to understand how capitalism will help more poor than socialism?

      The answer lies in the fact that "spiritually" they are jealous. The evidence is in fact before our very eyes that "individualism" helped expand our world, permitting us to increase populations and have great economic expansion.

      That the deceitful lie arose that Christians were to blame for all our woes has now, through social media, been spread to the next generation as an evil, when in fact it is the "collectivism" of the New World Order that will produce more evil than any individual system possibly could.

      It is why the Muslim religion is gaining momentum. It is a religion that is founded on OTHERS believing the same as THEY to produce a "collective" (once again that word) false "goodness," a goodness for the eyes of other men (used in the sense of both men and women), rather than God Himself, to quash all individualism from the planet - hence, Christianity itself.

      After all, Christ died on the cross so ALL could be saved. Not by men, not by acceptance by the masses, but ONLY by God - who sees the heart that no human being can see.

      One more thing: The jealousy of Christianity was predicted by St. Paul in Romans [11:14] when he said, "I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, in the hope that I may provoke my own people to jealousy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?…

      And he wasn't speaking of 70 A.D. because this statement was written after that period.

      As more and more people are brainwashed by social media and propaganda to believe the new World Order is better than what was ever devised by our constitution, this will not doubt result in a religion like the Muslim one that holds it MORE HOLY AND MORE IMPORTANT to be accepted and controlled by the powers of government and tyrannical men than by God. The Anti-Christ is the SPIRIT we see in collective thought and reason. Little wonder the Muslim religions have great influence - for today people do not truly have independent thought or reasoning, making the old order of things too difficult to comprehend.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      But Randy you ignored my question

      Which ancient prophets and what did they say exactly, scriptural quotes?

      You have no clue because you again just parroted a talking point without investigating it, and we know you of all people wouldn’t even read scriptures which are fairy tales to you.

      Brad, everything does revolve around God, your very existence, your eternal destiny is dependent upon him.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      5 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      James, you posted a lot of words but ignored my query re the Messiah. What does the ancient prophets describe the person of the Messiah to be in the Bible. A simple question for you to answer if you dare.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      James

      Your last few comments to me were very disturbing, as you want everything to revolve around God.

      My statement about Christianity was based on the trend.

      While the 2.3 billion Christians outnumber the more than 1 billion Islam there is a quality difference in commitment.

      Growing up Catholic in Manhattan and going to a Catholic School, I know the difference between Catholics and Muslims. Knowing the difference doesn't mean that I favor Muslims, but you can't compare the devotion of the Catholics at large to that of the Muslims.

      It is that difference in devotion that allows the Muslims to spread around the world and make it their new surrogate home. This happened in Europe, and it is starting here in the US.

      Christians of the modern day are like Rinos are to the republican party.

      As for the All Men are created Equal, I gave the foundation and the references that are facts. I am disappointed in your response to it.

      As for gay marriages, I have no idea what you thought I said about it, because your response had no point on what I said.

      You know, it is time when people that you thought were like minded turn out to be just a different flavor of the left.

      What I do is to quote what someone says, and argue my point. I don't see that in your last few comments to me.

      It is not worth the effort to comment on your articles when you care more about how HP treats you when you get thousands of comments because you let the town cryers control through diversion, deception and just to be annoying.

      Don't bother commenting

      We are done, enjoy troll ville.

      And Cynthia, I have no idea what is the meaning of your obtuse, vague and ambiguous outburst.

    • cynthtggt profile image

      Cynthia Taggart 

      5 weeks ago from New York, NY

      Couldn't help but come back and take a peak in. After reading your response to MAGA 5 minutes ago, I felt compelled to tell you your response is stupendous. You wrote:

      "The argument for “equal treatment” of gays and lesbians was off the mark, for they had as much freedom to enter a marriage as anyone else. It was just that they were denied the freedom to change the meaning of marriage to allow them to marry people of the same sex."

      and then

      "The aim of the homosexual movement was never simply freedom “to live and love as they choose”; it was public approval of their choice. The legitimation of their behavior is what this is about, and has always been about.

      The strategy of the homosexual movement, spelled out in the 1989 book by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s, was to move the focus off what active homosexuals actually do, to the status of homosexuals as “victims.” It worked.

      If your opponents can control the way you are allowed to talk about them, you have already lost. This silence allowed homosexual activists and their allies to move onto libertarian ground, pretending that all sexual acts are forms of love – a lie."

      So spot on. Terrific.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Everybody has got to love everybody.

      And play nice in the sandbox.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Paula ~ I'm with you. I love to laugh and I will laugh when anyone is funny regardless of their political persuasion. And yes, "Bout time someone lightened up and broke the ice caps around here!"

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Randy Godwin ~ As I write in my first booK: "Jesus believed in the Hebrew Bible. He would refer to those Holy Scriptures 180 times, and mention by name Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Jonah and others, as real people who are important.

      "Jesus taught his disciples that the Old Testament proclaimed His coming. Four hundred fifty-six passages refer to the coming of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. Christ Jesus openly identified himself as the Messiah of Jewish prophecy.

      "All prophets before Jesus were mouthpieces for God, who would pronounce “Thus saith the Lord.” Jesus used the words “I say unto you,” which is exactly why the religious leaders of the Jews hated him so much. They considered it blasphemy—claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God.

      "In fact, Jesus insisted he had knowledge of the Father that no man can have and said that only the Father truly knows him. Jesus called himself the ‘Son of Man’ 80 times in the New Testament and declared himself Lord of the Sabbath."

      Pontius Pilate used the term 'Christ' in addressing Jesus, which means "Messiah." So Pilate must have recognized that term was being widely applied to Jesus.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      T ~ Your comments are extraordinary. And I enjoyed the article for which you kindly provided a link.

      You are spot on: "The humanity of blacks was not the subject of the three-fifths clause; voting power in Congress was the subject."

      And I could not agree more: "No distortion of American history is more pernicious than the notion that the term "all men are created equal" was intended to diminish the status of women."

      Well done!

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      MAGA ~ John Baker, who has taught with Justice Scalia, rails against people who refer to marriage merely as “traditional marriage”—as though this form of marriage takes on its goodness from the fact that it has been around for a long while. He refers rather to “natural marriage.”

      The decision from the Supreme Court foisting same-sex marriage on the American citizenry was a “lawless decision,” for there is “nothing in the text of the Constitution that mentions marriage.”

      There were no precedents for changing an institution grounded in the natural order of things: in the inescapable fact that it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child; that marriage has its most evident rationale as a framework of commitment to envelop the only sexual relations that have a natural tendency to bring forth future members of society.

      Therefore, the only rightful course for the judges is to return the matter to the political arena, where a self-governing people can decide the laws they impose on themselves.

      As the late Justice Antonin Scalia put in in his dissenting opinion in Obergefell, the decree handed down on same-sex marriage “says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

      Chief Justice Roberts wrote this in his dissenting opinion in Obergefell: “The premises supporting this concept of marriage [as a commitment, firmed in law, between a man and a woman] are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman.

      “When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.”

      Judges have been taking things out of the hands of the voters and the legislators they elect. The argument made by Justice Kennedy since the mid-’90s, that the laws reflecting an aversion to homosexuality that can be explained only by an irrational “animus,” was a shocking characterization of the moral teaching of Kennedy’s own Church.

      The argument for “equal treatment” of gays and lesbians was off the mark, for they had as much freedom to enter a marriage as anyone else. It was just that they were denied the freedom to change the meaning of marriage to allow them to marry people of the same sex.

      As Paulsen put it, the argument here was not for “equal protection,” but rather that “we need to change the institution itself.”

      The aim of the homosexual movement was never simply freedom “to live and love as they choose”; it was public approval of their choice. The legitimation of their behavior is what this is about, and has always been about.

      The strategy of the homosexual movement, spelled out in the 1989 book by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s, was to move the focus off what active homosexuals actually do, to the status of homosexuals as “victims.” It worked.

      If your opponents can control the way you are allowed to talk about them, you have already lost. This silence allowed homosexual activists and their allies to move onto libertarian ground, pretending that all sexual acts are forms of love – a lie.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      MAGA ~ I strongly disagree that the word ‘men’ in the Constitution, meant only males. “All men are created equal” means all human beings. It was common then to use ‘men’ for everybody. The protests against it only began in the 1970s by radical feminists.

      What you are talking about is Political Equality, which is not what "All men are created equal" is about.

      Your statement, “The constitution treated Black men as 3-5ths of a man, and it didn't consider anything about women,” way is off base. Just because women couldn’t vote did not mean the Founders did not consider them equal to men in the eyes of the Lord. Children couldn’t vote but they were considered equal to grownups in the eyes of the Lord if not higher than grownups. And women were generally considered BETTER than men, not beneath them, as radical feminism invented by Satan would have you believe.

      Blacks were not considered 3/5 of a man either. That is diabolical slander. That was a compromise that only and solely addressed representation in Congress and therefore Electoral College votes. Southern Democrats had a couple million slaves and they wanted them counted in the census, just as they want illegal aliens counted today, so they get more congressmen, proportionally, and more electoral votes.

      The North wanted them not counted at all in the census for representation in congress and electoral vote purposes, only because it would give the south twice as much power in Congress and in the vote for president. They compromised by agreeing to consider the slaves 3/5 of a person, not in any real way, but in the count whereby congressional representation was concerned. Had they been counted just like other folks Lincoln would never have been elected.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      Vivian Coblentz ~ Thank you for coming by to read my piece. I always enjoy your well-thought-out remarks. Yes, I did hear about the new SAT scam. Boy oh boy. Our educational establishment is the worst. We’ve got to clean them out to save our nation. And you are right that the so-called Equality Act was dreamed up by the Antichrist. I appreciate your kind compliments.

      Back in the 1970s Hal Lindsay predicted this would happen to America and he was scoffed at. I was even quite skeptical. Because Christianity was so strong in our country I thought, “It could never happen here.” But it has.

    • James A Watkins profile imageAUTHOR

      James A Watkins 

      5 weeks ago from Chicago

      MAGA ~ Thank you for your thoughtful insights. You wrote, “Christianity has been on the wane for several centuries.” In Europe it has been on the wane since the first world war. In America, only since the Sixties. But worldwide, Christianity is not on the wane globally but on the wax in a powerful way.

      God has been declared dead many times. Luckily, He has a knack of coming back from the dead.

      “Christianity had been struck down once and for all,” proudly wrote Joseph Fouche, Minister of Police during the French Revolution, in 1793. Christians were banned from becoming teachers, Christian worship services outlawed, religious holidays got rid of, necklaces with crosses prohibited, and a prostitute christened the Goddess of Reason enthroned on the altar of Notre Dame Cathedral. Christianity was banished from funerals and marriages; Christian names were abolished. It was “the dream of the ACLU come true,” says Ann Coulter.

      Atheism is growing in Europe and America but is shrinking throughout the rest of the world. In Asia, the number of Christians has grown from 16 million to at least 364 million in the last hundred years. In India, the percentage of Christians has grown from 2 to 6 percent; in China 98 million new Christian converts have been added in fifty years. Africa has gone from 9 percent Christian to about 50 percent. There are now close to 400 million African Christians.

      The 1950s had been a glorious time for Christianity in America. Church membership jumped in every denomination up to 1965. New churches were constructed all over this land and 49% of Americans went to church every Sunday—more than ever before and certainly not equaled since. In the 1970s, church membership and attendance began to drop as part of the sexual revolution.

      In 1914, European Civilization began to destroy itself. Its intellectuals, leaders, and rulers had largely forgotten God, and thus an essential part of their humanity, which led from a crisis of civilizational morality to a rage of self-mutilation.

      The deliberate rejection of the God of the Bible would bring on the twin horrors of Communism and National Socialism. Ideas have consequences and bad ideas can have lethal consequences. The bad ideas I am speaking of are: Nothing matters but Matter; God is a myth; and the spiritual world is an illusion.

      It was the power of the Church that had always held back State power, based on the conviction that Caesar is not God, and therefore not the ultimate authority. Christian Faith said that a transcendent order of justice stands in judgment of public power and authority. Even the socialist George Bernard Shaw blamed the First World War on “the religion of Darwinism.”

      The two world wars just about killed the Church in Europe. Before World War One, the churches were full; they were half empty in the 1920s. The very idea that Christians would slaughter each other on such a massive scale—fifteen million dead—led to many losing their faith. In the aftermath of World War Two, the pews were three-quarters empty. The horrific slaughters spawned an enormous spiritual loss.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      But Brad, I never asked for detailed examples of why “men” is not mankind, I asked you to read that article and tell me what you think of it - i don’t think you did either. I have plenty of examples of information how the left explains why men doesn't include women just in that article, but you didn’t comment on anything in the article that proved that take to be wrong. I guess on this subject you agree with the faulty “reasoning” of the far left who create that false narrative simply to make a political football out of the Declaration of Independence. That surprises me.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      T

      Because you didn't understand my answer, I used more information to explain it. Men is Men not mankind, and I gave you detailed examples supporting it.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      5 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      LOL! Even the trolls cannot agree...

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      Well I know you gave me information but I didn’t see an answer to my question in any of that information. I guess I missed it, but I don’t understand why you need paragraphs of information to say, yes, men is mankind or, no, men doesn’t mean mankind, which by the way was what you originally said...i think.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      T

      I gave the information.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      Paula! lol ....well I did have a typo.

      That has been Dean’s cue to say I’m losing it, just me, while his sidekick, Randy, has typos that make you wonder if he’s speaking english, not to mention Dean’s own typos like

      “But tsad, (youre) going to have to quit me and stop trying (ro) pull me into commenting on conspiracy theories you (obvioudly) believe without question.”

      Lmao

      Brad, what does that mean? Do you believe “men” in the declaration of Independence means mankind or not?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      T

      I guess we are done.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 

      5 weeks ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      Awwww, Booooo, c'mon T, that wasn't even a half-assed attempt at a dismissal.......

      But, BTW, yes, of COURSE "Men" most assuredly refers to mankind in these cases! No doubt, no question.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      Brad I have already told you what i think is wrong specifically and I don’t see where anything you said since addresses it.

      Specifically you said

      “I submit that "Men" was not being used as Mankind, but males. This can be proved by looking at how men were not equal and women were considered chattel.

      The constitution treated Black men as 3-5ths of a man, and it didn't consider anything about women.”

      When you say “I submit” I am to assume what follows is your opinion, right?

      Which was that women were NOT represented by the statement “all men are created equal” and that “it didn’t consider anything about women”

      I can’t be more specific and those sentiments are left wing concepts contrary to what Jefferson intended “men” to mean, which IS mankind, men, women and blacks as the article I gave you explains. We don’t seem to be in the same page and I don’t know why.

      Paula, i’m sorry, did Dean say domething? I must have missed it ...no loss there.

    • fpherj48 profile image

      Paula 

      5 weeks ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

      OH!!! ROFLMAO!!!! OMG, Dean just cracked me up! Hey, when it comes to humor, I'm an equal-opportunity laughing fool....doesn't matter who it is, if someone makes me laugh, I have to laugh. Scared myself in this big ole house by myself...I laughed out loud, for real!!

      LOL...T..."you're gonna have to quit Dean.....there's just no love there.".......(OMG, I'm still laughing....)....

      Now T....my laughter is not at your expense, so don't get all weird on me.........(besides, I'm thinking you probably didn't even see the movie.) I don't care what anyone says....THAT was too funny!

      I'm not forgetting this one! Bout time someone lightened up and broke the ice caps around here!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      T

      Maybe this will help.

      It wasn't the constitution of the founders that gave Black men and Women the right to vote.

      It was the 15th amendment that gave black men the right to vote.

      But the SCOTUS nor congress were willing to make the 15th or any other amendment including the 14th to give women the right to vote.

      Then in 2008, the 14th amendment has new power thanks to SCOTUS to make us believe that everyone is equal, at least under the law, but even that is not true especially today.

      Now, with the Equality law that the dems are proposing they will put the 14th amendment on steroids to take the constitutional rights away from the majority.

      If you think that everyone has an equal right under the law, then explain how the law differs for the poor, and how the middle class differs from the rich.

      Do you think that a public defender is equal to an expensive lawyer, or law firm with a great record getting their clients off.

      What is a jury of your peers look like?

      I don't understand what is the problem? Please tell me what you think is wrong specifically.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      T

      That is how the constitution was applied, not the theory of what people thought about the constitution.

      Please read the last paragraph of my last comment.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      You gave me the applied answer?

      You said “i submit that "Men" was not being used as Mankind, but males. This can be proved by looking at how men were not equal and women were considered chattel.

      The constitution treated Black men as 3-5ths of a man, and it didn't consider anything about women.”

      It sounds like that was your take on it. What “applied answer?”

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      T

      I hope that every time you disagree with me, you react this way.

      --------------------

      You are going to have reread my comment and compare what I said to this article. I gave you the applied answer to "All Men are Created Equal", and the article gave the intent of the founders.

      My point was about the SCOTUS and how they misinterpreted the constitution especially in 2008 and how the left took advantage of it.

      I didn't mention Jew, on Blacks and women. And how it took the people and not the SCOTUS to do right thing. The 14th amendment was part of the Civil Rights Amendments trying to protect the new found freedom of the slaves from the southern politicians.

      This is about the constitution, SCOTUS and political parties idea of government, not religion.

      As for Jefferson

      "Jefferson and Adams would famously reconcile in their last years. Both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration. Talk about a coup de théâtre! So now we recognize Jefferson as the Declaration’s author, yet McDonald reminds us that Jefferson himself claimed there were no new ideas in it: credit too must go to Locke, Montesquieu, the Scottish Enlightenment, and the long struggle for English civil liberties, among other founts of liberty."

      Another view

      "Jefferson and Adams would famously reconcile in their last years. Both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration. Talk about a coup de théâtre! So now we recognize Jefferson as the Declaration’s author, yet McDonald reminds us that Jefferson himself claimed there were no new ideas in it: credit too must go to Locke, Montesquieu, the Scottish Enlightenment, and the long struggle for English civil liberties, among other founts of liberty."

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      Don’t worry Randy, Dean’s not here to make an issue of people's typos.

      Randy, more left wing talking points? No doubt, cause if you weren’t just parroting talking points a serious person would quote examples of what prophets said about the Messiah.

      Which Hebrew prophets (all of them by your statement) and what is it you think they said?

      You have no clue! Parrot is all you do.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      5 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      Dammit man, should been "prophet" instead of profit in my previous comment.

    • Randy Godwin profile image

      Randy Godwin 

      5 weeks ago from Southern Georgia

      "What does the Bible say....." Since you mentioned the Bible in your hub James, describe what the ancient Hebrew profits said about the Messiah. Wasn't he supposed to me a great military leader? Doesn't sound like JC in the least, but I'm sure you can put a spin on it anyway.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 weeks ago from now on

      Brad, occasionally you say something I can’t agree with and the case of “all men created equal” not referencing women is one of those things. What bothers me about it is that your take expressed here on it is exactly the view of feminists and people on the left, the far left, which is what made me look into it because I know your are not a leftist.

      This article explains why women are included in Jefferson’s statement

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.weeklystandard.co...

      This is from that article:

      “The late Robert A. Goldwin, political scientist and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, repeatedly supplied incisive castigations of the Left's interpretation of America's founding documents. Perhaps his greatest performance arrived in the form of the essay, "Why Blacks, Women, and Jews Are Not Mentioned in the Constitution," which appeared in the May 1987 issue of Commentary. It deserves to be read in its entirety. Goldwin makes the following compelling point about why "masculine pronouns must certainly be read as referring to women as well as men."

      Consider Article IV, section 2, clause 2, providing for the return of fugitives from justice. "A person" charged with a crime who flees from justice and is found in another state shall be delivered up on demand of the governor "of the State from which he fled…." If the "he" in this clause is assumed to mean men only, and not women, we get the absurd result that male fugitives from justice must be returned to face criminal charges, but not female fugitives.

      Ironically, it's easy to take the argument propagated by The left in the opposite direction. Because women are not referenced in our founding documents, that could also logically mean they're unconstrained by the temporal laws of humans and the transcendent laws of God. And wouldn't that then mean they're actually afforded a superior degree of liberty then males?

      To be sure, one could rationally argue the Founders had greater esteem for women, because though "all men are created equal," women are created unequal and, therefore, with superior capabilities. Of course, this isn't what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison intended. But it's revealing that leftists, when they arrive at this fork in the road, immediately go negative.

      Senator Cory Booker said “black Americans were referred to as fractions of human beings," a reference to the Constitution's "Three-Fifths Compromise." That's not wrong, per se. But there are more layers to the story. Goldwin also chopped down the canned progressive canard, implied by Booker, that all white Americans at the time happily conspired to disenfranchise people of color.

      Northern delegates did not want black slaves included, not because they thought them unworthy of being counted, but because they wanted to weaken the slaveholding power in Congress. Southern delegates wanted every slave to count "equally with the Whites," not because they wanted to proclaim that black slaves were human beings on an equal footing with free white persons, but because they wanted to increase the proslavery voting power in Congress. The humanity of blacks was not the subject of the three-fifths clause; voting power in Congress was the subject.

      No distortion of American history is more pernicious than the notion that the term "all men are created equal" was intended to diminish the status of women. Instead of viewing the American experiment in democracy as a bold and unprecedented enterprise in liberty—which it was—it leads to the conclusion that our nation was born in "original sin," that it's creators were racists and chauvinists driven by narrow and self-serving interests.

      If women weren't originally afforded equality, then it was merely because the Constitution wasn't applied effectively. In other words, a temporal culture—not the founding documents and their authors—are to blame. Liberals and progressives unfailingly laud the "elasticity" of the Constitution. But that elasticity derives precisely from the vagueness of the Constitution. America's originators prophetically grasped that an absence of demarcation—that keeping terms universal—would furnish the space necessary for organic growth and societal advancement.”

      Brad, read the article and tell me what you think. I promise I won’t call you a non- person or make fun of your user name... ;-)

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      NOYFOB 

      5 weeks ago

      Vivian

      Thanks for mentioning this dem equality act.

      "Supporters are casting opposition to the measure as indicative of raging homophobia, transphobia, and a desire for LGBTQ Americans to be second-class citizens. "Passing the act would be a major step forward in stopping the Religious Right's aggressive agenda to redefine and weaponize 'religious freedom,'" reads a statement from Americans United for Separation of Church and State."

      This is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of politics. The SCOTUS once again made a bad decision, because they made a political decision and not a constitutional one.

      While the left won on gay marriage, the SCOTUS gobbled it up as a federal issue. Marriage was in the domain of the states, as there is no constitutional basis for marriage in the constitution.

      People including president Obama used the phrase, "All Men Are Created Equal". but it wasn't resonant with the constitutional. I submit that "Men" was not being used as Mankind, but males. This can be proved by looking at how men were not equal and women were considered chattel.

      The constitution treated Black men as 3-5ths of a man, and it didn't consider anything about women.

      The Civil Rights Amendments were made specifically for the losing southern politicians from circumventing the freedom of the slaves. The 14th amendment didn't make anything equal. If it did, it wouldn't needed the 15th amendment to give black men the right to vote. And it didn't give women of any color the right to vote. It took 50 years and another constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote.

      In 2008, the 14th amendment all of a sudden came alive as the equality enforcer, "While the Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state and local governments, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nonetheless imposes various equal protection requirements on the federal government via reverse incorporation. "

      This is another time that SCOTUS has usurped the power of the states, and made it a federal case as I mentioned before about the Interstate Commerce Clause. While the above concept or equal protection hadn't been rewritten, why didn't it apply back when they had to create the 15th amendment, and fifty years later when women were given the right to vote by the 19th amendment. Notice that these rights were not decided by SCOTUS but by the "people" through the amendment process.

      This should have also been the course for the 2008 decision on gay marriages. I also submit that it was the federal government that created the problem by using state marriages as a tax status. The gays won on the old separate is not equal because civil gay marriage didn't come with the over 1,100 federal government benefits. This could have been done without forcing existing marriage laws to be change to satisfy a minority. The congress could have just added a few words saying gay civil marriage also has these 1,100 benefits.

      It is ridiculous that they talk about the 5th amendment in terms of equality. I mentioned previously that Income Tax denies the use of the privilege of being a witness against yourself because they require you to provide evidence against yourself.

      Now, the left embolden by the SCOTUS decision wants to extend the line to restrict more of the states rights and make another federal case.

      Sorry, this is so long, but there are a lot of factors going on with dem Equality.

    • Noelle7 profile image

      Vivian Coblentz 

      5 weeks ago

      This is so alarming! So much has escalated toward this end in recent years that I had no idea it had its beginnings decades ago. I'm glad you traced it back so we could see the groundwork being laid over time.

      I have been very vocal with government leaders and our local Board of Education about common core. People always act like I am crazy. Now did you hear that the SAT scores are going to include an adversity rating to help non-white people?

      The Book of Daniel in the Bible talks about the Antichrist prevailing over the Saints. I always thought that would be in some far distant time, but it's getting closer. It's hard not to be afraid. Even though God wins in the end, we aren't sure how much we will have to suffer before that!

      The Equality Act the Dems are currently pushing in the House is also a similar assault to knock down the wall of Christianity that you mentioned is holding back this diabolique plot.

      Another great article to sound the alarm!

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)