https://youtu.be/8iUDssKSjls
WordPress: https://amateursociety.wordpress.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/OntheObjective
Spreaker: https://www.spreaker.com/show/theamateursociety
Steemit: https://steemit.com/@amateursociety
Gab: https://gab.ai/AmateurSociety
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amateursociety/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/ontheobjective
Anti-Semitism Arises Once Again – What is the Biblical Basis to Oppose it?
It’s quite unusual to find a Christian author or teacher that favors Israel who isn’t also a dispensationalist. And it is difficult to find a dispensationalist who isn’t also a Christian Zionist. Nevertheless, in Gerald McDermott, we have an Anglican theologian, Israel scholar, and author who is not dispensational, but who advocates for Jews everywhere, especially those living in the present state of Israel. McDermott has written extensively on the subject of why Israel should be valued by Christians rather than repudiated for their historical rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. Given the intensifying controversy surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the growing disapproval of the Israeli government by many Christian groups, a timely analysis of the situation appears most warranted.
In this article, I begin by pointing out while McDermott’s advocacy of Israel is welcomed and proceeds from an eschatological basis, his rationale owes as much to “Christian guilt” over our historical treatment of the Jews, as it does to truly biblical commitments for why Israel should matter to Christians. To be more specific, his theological basis dismisses the dispensational hermeneutic, seeing Dispensationalism as a birthplace for wild prophetic speculation and fundamentalist dogma. McDermott offers an alternative basis for favoring Israel. His viewpoint is gaining traction and thus, it is worthy of consideration. My goal in penning this piece affords only a short analysis of his perspective, it is a relevant way to begin when considering the conventional basis for supporting Israel, commonly identified as Dispensationalism. Additionally, while affirming Zionism (limited in its proper meaning here, advocating solely for Israel’s right to exist in its historic Middle Eastern land), I will provide a counter-argument to McDermott’s point of view, which comprises my main reason for writing; that is, asserting that Dispensationalism is a respectable, historical, and indeed, the strongest hermeneutic for why Christians should care about Israel. Obviously, one could write an entire book on the subject. This I hope to do in the months ahead. Here I will provide what amounts to no more than a prolog.
The current firestorm related to James White’s decision to facilitate an interfaith dialogue with Imam Yasir Qahdi is puzzling in the least and has become a stumbling block for many who do not understand how White cannot understand that he is “dancing with the devil” as the saying goes. Mr. White’s response to those critical of his decision has been the polar opposite of remorse and he has in fact dug his heels in and maintained that his actions were right and consistent with what Christians should be doing. Is that true? What bridges can be built to people who teach that Christians who do not submit or convert to Islam should be murdered? What madness is this that has gripped Christians today such that they believe the lie that building bridges to nowhere constitute evangelism? I won’t rehash all of Mr. White’s actions related to this in detail. You can read about that here – http://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/facts-reveal-james-white-islamic-dupe-clueless-evangelicals-are-desperate-save-his
What I wish to address is the support Mr. White has received. Surprisingly a couple of people with very different perspectives, one might say two people with theological beliefs very much at odds with one another, have stepped into the fray to defend Mr. White’s error. I am speaking of Phil Johnson and Michael Brown. This has added a layer of intrigue to the entire situation but has also served to obfuscate the truth of what critics of White’s decision to promote an interfaith dialogue have been saying. By engaging in what appear to be damage control activities on behalf of Mr. White, Johnson seems to have exposed himself as a hypocrite of the highest order. You can be the judge of whether or not that is true based on the information contained in this article. His previous statements seem to be completely contradictory to his stated position concerning James White’s ecumenicalism, or to use the new and improved phrase, interfaith dialogue.
Hi friends. Kathy and I made it home Monday afternoon after spending Thursday evening through Monday morning at the Hear The Watchmen (HTW) Conference in Dallas. I’m still not caught up on everything that needs to be addressed but I simply must take some time to share with you some thoughts about this past weekend.
Kathy and I have been to many conferences over the years. We were both saved in 1983 and since that time have attended too many conferences to begin to count. Most of them were worthwhile, a few were not, but only a handful standout. At the top of the list of these outstanding conferences is this recent HTW Dallas Conference.
What made it so very special was the clear presence of the Holy Spirit. Evident to both of us from the moment we arrived and gathered with the other speakers for a meal prior to the official start of the conference on Friday, was the singular purpose and goal. We were there to encourage and equip the remnant body of Christ and one another.
Deep medical fraud and the destruction of health: this was the subject that prompted me to exit the news business.
As I probed deeper into that swamp, I found editors running away from my story-pitches. They didn’t want to go there. It was too scary. Too threatening to the status of their newspapers and magazines.
Lesson learned in the late 1980s: if you want to go deep, go independent.
I never looked back.
Here are three examples of going deep:
ONE: Proponents claim a vaccine stimulates a person’s immune system to produce antibodies, which are immune-system scouts.
This is supposedly a rehearsal. The immune system gets a chance to respond to a “test run,” so that when the real disease hits, the immune-defense will be ready and will knock out the disease quickly.
Except there are many diagnostic tests for disease that look for antibodies, and if antibodies show up, the doctor tells the patient he has the disease.
It’s absurd.
Antibodies from a vaccine=immunity. Same antibodies produced by the body in response to a germ entering the body=illness.
On top of this insanity, antibodies are only one component of a very complex immune system. The production of antibodies doesn’t guarantee a person’s whole immune system is in good shape.
In 1987, when I was writing my first book, AIDS INC., I queried the FDA about the development of an HIV vaccine. Here is what I was told: if a vaccine was ever deployed, it would produce antibodies to HIV and the person would be given a letter to carry around with him in case he was ever tested for HIV.
The letter would say, this person is immune from HIV. The antibodies are an indication of immunity, not disease.
You see, the two standard diagnostic tests for HIV were the Elisa and the Western Blot. They both tested for antibodies. If a person tested positive, he was told he had AIDS.
But if the SAME antibodies were produced by the vaccine, he’d be designated immune from AIDS.
No, that couldn’t be.
Yes, it could be and was.
TWO: Obamacare is about control, so it’s an answer to the prayers of the medical cartel.
So what do we know about their mainstream medicine, the hospital-based drug-addled modern version?
On July 26, 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a landmark review by Dr. Barbara Starfield (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health), “Is US health really the best in the world?” In it, Starfield revealed what many people inside the medical establishment already knew: every year, like clockwork, the medical system was killing huge numbers of people.
Each year in the US, as Dr. Starfield reported, there are:
12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgeries;
7,000 deaths from medication errors in hospitals;
20,000 deaths from other errors in hospitals;
80,000 deaths from infections acquired in hospitals;
106,000 deaths from FDA-approved correctly prescribed medicines.
The total of medically-caused deaths in the US every year is 225,000. (a conservative estimate)
This makes the medical system the third leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease and cancer.
In the wake of Starfield’s devastating report, other facts came to light: 2.1 million people in America, every year, are hospitalized as a result of reactions to FDA-approved medicines. Annually, 36 million serious adverse reactions to those drugs occur.
So, inclusive health coverage for many more Americans under the Obama Plan means these horrendous figures will rise.
This is the dirty secret.
Obama and his allies are promoting a medical system that is the third leading cause of death in America. It’s that stark and it’s that simple.
THREE: The gold standard test for disease diagnosis is called the PCR.
Example: ABC New York reports (in “Mount Sinai patient likely does not have Ebola, health official says”):“Testing for Ebola is done at the CDC. According to a CDC spokesperson testing for Ebola takes 1-2 days after they receive the samples. The primary testing is PCR. This is performed on blood that has been treated to kill and live virus [sic]. So far CDC has tested samples from around 6 people who had symptoms consistent with Ebola and a travel history to the affected region.”
But the PCR test is completely unreliable for a disease diagnosis. Why? Two reasons. First, technicians start with a tiny, tiny sample of genetic material from the patient. This sample is supposed to be part of a virus. It may or may not be. Mistakes can be made. Obviously, the techs want the sample to be viral in nature; otherwise, the diagnostic test will be complete bust.
But more importantly, the whole rationale for PCR is wrongheaded. Doctors and researchers only find a miniscule bit of hopefully relevant material in the patient to begin with. The PCR amplifies that bit many times so it can be observed. That’s the whole rationale behind the PCR.
But to consider the possibility that a virus is causing a disease in a patient, there must be huge numbers of that virus working actively in his body.
The PCR never establishes that.
Finding a tiny, tiny trace of viral material in a patient says absolutely nothing about whether he is ill, has been ill, or will become ill.
The PCR test is an irrelevant bust and a lie.
—Those are just three examples, out of many, where “going deep” gets you a strange stare and glare from medical editors at newspapers and magazines.
They run away. They disappear. They huff and puff and turn red in the face. They do whatever they can to let you know you’re no longer welcome in their presence.
It’s fun. I used to enjoy pitching stories like these to the guardians on the watchtower of truth. Their various reactions were priceless. I used to call it “watching the egg crack.”
This article appeared originally on Jon Rappoport’s blog site on January 25, 2017 here.
There can be little doubt that as a society we are experiencing both a profound lack of wisdom and a powerful level of adversity. In a time of trial, the robust and antifragile person must be able to recognize the signals that adversity provides. There is great meaning in being able to develop wisdom through adversity. How can we accomplish this feat while avoiding the undeniably potent capability of adversity to destroy wisdom? What do our worldviews suggest about how we should approach this