Trust Jesus, not Q or Trump or Biden

[PursuePeace]

I'll just say God didn't create thorns. Thorns/thistles were part of the curse and fall of man. Gen 3.

BTW which early church father said "pick the roses leave the thorns" regarding philosophy?

See, I think that he did create thorns, but that they were also part of the curse and fall of man.
If God didn't create the thorns, (post-fall) then who did? Who else can really "create"? (not saying that in a snarky way, at all.) I mean, you might have a point here, I'd like to understand it better. Maybe there is something that I'm not currently seeing. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

 

[tfurrh]

See, I think that he did create thorns, but that they were also part of the curse and fall of man.
If God didn't create the thorns, (post-fall) then who did? Who else can really "create"? (not saying that in a snarky way, at all.) I mean, you might have a point here, I'd like to understand it better. Maybe there is something that I'm not currently seeing. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Ah I see. Yeah I agree.

 

[Anti Federalist]

In respect to ordinary self-defense, there is no teaching in Scripture that prohibits the believer from swatting away a thief, physically escaping harm from a criminal or even, in the worst-case, using force to defend oneself or innocents from a vicious attack. And when the situation arises in which such dire measures are required, we will do what needs to be done, from instinct. For a genuine situation, there is no element of "second-guessing"-- being the victim of a crime is like being attacked by a vicious dog, it's impossible to really say what is the "right" or "wrong" way to react in such a situation and, in any case, our fight-or-flight instincts will mostly take over.

That's not what it says.

Matthew 5:44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

Show me where Jesus said you can exempt street criminals and gangsters from that.

This is why believers are called to spiritual warfare. We are not to waste our time on the useless strategies of humans because those are a distraction and a mere sideshow.

What if you're wrong?

People have been predicting the end of the age for two millennium now.

They have all turned out to be wrong.

That's a hell of a wager you're asking me to make.

 

[ClaytonB]

That's not what it says.

Matthew 5:44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

Show me where Jesus said you can exempt street criminals and gangsters from that.

Go back one verse, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." (v. 43) He then refutes this false belief as you quoted. In context, he's teaching that we are not to be like the world (vindictive, holding grudges). I wrote on another forum about the famous Gadsden flag -- while I agree with the principle of liberty that it is associated with, the symbolic message of the flag is "Don't mess with me or I'll make sure you regret it" and that is precisely what Jesus is refuting here. And it's not limited merely to violent retribution-- all forms of vindictive and hateful behavior are evil and no believer should participate in them. Every form of "being nasty" is a deed of the flesh, not fruit of the Spirit. So we are called to cease from all such behaviors and attitudes.

If you attack me on the street, I will fend your attack off. If necessary, I might even use force against you. The only exception to this is if you are actually attacking me for the sake of persecution, that is, attacking me for the name of Jesus. If that is what is happening, then I cannot resist your evil attacks but, instead, I must cry out to God for grace to endure the persecution. This is because persecution is not really a physical attack, it is a physical manifestation of Satanic evil and the spiritual war that Satan is waging against God by attacking and persecuting God's people.

What if you're wrong?

It's the one prediction that literally can't be wrong -- this world is ending, soon.

People have been predicting the end of the age for two millennium now.

And all of them have passed away within less than 120 years from birth -- in human time, no one has waited more than 120 years for the second coming. So, the passage of historical time is an irrelevant distraction.

They have all turned out to be wrong.

That's a hell of a wager you're asking me to make.

Not really. Your world is ending one way or the other.

people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, (Hebrews 9:27)

 

[Anti Federalist]

Your world is ending one way or the other.

Hmm.

So, no matter what I do, it's pointless to resist.

My world lives on in the lives my children and their children and what I have taught them and left for them.

My enemies have committed to blotting their inheritance, their birthright, out of existence, and you suggest I do nothing since, according to the suicide cult, I'm a dead man walking already.

Ya'll have fun with that OK?

I'm converting to Odinism.

 

[ClaytonB]

Hmm.

So, no matter what I do, it's pointless to resist.

It is paganism that teaches that death is omnipotent, that is, there is no resurrection. That is the true futility.

My world lives on in the lives my children and their children and what I have taught them and left for them.

Not disputing that, just pointing out that, if there is a judgment after death, then you'll end up there whether you go to the judgment or the judgment comes to you.

My enemies have committed to blotting their inheritance, their birthright, out of existence, and you suggest I do nothing since, according to the suicide cult, I'm a dead man walking already.

I suggest the opposite of doing nothing. Pursuing a strategy that is doomed to fail is choosing to effectively do nothing. The war in government (aka politics) is a giant, live action Broadway show whose primary purpose is to keep you distracted from who is really pulling the strings. You can call it a "secret cabal" if you like, but that's still one step removed from the actual puppet-master-- the cabal has just one master. The Gospel is the real war, everything else is just a sideshow.

 

[jmdrake]

Damn it Drake...I saw your post early this morning and had planned for today to be nothing more than plowing snow with my backhoe like Mr. Fudderman in Gremlins.

But now you've goaded me into deep thought.

Deep thought that I reckon the family has been struggling with for centuries now...see, one half of my people are Quakers from way back, all the way to William Penn.

Even Uncle Smedley, who had a nick name of "the Fighting Quaker" by the way.

How did they reconcile this...this contradiction in scripture? Did it tear apart their families like it is doing to mine?

I think my understanding of your position is clear, let's cut to the heart of the matter here:



How can this be?

If it is justifiable in scripture to take the life of a man that is attempting to rob you of possessions, how can it possibly be wrong to take a life defending your liberty or defending your life itself?

Romans 13 maybe? Well, that makes sense, because what is the difference between a violent street gang or an oppressive government enforcement gang? Both are earthly authority, authorized by God, according to Paul and thus man has no right to resist it.



I am past the point of trying to achieve freedom for the masses.

Clearly the masses do not want that.

I'm trying to stir people up into resistance against forces that are coming to obliterate us.

To wipe us off the face of the earth, both as a people and as an idea...you and I and everybody here are on that list.

I'm trying to save the concept of freedom so that maybe, generations from now, it might be enjoyed again.

In all the years of reporting on police violence, what was one of my primary complaints? That white people would not, could not, be $#@!ed and damned if they would ever rise up and stir $#@! in the streets like black people do when cops kill one of their own.

This past year proves that idea works. Street violence works. "Give us what we want or we will hurt you and $#@! your $#@! up", works!

The Marxist left's wins are staggering when you sit back and take account of it.

Complete control of the nation's largest state economy, complete control of the fedgov, control of major cities all across the country including the largest: NYC - Chicago - LA and Houston. They got the NYPD to back down. Billions of dollars of donations flow into BLM coffers.

Their ideas are ascendant, their minions are everywhere, and one of their primary ideas and goals is the "final solution" for people like us.

They have made it clear this is the case, that they will not tolerate another "pure" revolution being sullied and soiled by counter revolutionary filth like us.

This is why I am losing my faith, one reason why my marriage is a bitter roommate agreement:

I will not accept that.

I will not accept a religious philosophy that says, in the face of evil that grandiose, that blatant, that far over the edge, that I am not permitted to defend and fight back against it.

You can save a man for Christ today John, by proving me wrong, by showing me what I am misunderstanding, and that yes, you can with full vigor and faith in God, fight with arms and violence against such an evil.

I remain convinced of my own understanding and of Pastor Peter Muhlenberg's understanding (of which I was unaware, until doing a little reading for this post) of Ecclesiastes 3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Hello. Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for bringing this to my attention with your mention. I'm not going to go point by point. Rather I'm going to address some themes:

Theme 1: Self-defense.

What I said: Christianity didn't become the religion of the Roman empire through conquest. It became the religion through conversion. It was really the first "information war." (And I know Alex Jones has tainted that phrase.) Whatever the freedom movement accomplishes will not primarily be through force of arms. Nothing wrong with having weapons for self defense. Jesus told His followers to get a sword, but then he said two swords, among 13 people, was "enough."

What you said: How can this be?

If it is justifiable in scripture to take the life of a man that is attempting to rob you of possessions, how can it possibly be wrong to take a life defending your liberty or defending your life itself?

Romans 13 maybe? Well, that makes sense, because what is the difference between a violent street gang or an oppressive government enforcement gang? Both are earthly authority, authorized by God, according to Paul and thus man has no right to resist it.[/i]

What I think you're missing:

I never said that self defense didn't extend to defense of liberty. Quite the contrary. As you know in another thread I mentioned that I supported the Bundy Ranch stand off. I suppose one could call that "property", but it was federal land that he was grazing on. More importantly the people who stood with Bundy weren't defending their property. So I would call that a defense of liberty. But I'll go a step further. If they had been standing up against mass gun confiscation I would also consider that self defense. (I guess that's also defense of property but then many things can be cast as property rights.) But there is a difference between self defense and a pre-emptive strike. I consider what happened on January 6th to be a pre-emptive strike. It grew out of fear of what Biden/Harris might do. Yes there was the specter of a possibly stolen election, but this isn't the first time there was a possibly stolen election.


Theme 2: What can and cannot be accomplished through the force of arms
What you further said: I am past the point of trying to achieve freedom for the masses.

Clearly the masses do not want that.

I'm trying to stir people up into resistance against forces that are coming to obliterate us.

To wipe us off the face of the earth, both as a people and as an idea...you and I and everybody here are on that list.

I'm trying to save the concept of freedom so that maybe, generations from now, it might be enjoyed again.

In all the years of reporting on police violence, what was one of my primary complaints? That white people would not, could not, be $#@!ed and damned if they would ever rise up and stir $#@! in the streets like black people do when cops kill one of their own.

This past year proves that idea works. Street violence works. "Give us what we want or we will hurt you and $#@! your $#@! up", works!


What I think you're missing:

If you think that what BLM accomplished last summer was ONLY or even PRIMARELY through force, then you've missed the information warfare campaign that has been going on since 2014. I applaud your efforts to point out police brutality that happens to whites. As you know, I've posted those stories as well. But those who lead the "conservative movement" have decided to squash such stories, or only bring them up to say "Whites get killed too so blacks should just suck it up." Seriously, I heard a WHITE MOTHER call in to a radio station in 2014 and say that her son got killed by police and it was his own fault so everybody else should just suck it up.

The goodwill and sympathy BLM has is left over from the mostly non violent 1960s Civil Rights struggle. Once you get people saying "We know you're right...but...." well at that point the threat of force carries more weight.

Now, compare BLM to January 6th. Jan 6th wasn't about white people getting killed by cops. It wasn't even about businesses being shut down like the Michigan protests were. Yes, Donald Trump make a good focal point for anger, but that was also the problem. People want to talk about the "stolen election?" Okay. But even Tucker freaking Carlson isn't convinced that the evidence of that has been laid out. The information war is in bad disarray when not even the most ardent supporters on your side can in good faith sign off on it. SOMETHING was screwy. I agree. But that has to be fleshed out.

You want to be successful? Come up with a just cause that can grow the broadest base of support and work that. That's what Ron Paul started. Donald Trump came along and focused on the fears of a slice of the liberty movement. And those fears are being exploited and amplified. I am not trying to "save your soul", but if I could simply convince you that the 70+ million who voted AGAINST Trump don't all want you dead, despite your often protestations to the contrary, that would be a step in the right direction. What do you know about Fred Hampton? He was the Black Panther chairman of Chicago that was gunned down by the FBI. Why? Because he reached out to the Latinos and the poor whites. The poor whites were part of a group called "The Young Patriots." They would be the "Tea Party" of today. Look at what happened with Gamestop. (Again, activism without the force of arms.) You've got the MSM trying to tie what was a clear attack against Wall Street elitist's to January 6th. That's a good thing if the word about small shareholder activism really gets out. The same folks the left is constantly complaining about have enemies on the right as well.

Lastly, as I said, not everyone can handle what ultimately must happen from a Christian point of view. I don't think that in and of itself makes you a bad person. But you should IMO feel the same towards people who have looked at the power of Christianity through history to undermine the rule of tyrants and think "Maybe those guys aren't my enemy nor are they necessarily naïve."

 

[jmdrake]

So glad to not be a Christian and have to deal with the moral dilemma. Don't get me wrong. I think Jesus was a straight up good dude. Said many good things that should be taken to heart.
But, when it comes to obliteration, I'll just go the old ways. One can live in harmony with Nature and Nature's God and still kill that which is trying to kill you.

Note that I quoted where Jesus (IMO) affirmed the right of self defense where he told his disciples to get swords. When they said they had two among the 13 He said that was enough. It was enough for self defense though not enough for an insurrection. I don't know why that wasn't clear.

But, let me leave Christians with this message. Look to a man I admire. Desmond Doss. You may not believe in killing a fellow, but that doesn't mean that you are not TASKED.
Spend as much on medical supplies as those that spend on weapons and ammo. Train as much at healing as others do at defending.
Being a believer does not give a Christian a license to 'sit it out' and wait on the Lord to correct evil.
If you are going to be a Christian. Be a Desmond Doss.

Desmond Doss was a fellow Seventh Day Adventist. I've known about him since I was a boy. I even met him once at a Pathfinder Camporee. Really nice and humble man.

 

[jmdrake]

Hmm.

So, no matter what I do, it's pointless to resist.

My world lives on in the lives my children and their children and what I have taught them and left for them.

My enemies have committed to blotting their inheritance, their birthright, out of existence, and you suggest I do nothing since, according to the suicide cult, I'm a dead man walking already.

Ya'll have fun with that OK?

I'm converting to Odinism.

SMH. Christianity defeated odinism through conversion. That's my point. And yes, eventually, Jesus will come again and the world will be remade perfect. Isn't that a good thing to look forward to? Maybe it will happen in our lifetime. Maybe it won't. As for "having fun", I guess slapping some buffalo horns on your head and running around the capital with no apparent objective might seem "fun" for a while.

 

[jmdrake]

That's not what it says.

Matthew 5:44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

Show me where Jesus said you can exempt street criminals and gangsters from that.

You are correct. And the end result of all of that love was the very civilization that you are wanting to defend now by force of arms. That said, if the sword that Jesus told you to get gives your enemies pause long enough for you to give them the gospel, why that's a win / win. Again, Bundy standoff, all win. January 6th? Stupid loss IMO.

What if you're wrong?

People have been predicting the end of the age for two millennium now.

They have all turned out to be wrong.

That's a hell of a wager you're asking me to make.

Two millennia ago began the beginning of the end of the pagan age by the use of the very methods you seem to have a problem with today.

 

[phill4paul]

Note that I quoted where Jesus (IMO) affirmed the right of self defense where he told his disciples to get swords. When they said they had two among the 13 He said that was enough. It was enough for self defense though not enough for an insurrection. I don't know why that wasn't clear.



Desmond Doss was a fellow Seventh Day Adventist. I've known about him since I was a boy. I even met him once at a Pathfinder Camporee. Really nice and humble man.

My first post wasn't directed at you specifically. I know there are a number of Christians that believe that they should 'turn the other cheek' or "walk into the lions den girded only in God's armor." It was directed to these individuals.
The second post was also directed towards this type of Christian. If one cannot get past 'Thou shall not kill" then there are other ways that they can assist more in line to their beliefs.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes, the Kingdom in the church Age has absolutely nothing to do with violence, force or threats of any kind. That is because the fundamental logical argument (if it can be called that) that Satan is making is that violence always wins. It is as though Satan has said: "Violence is power so, when Jesus claimed, 'All power in heaven and earth has been given to me,' he was full of crap because Jesus is 'merely' building his church with truth and reason (through the Spirit), instead of violence."[1]

This is why our weapons are not earthly weapons. Rather, we are fighting against the fruitless deeds of darkness (Eph. 5:11) with the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22,23), armed not with shields and swords (or even rifles) but with the armor of God. In this way, Jesus is proving through us that the devil was defeated at the Cross, and that Satan's "worldview" -- that chaos defeats order, war defeats peace, anger defeats harmony, hatred defeats love, despair defeats joy, and so on and so forth -- is false and defunct.

The key is to realize that, while Jesus is the one doing this great work (with his almighty power), he is literally and tangibly performing it through us. So, spiritual warfare is not (as we might sometimes be tempted to feel) "imaginary warfare"... it is as literal, real and present as any tanks, rifles and bombs. We are not merely a living temple (stationary), we are a living body (in motion)... the physical hands, feet and mouths of the Lord insomuch as we are in his will. This is how we can speak with the authority of God-- even the spirits must submit, not to us (personally), but to the authority of God within us, that is, to the name of Jesus.



But I think you prove more than you mean to. I have argued on another forum that we should think of the Gospel as the original "psy-op" (or information warfare), so we see eye-to-eye on that. Really, these are all just sub-headings of spiritual warfare (and even physical warfare is, even though we do not physically fight back against it). I propose the following idea for consideration: Q is a "type" or "shadow" (reflecting to the past, in this case, not the future) of the Gospel. There are many parallels that can be drawn. And the point/purpose of this type/shadow is not to supplant, replace or even augment/assist the Gospel. Rather, it is a purely logistical operation whose purpose is to "amplify" the Gospel in a new way that is only now possible with the emergence of the Internet, computers and social media:



And this is far from the first time this has happened in history. Each new technological development in Western history has been attended by distinct changes in the way that God is working in history. Consider the change in the breadth and depth of biblical scholarship after the invention of the printing press. Prior to the printing press, there were only hand-written manuscripts. These were extremely costly and easily destroyed or lost. After the printing printing press, the manuscripts were widely translated, converted to print form and studied widely. It can even be argued that there is some causal link between the advent of the printing press and the Protestant Reformation because the cost of owning a complete copy of the very Scriptures went from being extremely precious and prohibitive for all but the Roman Church, a few secular institutions and very wealthy private individuals, to something that could be found in virtually every local church and even the households of ordinary private citizens. To use an engineering metaphor, the widespread availability of the Scriptures started to act like an "error-detection code" on the often capricious claims and teachings of the Roman church. But instead of repenting of their errors, they dug their heels in and clung to tradition just like the religious rulers that Jesus rebuked 2,000 years ago in person.

So, in my opinion, the idea that the advent of the Internet and social media changes nothing (in how God is working in the world) is ludicrious. It requires us to believe that "this time is different" from every other time. We need to keep our eyes on heaven but not get our heads stuck in the clouds-- real changes in the material world happen for a (spiritual) reason. God isn't up in heaven strumming a harp while the world is changing beneath his feet. He is the active agent bringing about these changes, and he is doing so for a reason. The purpose is to bring about the end of the Age and usher in the Kingdom in its fullness (whatever that will look like... we simply don't know).



Hmm, this sounds familiar: "No true supporter of mine could ever endorse political violence, no true supporter of mine could ever disrespect law enforcement or our great American flag. No true supporter of mine could ever threaten or harass their fellow Americans. If you do any of these things, you are not supporting our movement. You are attacking it and you are attacking our country. We cannot tolerate it." (Donald Trump, after the Jan. 6 event at the Capitol)



You do not know either of those claims with certainty. They are merely claims.



And I suppose it is God's will for the blood of the martyrs to flow forever, never to be avenged? God has said he is eager to avenge his enemies and he will surely do so-- the only reason he asks some believers to endure martyrdom is to entrap his enemies and bring the full measure of justice upon them. The age of martyrdom is coming to a close soon. Each day is one day closer.

"He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short." (Revlation 12:12)



That is not correct. It is the angels who will separate the wheat from the chaff (as they are commanded by the Lord). (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43)



I would urge caution in wishing for more martyrdom upon the church. Violence and bloodshed serve no good purpose whatsoever. While God has permitted it for his own purposes, the Antichrist is perfectly thrilled with the idea of eternal martyrdom. Chop off their heads forever!

In addition, the end will not come until there is a falling away (the great apostasy) -- the false prophet is going lead many "Christians" off to hell, while preaching "name it and claim it" and every other heresy that was ever heard from a pulpit. Because this is an apostasy, we know that it will happen within the church. The great apostasy will be performed in the name of Jesus himself (this is why many false messiahs will arise).



(a) The empty vessel makes the loudest sound. I assert that we have been lied to about the prevalance of these attitudes among believers. I come from a conservative, "backward redneck" background and I have a pretty good idea of what the moral problems in these communities are. Whenever you find yourself agreeing with the MSMBS about the real moral problems in our country, that should be an automatic red-flag.

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

(b) The age of persecution and martyrdom was always temporary and is drawing to a close. Jesus foretold in Matthew 24 that there is coming a great tribulation unlike anything the world has seen. But the purpose of that tribulation is not to teach redneck (professing) Christians that black people are created in the image of God (that's a matter of course), rather, the purpose of that tribulation is to separate the sheep from the goats (the wheat from the chaff) once and for all. When it comes, the great tribulation will not be a "lesson" that is taught to anybody, it will simply be the final condemnation of the damned, and the final deliverance of the righteous.

(c) The Antichrist would be thrilled to rule over a martyrdom Olympics fought between Christians and Muslims. While Paul expressed a personal view that he would welcome martyrdom, there is nothing normative in Scripture that we should seek or desire martyrdom. If it comes, it comes and, along with it, God will give the grace to endure it. But martyrdom is truly, truly extraordinary. "God is love." We worship a loving, perfect Heavenly Father, not a bloodthirsty Ba'al.



I think you are assuming that the return is very far off. It could be tomorrow for all you know. The church has already endured 20 centuries of persecution and martyrdom. Maybe there are 20 centuries more but I doubt it. And it's not our place to tell God how he will purify his bride. The Kingdom reaches culmination at some point. The purification is completed at some point. At that point, the tide will turn. The church will no longer be beaten and ravaged by Satan's hordes. Instead, the church will be glorified and the victory of the Lamb will become visible for all to see-- for those who are in Christ, to his praise and glory, and for those who are outside of Christ to their unendurable agony.



I think you have a serious misconception -- persecution itself is not about purification. Persecution is about the testimony of Jesus and the damnation of the wicked who receive the mark of the Beast and follow him into perdition. The church is a type of Israel, but it is not Israel itself. They are different and God relates to them differently.



This was written almost 2,000 years ago. Was God twiddling his thumbs these past 2,000 years? The purification of the church is not through persecution and martyrdom, rather, it is through the living work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification:



As we are transformed into the image of Jesus, we become empowered by the Spirit and we know God directly, without intermediaries. This is not something that can be known by the carnal mind, only the living Spirit himself can teach this. But this spiritual process of sanctification has absolutely nothing to do with the carnal act of persecution and martyrdom. Violence, in any context, has no claim upon the conscience. That is the foundation-stone of the Kingdom that Jesus is building. Violence is useless, it teaches nothing, and has no redeeming value except that which God has miraculously extracted from it in raising the name of Jesus above all names through the testimony of the martyrs and the countless persecutions of believers. Satan is already defeated!

[1] - This sentence was edited because it was misunderstood by one RPF member, so perhaps I did not write it as clearly as it could have been written

Thank you for your response. Here is my rebuttal.

1) The gospel needs no "shadow." It's not "past" it is present. But Jesus warned of "false Christs and false prophets." It's wonderful that the actual gospel is being communicated over the web and social media as we speak! The dishonest psyop that is Q is not necessary for that. It is leading people away from the simple truth of the gospel. Tell me how many times you can point to the hungry being fed or the homeless being give shelter and say "Q inspired that?"

2) No person who says "I haven't apologized to God" is a Christian. Jesus said "By their fruits ye shall know them." John the Baptist, Jesus' forerunner, said "Bring fruits showing repentance." Based on his "fruit", Donald Trump is not repentant and hence not a Christian.

3) I'm not "wishing persecution" on anyone. I'm just not shrinking from the inevitable. And no, I don't think it's "a long ways off." The end could be on us quite rapidly. Everything is in place for that. It could be a long ways off as well. Many thought WW I and especially WW II signaled the end.

4) On the effect of persecution on the church, you will have to argue with Peter about that. 1 Peter 4:13 "Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you." 1 Peter 1:7 "so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;"

5) On the separation of the wheat from the chaff and the angels work in that, according to the Bible that's not true.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 3&version=NIV

It's the Holy Spirit that does the separating. Now, how does the Holy Spirit work? Read the book of Daniel. What separated Daniels three friends from the rest of the Jews is Babylon? Persecution is ongoing. And yes, it's been going on in some for or another for the past 2,000 years. Trials are an everyday thing. And every day one must make a choice. The more intense things become, the more stark the choice will become. That is the period called the shaking. You talked about the "great falling away?" What do you think causes it?

 

[ClaytonB]

Thank you for your response. Here is my rebuttal.

1) The gospel needs no "shadow." It's not "past" it is present.

I feel like we are having a blind-men-and-elephant conversation, here. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I disagree that it applies to Q. I would like to understand how you think Q is hindering the Gospel, even through subtlety. When I first began digging into Q, that was the first thing I was looking for. I didn't find it. I'm not infallible, so maybe I missed it.

But Jesus warned of "false Christs and false prophets." It's wonderful that the actual gospel is being communicated over the web and social media as we speak! The dishonest psyop that is Q is not necessary for that.

But if we continue down that slippery-slope, none of us are "necessary" and it's just a matter of Jesus snapping his almighty fingers like Thanos and *poof* Kingdom Come. While I am certain he actually has that much power, there is a reason why he is working through imperfect vessels like us: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." (John 6:39) That could even include Q (although Q will remain forever in a probationary status in my books so long as he/they remain anonymous).

It is leading people away from the simple truth of the gospel.

How, specifically? I'm open to the possibility, I fully know the subtlety of the enemy. But an assertion does not suffice to show that.

Tell me how many times you can point to the hungry being fed or the homeless being give shelter and say "Q inspired that?"

While good works are the fruit of the Gospel, they are not the Gospel-in-itself. So, I don't agree that this is the standard by which to judge an information operation like Q. The standard I am judging by is whether Q is leading people (by any means, however subtle) away from acknowledging that Jesus is Lord. If so, then he is working against the Gospel. Otherwise, Mark 9:40.

2) No person who says "I haven't apologized to God" is a Christian.

That's just not true. In context, Trump was not saying he has never repented of his sins. It's simply not my place to judge and I won't. I have always been leery of policing "true believers" and I was raised in a very fundamentalist background (where that kind of thing is almost mandatory).

3) I'm not "wishing persecution" on anyone. I'm just not shrinking from the inevitable. And no, I don't think it's "a long ways off." The end could be on us quite rapidly. Everything is in place for that. It could be a long ways off as well. Many thought WW I and especially WW II signaled the end.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

4) On the effect of persecution on the church, you will have to argue with Peter about that. 1 Peter 4:13 "Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you." 1 Peter 1:7 "so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;"

Well, I have no argument with Peter. I only think that purification is a side-effect of persecution-- it is not the primary reason that persecution occurs, and it persecution is certainly not the primary means by which God is purifying us. Those who are in Christ are not Israel, we are not under the Mosaic blessings/curses.

5) On the separation of the wheat from the chaff and the angels work in that, according to the Bible that's not true.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 3&version=NIV

It's the Holy Spirit that does the separating. Now, how does the Holy Spirit work? Read the book of Daniel. What separated Daniels three friends from the rest of the Jews is Babylon? Persecution is ongoing. And yes, it's been going on in some for or another for the past 2,000 years. Trials are an everyday thing. And every day one must make a choice. The more intense things become, the more stark the choice will become. That is the period called the shaking. You talked about the "great falling away?" What do you think causes it?

I don't see any disagreement here with what I wrote. Jesus has his winnowing fork (the angels, Matthew 13:41) in his hand. The Holy Spirit is an inseparable person of the Trinity, so we can make no distinction of agency between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The angels are heavenly creatures that carry out the will of God (which is the will of Jesus and the Holy Spirit). So there is no conflict between these two passages.

 

[jmdrake]

I feel like we are having a blind-men-and-elephant conversation, here. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I disagree that it applies to Q. I would like to understand how you think Q is hindering the Gospel, even through subtlety. When I first began digging into Q, that was the first thing I was looking for. I didn't find it. I'm not infallible, so maybe I missed it.

Do you think what happened in January 6th had anything to do with furthering the gospel? How about all of the false prophecies about "Hillary is going to be arrested tomorrow" or all of the other provable nonsense that came out of Q? All people holding up Trump as some kind of savior, and whether YOU did that or not is irrelevant as it was certainly something pushed by the Q movement, hindered the gospel. The gospel is not republican or democrat. It's not black or white. It's not liberal or conservative. The gospel is spiritual. Q is an earthly pseudo political movement. By their fruits you shall know them.

But if we continue down that slippery-slope, none of us are "necessary" and it's just a matter of Jesus snapping his almighty fingers like Thanos and *poof* Kingdom Come. While I am certain he actually has that much power, there is a reason why he is working through imperfect vessels like us: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." (John 6:39) That could even include Q (although Q will remain forever in a probationary status in my books so long as he/they remain anonymous).

There is a difference between imperfect vessels (I'm definitely imperfect), dishonest vessels (Q and its false prophecies) and blasphemous vessels (Trump "I have never needed to apologize to God"). Really, someone could look at Obama and say "Well he's not perfect." I have gotten that pushback from the other side of the political spectrum.

How, specifically? I'm open to the possibility, I fully know the subtlety of the enemy. But an assertion does not suffice to show that.

I don't think you are open, but you may prove me wrong. Here is a specific example. An older woman, who I believe is a sincere Christian, was peddling the obviously bogus Q conspiracy that Trump had done a "sting operation" by planting "blockchain watermarked ballots" in the election. Total BS. The federal government doesn't print election ballots. And a "blockchain watermark" is just jargon. Her husband and I both explained that was nonsense. (He is a solid Trump supporter.) But she couldn't believe because "I heard a pastor say this on the radio and so it must be true because if it isn't then these pastors and prophets will lose their credibility." So, rather than sticking with the plain truth of the bible, some gullible, or dishonest, men of God have gone chasing after nonsense conspiracy theories. You don't need this garbage to spread the gospel. Now, perhaps this can help spread the gospel because Q, being a charlatan, will help expose other charlatans.

While good works are the fruit of the Gospel, they are not the Gospel-in-itself. So, I don't agree that this is the standard by which to judge an information operation like Q. The standard I am judging by is whether Q is leading people (by any means, however subtle) away from acknowledging that Jesus is Lord. If so, then he is working against the Gospel. Otherwise, Mark 9:40.

"By your fruits you shall know them." I wasn't saying the fruits are the gospel. But fruits are the sign that the bearer of the fruit has been changed by the gospel. (Unless the fruit is corrupt then the fruit is the sign that the bearer has not been changed.) If you don't understand what JESUS said about how to discern whether or not someone has been changed by the gospel then how can you claim to understand the gospel?

That's just not true. In context, Trump was not saying he has never repented of his sins. It's simply not my place to judge and I won't. I have always been leery of policing "true believers" and I was raised in a very fundamentalist background (where that kind of thing is almost mandatory).

You are judging even as you say you are not, so your own words are not true. You are saying what I said wasn't true. But it is. Part of repentance is admitting you were wrong. An apology is just an admission of wrongdoing. There is the other part of repentance which is turning away.

But hey, if we aren't going to judge anyone that says the word Jesus, then Q is wrong for judging Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and the list goes on indefinitely.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome.

Well, I have no argument with Peter. I only think that purification is a side-effect of persecution-- it is not the primary reason that persecution occurs, and it persecution is certainly not the primary means by which God is purifying us. Those who are in Christ are not Israel, we are not under the Mosaic blessings/curses.

Note that I never said "primary reason." You inferred that from...well...nothing. As for your point about blessings and curses, there are blessings and curses throughout the New Testament. Matthew 5 is a chapter full of blessing. And the Mosaic blessing and curses are not what you apparently think. They are the natural effect of following God's best practices. The reason the Jews didn't die from the black plague was because the followed the Mosaic sanitation laws which specifically forbade open sewage in the camp. Meanwhile in Europe the "free" Christians threw their sewage out on the sidewalk. The rest, as they say, is history.

I don't see any disagreement here with what I wrote. Jesus has his winnowing fork (the angels, Matthew 13:41) in his hand. The Holy Spirit is an inseparable person of the Trinity, so we can make no distinction of agency between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The angels are heavenly creatures that carry out the will of God (which is the will of Jesus and the Holy Spirit). So there is no conflict between these two passages.

One of the tools that the Holy Spirit uses to separate the wheat from the chaff is persecution. You even admitted as much when you said "purification is a side-effect of persecution."

 

[ClaytonB]

Do you think what happened in January 6th had anything to do with furthering the gospel?

And what does it have to do with Q? Q did nothing but condemn the riots/looting occurring under Antifa. There were no eye-wink political exceptions to the far-right given by either Trump or Q. "The military is the only way" means "this is not your fight, don't go out into the streets with force."

How about all of the false prophecies about "Hillary is going to be arrested tomorrow"

(a) Every prediction is not a prophecy. A prophecy is a prediction that is made in the name of God. "God told me that ABC will happen on XYZ date..." That's a prophecy and it's either true or false. It's a dangerous game for anyone who isn't actually speaking on the authority of God to play.

(b) No one knows that HRC wasn't arrested in Nov 2017 (or even earlier). I have often thought that if Q is the real-deal then it was all fait accompli before the first drop ever occurred. Q is basically a ratcheting limited hangout and cleanup operation to identify and flush out lower-level traitors/sleepers. Maybe I'm wrong but, so far, all the evidence is consistent with this view. 80 million legally voting Americans did not vote for Joe Biden... but he's sitting in the Oval Office. Strange that.

(c) Q retroactively explained that the HRC drops were disinfo targeted at the Saudis who were paying close attention to Q. Another possibility (rarely discussed) is that HRC had been arrested / dispositioned in or (even more likely) before Nov 2017. Either way, the primary audience of these drops was never the Chans/Anons. More importantly (for us), the Q drops prodded people to start thinking in a more sophisticated way about the political class. "Be wise as serpents" ... the pulpit isn't exactly the place to disseminate street-smarts to the body so it makes perfect sense to me that God might choose to use something like Q to begin preparing the body for something that has never happened before.

or all of the other provable nonsense that came out of Q? All people holding up Trump as some kind of savior, and whether YOU did that or not is irrelevant as it was certainly something pushed by the Q movement, hindered the gospel.

But it's kind of irrelevant -- there are crazy/wrong/heretical people in every movement.

The gospel is not republican or democrat. It's not black or white. It's not liberal or conservative. The gospel is spiritual. Q is an earthly pseudo political movement. By their fruits you shall know them.

I think time still has yet to bear it out. As I explained, Q will never advance beyond probationary status in my view as long as he/they are anonymous. But I am also open to (and searching for) the possibility that God has begun working in the world in a fundamentally new way. It was not Q that started me on that path, God himself had already put me on that path through direct intervention into my life. Q just happens to be a candidate for what I'm searching for.

So, rather than sticking with the plain truth of the bible, some gullible, or dishonest, men of God have gone chasing after nonsense conspiracy theories. You don't need this garbage to spread the gospel. Now, perhaps this can help spread the gospel because Q, being a charlatan, will help expose other charlatans.

Well, on an absolute scale, Q's conspiracy theories are tame. If we want to talk about the real conspiracy, we have to go all the way back 2,000 years to when Jesus was debating the children of Satan on earth (John 8). That is the real conspiracy -- history-spanning, all-encompassing, not only outside of us, but inside of us. Q has refrained from doom-porn but, at the same time, his drops have challenged people's (including most professing believers) apathetic notion that "the world is pretty much OK, except for a few problems that are being gradually eradicated by modern human progress." The world is not pretty much OK. It's not within a million miles of pretty much OK.

You are judging even as you say you are not, so your own words are not true. You are saying what I said wasn't true. But it is. Part of repentance is admitting you were wrong. An apology is just an admission of wrongdoing. There is the other part of repentance which is turning away.

Judging is sitting down in the place of God, and ascribing sin. Distinguishing between true and false is not "judging", it's a prerequisite to any communication between rational minds. When Jesus said "Do not judge", he was not talking about distinguishing true and false, he was talking about sitting oneself on the judgment seat of God and ascribing sin to others.

You and I disagree that what Trump said in this interview is evidence that Trump is not a Christian. At worst, he's immature and needs to grow. But I don't know him well enough even to make that remote assessment. You're your own person, so you will reach whatever conclusions you reach.

One of the tools that the Holy Spirit uses to separate the wheat from the chaff is persecution.

That's just false. The prophecies about the Last Judgment have nothing to do with the persecution that believers must endure in life. When the wheat and chaff are separated, it has nothing whatsoever to do with purification or anything of that nature. It is simply the commencement of eternal damnation for the wicked (weeds/chaff/goats) and eternal life for the righteous (wheat/sheep).

The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’” (Matthew 13:28-30)

God is so sensitive to preserving all who can be saved that he has permitted the wicked to go on growing alongside the righteous so that there would be no risk of accidentally uprooting the righteous with the wicked. The end of the Age is when this changes. The weeds will be uprooted and the world will be purified.

The picture of a bloodthirsty God who has to beat and torture people to "make sure they really believe" is antichrist. It is Ba'al worship repackaged in biblical language.

You even admitted as much when you said "purification is a side-effect of persecution."

Well, let's use a metaphor to explain the difference. Maturity is a side-effect of fighting in battle. But no one goes to battle (or is sent to battle) in order to become mature. In terms of the strategic purposes of the general, the side-effect of maturity might as well be completely unrelated. Yes, Peter is expounding the finer points of this aspect of the heavenly war that we have been dragged into. But let's not forget your remarks that started this entire conversation thread: "Did you know that, thanks largely to the brutality of the Islamic State towards Christian martyrs, more Muslims converted to Christianity than at any time in human history?" This kind of language suggests that God is up in heaven with his abacus running the marginal rates on how many Muslim converts he can reap in exchange for how many Christian martyrs. I completely object to this characterization and my heresy-spidey-sense activates whenever I run into this.

 

[Invisible Man]

Q reminds me of the Oracle of Delphi.

Herodotus records one famous prediction the Oracle made telling King Croesus of Lydia that if he went to war against the Persians, a great empire would fall. Croesus took that as a good sign and only learned after the fact that the prediction was fulfilled with the demise of his own empire.