Author: Papa Giorgio

Lies Foment Evil Acts | Dennis Prager (Manifesto Update)

Published by Papa Giorgio

JUMP TO THE MANIFESTO

Why would a teacher named Cole Allen, A registered Democrat who donated to Kamala Harris, travel across the country to kill President Trump? The same reason a mother named Renee Good tried to run over an ICE agent doing his job and Tyler Robinson drove 250-miles to shoot Charlie Kirk.

Leftists are awash and indoctrinated by LIES and pure hate coming from Democratic leaders and legacy media! They’ve targeted Christian churches and schools, and abort millions of babies. The Democrat Party is a violent criminal death cult.

Why? Because they believe LIES!

This latest of now 4 attempts…

  1. July 13, 2024 – Butler, Pennsylvania Rally
  2. September 15, 2024 – Trump International Golf Club, West Palm Beach, Florida
  3. February 22, 2026 – Mar-a-Lago Perimeter Breach, Palm Beach, Florida
  4. Last night

….On Trumps life brought to mind a couple older audios by Dennis Prager. The first deals with Prager dealing with lies from and April 2019, although I heard him talk about it many times earlier on his radio broadcast.

One may wish to include these longer posts of mine for more examples:

Lies Foment Evil Acts

This is a clip of a larger video: “Fireside Chat Ep. 76 — Lies Are the Root of Evil” | On this Fireside Chat, Dennis begins by discussing how the lies of the Left have harmed world history. Two lies he focuses on are “The Blood Libel” claim and the lie that “America is a racist country.” Dennis then answers questions from viewers.

Hysteria and Lies – “Trump is Evil”

Dennis Prager reads from a NEW YORK TIMES article, “Talking Apocalypse With My Son” (ARCHIVED) — this article shows the hysteria of the Left. Prager also plays some audio (I add the video) of Donny Deutsch on the Morning Joe Show on MSNBC. This is another example of people fighting faux evil rather than real evil (see NEWSBUSTERS for more)

Some laughter to get us through these crazy times!

MANIFESTO ADDED!

HOT AIR rightly notes in their article title that “Manifesto Released: He Believed All the Lies the Democrats Now Claim They Never Said“

This is via TOWNHALL. I wish to note that there is a bit of Messianic thinking on the left. Man is killing the planet, therefore I will save it. Man is holding back personal expression, therefore I will make it against the law to even counsel people that chopping of their breasts at 15 is not the best choice. I believe the lies that Trump is a NAZI pedophile, therefor I will save America from this fascist.

To Wit….

Hello everybody!

So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today. Let me start off by apologizing to everyone whose trust I abused.

I apologize to my parents for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for “Most Wanted.”

I apologize to my colleagues and students for saying I had a personal emergency (by the time anyone reads this, I probably most certainly DO need to go to the ER, but can hardly call that not a self-inflicted status.)

I apologize to all of the people I traveled next to, all the workers who handled my luggage, and all the other non-targeted people at the hotel who I put in danger simply by being near.

I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this, to all those who suffered before I was able to attempt this, to all who may still suffer after, regardless of my success or failure.

I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it. Again, my sincere apologies.

On to why I did any of this:

I am a citizen of the United States of America.

What my representatives do reflects on me.

And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.

(Well, to be completely honest, I was no longer willing a long time ago, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it.)

While I’m discussing this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.)

Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest

Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t*

Hotel Security: not targets if at all possible (aka unless they shoot at me)

Capitol Police: same as Hotel Security

National Guard: same as Hotel Security

Hotel Employees: not targets at all

Guests: not targets at all

In order to minimize casualties I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls)

I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.

Rebuttals to objections:

Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek.

Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration.

Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.

Objection 2: This is not a convenient time for you to do this.

Rebuttal: I need whoever thinks this way to take a couple minutes and realize that the world isn’t about them. Do you think that when I see someone raped or murdered or abused, I should walk on by because it would be “inconvenient” for people who aren’t the victim?

This was the best timing and chance of success I could come up with.

Objection 3: You didn’t get them all.

Rebuttal: Gotta start somewhere.

Objection 4: As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this.

Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack

Objection 5: Yield unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Rebuttal: The United States of America are ruled by the law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to a great many people since I will not be likely to be able to talk with them again (unless the Secret Service is *astoundingly* incompetent.)

Thank you to my family, both personal and church, for your love over these 31 years.

Thank you to my friends, for your companionship over many years.

Thank you to my colleagues over many jobs, for your positivity and professionalism.

Thank you to my students for your enthusiasm and love of learning.

Thank you to the many acquaintances I’ve met, in person and online, for short interactions and long-term relationships, for your perspectives and inspiration.

Thank you all for everything.

Sincerely,

Cole “coldForce” “Friendly Federal Assassin” Allen

PS: Ok now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone.

Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo.

What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing.

No damn security.

Not in transport.

Not in the hotel.

Not in the event.

Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance.

I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.

The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.

Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.

Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed shit.

Actually insane.

Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done.

Can’t really recommend it! Stay in school, kids.

 

 

The SPLC Pays Racists To Do Racist Things (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.”

— Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;

  • “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.”

— Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

There has been some excellent responses to the story of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) paying racist organizations so they could fundraise. I have quite a few posts on the SPLC, so First I will link many of those for the interested party’s. (Newest to the oldest)

Three Biggins:

  1. RPT’s Series: Introduction to “How to Be an Antiracist”
  2. Vivek’s Masterclass: Staying Professional In The Face Of Hostility
  3. Some Trump Sized Mantras

A FOX NEWS QUICKIE

KANEKOA THE GREAT shared the above video with the below being his commentary:

(You don’t dislike Democrats enough)

The Southern Poverty Law Center leveraged its credibility from fighting the KKK to smear mainstream conservatives — placing them on a “hate map” and “extremist watch list” alongside neo-Nazis and actual Klan chapters.

Targets included:

  • Turning Point USA
  • PragerU
  • Dr. Ben Carson
  • Stephen Miller
  • Sen. Rand Paul
  • Jack Posobiec
  • Matt Walsh
  • Chaya Raichik
  • James Lindsay
  • Mike Cernovich
  • Moms for Liberty
  • David Horowitz
  • Franklin Graham
  • Charles Murray
  • Dennis Prager
  • Frank Gaffney
  • Heritage Foundation
  • The Federalist Society

These are mainstream conservative figures—authors, scholars, influencers, elected officials, student organizations, and parent groups—branded as extremists for political disagreement.

Their sole offense was disagreeing with the SPLC’s politics.

Yet the SPLC listed them in the same database as terrorist organizations and white supremacist hate groups.

The real-world consequences followed.

In 2012, a gunman targeted the Family Research Council after using the SPLC’s “hate map” as a guide.

Months before Charlie Kirk’s murder, the SPLC added Turning Point USA to that same map.

One day before his death, it published a Hatewatch article smearing him under “Dismantling White Supremacy.”

When Tyler Robinson was asked by his parents why he killed Charlie, he said, “the guy spreads too much hate.”

For decades, the SPLC exploited its reputation to recast political opposition as hatred — pressuring the federal government, Big Tech, and the American public to treat conservative Americans as domestic enemies.

Yesterday we learned it was also secretly funding the very neo-Nazis and Klan members it claimed to oppose — using donor money to pay the leaders of the same hate groups it was publicly denouncing.

How many reputations and lives did they destroy while secretly funding the very hate groups they claimed to oppose?

DAVID SACKS

SPLC invested $270k in Charlottesville and got $81 million in additional donations. Extraordinary returns.

LOUDER with CROWDER

The Department of Justice just indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center, the organization that partnered with Google, Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, and Mastercard to label YOU an extremist, for secretly funding white supremacist groups including the KKK, the National Alliance, and the organizers of the Charlottesville Unite The Right rally. Click here for today’s sources:

LARRY O’CONNOR

A grand jury just hit the Southern Poverty Law Center with an 11-count indictment — six counts of wire fraud, four counts of bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering — after the DOJ found the SPLC paid over $3 million to members of the KKK, Aryan Nations, and neo-Nazi groups, then fundraised off the very extremism it manufactured. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch laid out the charges, including $270,000 paid to a Charlottesville rally organizer, while Kash Patel delivered a JAW-DROPPING response to an Atlantic reporter and announced a $250 million defamation lawsuit.

0:00 SPLC indicted on 11 federal counts
2:40 Todd Blanch drops the indictment
4:59 How the SPLC’s fraud scheme worked
6:53 Blanch corrects a reporter’s spin
10:46 $3M paid to KKK and neo-Nazis
14:59 Charlottesville was an SPLC operation
18:08 SPLC’s hate list inspired a shooting
20:21 Kash Patel DESTROYS Atlantic reporter

RUTHLESS PODCAST

[Since Ruthless does not splice up their videos, I isolated it] SPLC and Democrats’ “Fake hate” exposed. This is how Democrats use the Southern Poverty Law Center to manufacture extremism for power and profit.

NEW NAZI TATTOOS JUST DROPPED!

God’s Holiness, the LDS, and the Ontological Argument

Published by Papa Giorgio

(My paper on how the Mormon “god” is not big enough is titled “Infinitely Finite: Mormon Materialism” – PDF) Here is an update via Tim Stratton on this older post [December 2023]. I am only carving out the beginning of his post over at FREE THINKING MINISTRIES, Enjoy the update!

UPDATE

Step One: The Ontological Argument

Let’s begin with one of the most discussed arguments in philosophy of religion: the Ontological Argument.

Here is a standard version based on the laws and rules of modal logic:

The Ontological Argument

  1. It is possible that a Maximally Great Being exists.
  2. If it is possible that a Maximally Great Being exists, then it exists in some possible world.
  3. If a Maximally Great Being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
  4. If a Maximally Great Being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
  5. If a Maximally Great Being exists in the actual world, then a Maximally Great Being exists.
  6. Therefore, a Maximally Great Being exists.

This isn’t some philosophical Jedi mind trick—it’s a logically deductive argument based on the laws of logic, the rules of reason, and the rules of modal logic. So, if the premises are true, the conclusion must follow. If it’s even possible for a maximally great being (the definition of God) to exist, then God must exist.

(For a fuller explanation of these premises, see Chapter 16 in the forthcoming second edition of Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism.)

In Plain English

Here’s what that means in everyday language:

If it’s even possible that a maximally perfect, all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), perfectly good and loving (omnibenevolent) being exists…

Then that being wouldn’t be limited, temporary, dependent, or contingent upon anything else. It would exist necessarily—meaning: It cannot fail to exist.

And if such a being exists necessarily, then: It doesn’t just exist in our minds—it exists in reality.

Why This Matters for the LDS View

The LDS view of God does not affirm a maximally great being in this sense.

Instead, it teaches:

  • The being we refer to as “God” (along with each and every one of us) was once not a god, but still a necessarily existing imperfect “intelligence”
  • This “intelligence” somehow progressed to divinity (and is now a contingently existing deity)
  • All humans can also become gods (exalted beings in the celestial realm)
  • There is an infinite past chain of divine beings

That creates a serious philosophical problem:

  • There is no ultimate, necessary foundation
  • Only an infinite regress of dependent beings

But an infinite regress of contingent beings does not explain reality. It postpones the question (infinitely)—it doesn’t answer it. It never answers it! It continually and endlessly sweeps the problem under the rug or kicks the can down the road.

So at a deeper level, the LDS view—while perhaps easier to understand—does not “make more sense”—at least if we are discussing logical sense.

The LDS view fails to provide a final explanation at all.

(READ IT ALL)

[/unupdate]

Just thought of this today. I have dealt with in the past the “sinfulness” of “god,” in Mormon theology. See my main post on the issue just updated with PDF inks to resources and video to help explain this fact of LDS theology — as well as GOD NEVER SINNED website.

And in conversation as to whether Jehovah’s Witnesses AND Mormons are Christian “denomination’s.” (Not an official denomination like Lutheran or Baptist, rather, should they be considered as part of the Christian faith in their essence.) Here is some of my responses — if they make sense:

Mark is closer in thinking J-Dubs are a “christian” theological cult…. they AT LEAST posit Jehovah as the Creator of the space-time continuum. Creation ex nihilo. Mormons believe Heavenly Father was born [through sexual congress] into this cosmos…. and thus, natural laws impose laws of nature on these gods. In fact, there was no time material did not exist apart from these spirits, and then men, and then exalted men. After my routine with Mormons, I always end with, your “god” is too small.

[….]

Jeff, I guess the easiest way to categorize this in a quip like fashion is to say Jehovah’s Witnesses could incorporate the Ontological Argument into their understanding/apologetic. However, the LDS cannot use that philosophical apologetic. The Mormons cannot be included or acclimated into the theistic understanding of the Judeo-Christian God. YHWH. The I AM. And is not Holy, Holy, Holy. In Mormon theology there is nothing “maximal” about their “god”

The Ontological Argument

BONUS via …

Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments

2. The Old Testament Background

2.1. The Fundamental Character of God. The starting point for an understanding of these words in the NT and other early Christian writings is the OT. The OT writers reiterate that the Lord God is holy (Lev 19:2; 21:8; Josh 24:19; Ps 22:3; Is 57:15, passim)—“holy” being the fundamental characteristic of God under which all other characteristics are subsumed—and that humans are sinful (Gen 18:20; 1 Kings 8:46; Ps 51:3; Eccles 7:20, passim).

As holy, God is transcendent above, different from, opposite to, Wholly Other (Otto, 6, 25), separate from sin and sinful people (Is 6:1–9; 55:8, 9; cf. Ex 19:20–24; Num 18:3; Heb 7:26). Sinful people, who have become so by their own choice against God (Gen 2:16, 17; 3:1–7; cf. Rom 5:12), are thereby alienated from God and powerless in that they are incapable of closing the chasm that exists between themselves and God, between the holy and the unholy (Is 50:1; 59:1, 2). God, the Holy, is also the “I am, the One who is” (Ex 3:14): God is Life. For people to be separated from God because of their sin is for them to be separated from Life. Those who were made for the purpose of living (cf. Gen 1:26) are faced with its opposite—death (Ezek 18:4).

2.2. The Actions of God. God, however, did what humans could not do. The holiness of God cannot be described merely as a state of being indicative of what God is, but also as purposeful, salvific action indicative of what God plans and carries out. The OT viewed God as transcendent in that he was distinct from sinful humans but not remote or indifferent to them (Snaith, 47). God took the initiative to make the unholy holy, to make the alien a friend, to reconcile sinners to himself (see Salvation).

An example of this is when God the holy One took the initiative to reveal himself to Israel at Sinai and to call this people out from among other nations into a special personal relationship with himself through covenant, law and sacrifice (Ex 20, 24:1–8; Lev 16). Thus, it was God who made Israel a priestly kingdom and a holy nation (Ex 19:6; Deut 7:6), a people that must preserve its distinctiveness by pursuing a way of life different from that practiced by other peoples (Deut 7:5–6; see Levine, 256), a people fit for the service of God and dedicated to do his will, a light to the nations around them (Is 49:6).

Because of God’s special relation to parts of his creation it was possible even for things to be called holy—holy only in the strict sense that they were different from the profane—wholly given over to divine purposes: the ground around a burning bush (Ex 3:5), Jerusalem (Is 48:2), the temple (Is 64:10), the Sabbath (Ex 16:23), priestly garments (Ex 31:10), and so on.

2.3. The Ethical Response to God. The OT meaning of “holy/holiness,” however, is not exhausted with such ideas as “separate from,” “dedicated to,” “sacred” and the like, although these may have been the primary meanings of the words. There are also ethical and moral meanings attached to them. Again such meanings find their origin in the nature of God, for the nature of God is the determining factor that gives meaning to everything (2.1 above). Leviticus 19:1–18 clearly illustrates the moral side of God’s holiness. Here it becomes clear that to be holy as God is holy is not simply to be pure and righteous, but to act toward others with purity and goodness, with truthfulness and honesty, with generosity, justice and love, particularly toward the poor and those who are in no position to help themselves (see esp. Lev 19:9–10, 14). Religion and ethics, the sacred and moral, belong together in the OT; relationship to the Lord God of the OT demands an ethical/moral response. God’s people must not only be like God but also act like God.

3. The Idea of the Holy in the New Testament and Apostolic Fathers

The meaning of the words holy and holiness, although expanded in the literature under study, is squarely based on the writings of the OT. The primary meaning of holy as “separate from” is to be found in the actions of Paul and others who engaged in purification/sanctification rites (hagnizō, hagnismos) by which they ceremoniously separated themselves from the profane so as to be considered fit to enter the sacred precincts of the house of a holy God (Acts 21:24, 26; 24:18; cf. Num 6:5, 13–18; see Douglas, passim; also Barn. 8.1; 15.1, 3, 6–7). That narrow but fundamental meaning of “holy” is nevertheless inadequate to interpret all the texts that treat this concept.

3.1. The Holiness of God. In our early Christian writings “the holiness of God the Father is everywhere presumed … though seldom stated” (Procksch, 101). Nevertheless it is stated: God’s name, the very essence of his person, is holy (Did. 10.2; 1 Clem. 64). Making use of the vocabulary of Leviticus, especially the Holiness Code in Leviticus 19–26, Peter tells those to whom he writes that it is incumbent upon them to be holy as God is holy (hagios, 1 Pet 1:15–16; cf. Lev 19:2; see Selwyn).

The writer of Hebrews explains the disciplinary action of God as his creative work in human lives so that they may share in his holiness (hagiotēs, Heb 12:10). Once again the trisagion (see Liturgical Elements) is sung to God (cf. Is 6:3), this time by the four living creatures of the Seer’s vision—hagios, hagios, hagios (holy, holy, holy). They acclaim that God is holy to the ultimate degree and as such is the Almighty, the Pantokratōr, the one who is, who was and who is to come, eternal and omnipotent, transcendent, Wholly Other (Rev 4:8; see also 1 Clem. 34.6; 59.3). Those who were victorious over the beast sang, “Great and amazing are your deeds, Lord God the Almighty!… For you alone are holy” (hosios [hagios] Rev 15:3–4; 1 Clem. 59.3), and the angel of the waters, “You are just, O Holy One” (ho hosios, Rev 16:5). The martyrs, asking for vengeance upon those who slaughtered them for serving God, address God as “Sovereign Lord, holy and true (ho hagios kai alēthinos),” because they know that God, as holy, stands apart from and opposed to sin and evil and that he alone is able to administer justice and judge rightly (Rev 6:10).

God as holy is to be feared (cf. Ps 89:7; 99:3; 111:9); he is a consuming fire (Heb 12:29). He owns the right to judge and to take vengeance (cf. Deut 32:35). But in the NT and other early Christian writings God takes no delight in banishing sinners from him. He delights instead in making them holy, in creating a people fit for his presence, in bringing them close to himself and in giving them sacred work to do (cf. Is 6:1–8). As a consequence God sends his good news (see Gospel) out into the world so that sinful people may “turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified [hēgiasmenoi],” i.e., among those who have been made holy and have been set apart to God (Acts 26:18; cf. 20:32). It is important to note here that the expression “those who are sanctified” is a passive participle (from hagiazō, make holy, consecrate, sanctify) that has been termed a “divine passive.” That is, God is the agent of the action. He has taken the initiative not to destroy sinners but to make them holy (cf. Herm. Vis. 3.9.1).

It is God’s will that sinful people be made holy (Heb 10:10). But it was costly for God to realize this wish. Under the old covenant sinners were made holy on the basis of animals being properly sacrificed year after year in their behalf (Lev 16)—tentatively made holy (cf. Rom 3:25; Heb 10:4). Under the new covenant sinners are made holy or sanctified (hēgiasmenoi/hagiazomenous) by a much more profound act—the conscious, deliberate choice of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, radically to obey his Father and offer his body in death as a single sacrifice for sins forever (Heb 10:5–10, 12, 14, 29; cf. Phil 2:8; Diogn. 9.2; see Death of Christ). The blood of Jesus (an expression that refers to the self-determined action of Jesus to die on behalf of sinful human beings) is that by which sinful persons are made holy. The explicit purpose of his suffering and death was that the unclean might become clean, that he might make unholy people holy (hagiasē, Heb 13:12; see also 9:13; 1 Clem. 32.4; 59.3; Barn. 5.1).

In the writings under consideration, as in the OT, places and things as well as persons can be considered holy. Thus the temple is called “the holy place” (Acts 6:13; 21:28). The two tents of the tabernacle are referred to as “the holy place” (hagia, Heb 9:1) and “the Holy of Holies” (hagia hagiōn, Heb 9:3; see also 9:1, 12, 24, 25; 10:19; 13:11). The mountain on which Jesus was transfigured is designated as “the holy [hagios] mountain” (2 Pet 1:18; cf. Barn. 11.3). The Christian faith is termed “the most holy [hagiōtatē faith” (Jude 20). Jerusalem is called “the holy [hagian] city” (Rev 11:2; 21:2, 10; 22:11, 19). Presbyters are holy (Ign. Magn. 3.1), the Eucharist is holy (Did. 9.5), the church is holy (Herm. Vis. 1.1.6; Mart. Pol. presc.), prophets are holy (Acts 3:21; 2 Pet 3:2), angels are holy (Acts 10:22; cf. Jude 14; Rev 14:10; 1 Clem. 39:7; Herm. Sim. 5.4.4; Herm. Vis. 5.5.3).

3.2. The Holiness of Jesus Christ. The NT describes Jesus as holy, a person set apart to God, anointed by him (Acts 4:27; see Anointing), dedicated to God and designated as his unique instrument to carry out his predestined plan in the world (Acts 4:28). But holy is also used of Jesus as it is used of God the Father.

The early church understood Psalm 16:10, said to be written by David and about David, to have had its fulfillment in the resurrected Jesus—“You will not … let your Holy [hosion] One experience corruption” (Acts 2:27; 13:35). Peter referred to Jesus as “the Holy [ton hagion] and Righteous One” (Acts 3:14), seemingly in the moral sense of innocent since he linked the word so closely with the anarthrous dikaion (“righteous”—ton hagion kai dikaion; cf. Lk 23:47 and see Conzelmann, 28). In a later sermon Peter speaks of Jesus as God’s “holy [hagion] servant/son” (pais, Acts 4:27; 30).

But the NT and early Fathers say more than this about Jesus. He is the one who makes others holy (ho hagiazōn, Heb 2:11; 13:12), who consecrates them to God and his service that they might be admitted into his presence (cf. Procksch, 89–97). “Jesus is here [in Heb 2:11] exercising a divine function since, according to the OT, it is God who consecrates” (Montefiore, 62; cf. Ex 31:13; Lev 20:8; 21:15; 22:9, 16, 32; Ezek 20:12; 37:28; but see Attridge, 88 n. 107).

Borrowing the language of Isaiah 8:12–13 Peter calls upon Christians to “sanctify [hagiasate] Christ as Lord” (1 Pet 3:15). They are to acknowledge that he is holy (cf. Is 29:23; Ezek 20:41; Ecclus 36:4, Mt 6:9)—holy in the sense that God is holy—for as J. N. D. Kelly has remarked, this verse “has a bearing on 1 Peter’s Christology.… [As] in ii,3 the title ‘the Lord’, which in the Hebrew original denotes God, is unhesitatingly attributed to Christ” (Kelly, 142; see Christology; 1 Peter).

“The Holy One,” a frequent name of God in the OT (2 Kings 19:22; Ps 71:22; 78:41; Is 1:4, passim), appears also in 1 John 2:20 (“you have been anointed by the Holy One [tou hagiou]).” Although there is debate over whether this expression refers to God the Father or to Jesus Christ, in light of the context and especially in light of 2:27–28 it seems more likely that it is a title given to Jesus (see also Diogn. 9.2).

In his vision the Seer reads a letter addressed to the church at Philadelphia. It begins, “These are the words of the Holy One” (ho hagios, Rev 4:7). From the context of this letter (see Rev 2:18; 3:1) this Holy One is none other than the crucified, dead and risen Christ, the one who was and is and will forever be (Rev 1:17–18; cf. Rev 4:8; Diogn. 9.2). These writers want everyone to understand that Jesus is holy in the sense that God is holy—“holy [hosios, a word chosen to emphasize the moral dimension of holiness], blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Heb 7:26). In naming him “the Holy One” they claim for him the title of deity.

Gerald F. Hawthorne, “Holy, Holiness,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 485–488.

 

1 Corinthians 2:14 de-Calvinized

Published by Papa Giorgio

I am realizing, much like Mormons and J-Dubs, they isolate a scripture verse and rip is from it’s context. You must pause and read before and after the verse… just like with cult members.

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, addresses 1 Cor. 2:14, a common proof text used by Calvinists to teach that mankind is born morally unable to understand and willingly believe the gospel unless they are first born again.

Two articles related to the above and below:

The fuller presentation by Dr. Flowers go to “Rebutting Calvinistic Proof Texts” at SOTERIOLOGY 101’s YouTube Channel. Here is my clip from it:

Armstrong and Getty: Los Angeles Schools Can’t Do Math

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is the article they are reading from: WSJ site | Archived [unlocked]

Los Angeles Schools Can’t Do Math

Teachers get a rich new union contract despite awful student results.

When government rewards failure, the result is usually more failure. That’s been the story in Los Angeles, where the teachers unions on Sunday secured a rich new contract, notwithstanding lousy student performance and declining enrollment.

The Los Angeles Unified School District’s new collective-bargaining agreement with the United Teachers Los Angeles increases salary scales by 11.65% over two years—double the rate of inflation—plus four weeks of paid parental leave and expanded student support services that will invariably require more hiring. Pay for new teachers will jump nearly 12% to $77,000.

The agreement comes after the district warned in February that a looming $877 million deficit could require thousands of layoffs. “At some point, we reached a breaking point,” Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said. Increasing costs for retirement benefits, a post-pandemic hiring binge and declining student enrollment are squeezing the district’s finances.

While state per-pupil spending has soared in recent years to $27,418, Los Angeles hasn’t benefited as much as some other districts because its enrollment has shrunk by nearly a quarter since 2019. Families moved away during the pandemic when schools were closed. The flight has continued owing to L.A.’s low-performing schools, high cost of living, taxes and crime.

Federal pandemic largesse helped paper over the district’s budget problems for a time and supercharged hiring. “We will still have a workforce that is larger than when the district had 40% more students than we have today,” Mr. Carvalho recently said.

Meantime, the district and state are required to make payments equal to 30% of teacher salaries for their pensions. Teachers can retire at age 63 with a pension worth 85% of their final pay, plus free health benefits for life.

The district and union may be betting they’ll get more money in this year’s state budget. But the state is also facing a $21 billion deficit, so more money for schools will invariably require higher taxes in some form. Giving L.A.’s failing schools more money will also reduce the incentive to improve learning to staunch the exodus of families.

Only 18% of Los Angeles eighth-graders scored proficient in math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, compared to 27% nationwide. Then again, the district’s catawampus finances suggest its leaders are no better at math.

Boom! Justice Thomas Blasts Progressivism and Leftists

Published by Papa Giorgio

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas warns that the rise of progressivism poses one of the greatest threats to America today (Full Speech at Fox News)

KanekoaTheGreat…..

🔥NEW: Clarence Thomas — full remarks on progressivism, its foundations, history, and impact from his appearance at University of Texas at Austin:

“Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao were all intertwined with the rise of progressivism, and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our Declaration is based.”

“Many progressives expressed admiration for each of them shortly before their governments killed tens of millions of people.”

“It comes as no surprise that the progressives embraced eugenics… It was only a small step for Wilson to resegregate the federal workforce.”

“It was only another step for the government to launch sterilization programs on those deemed by the experts of the day to be unfit to reproduce.”

“European thinkers have long criticized America for remaining trapped in a Lockean world, with its weakened, decentralized government and strong individual rights. They say our 18th-century Declaration has prevented us from progressing to higher forms of government.”

“But we were fortunate not to trade our Lockean bonds for the supposedly enlightened world of Hegel, Marx, and their followers. Fascism, which after all was national socialism, triggered wars in Europe and Asia that killed tens of millions.”

“The socialism of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China proceeded to kill tens of millions more of their own people. This is what happens when natural rights give way to higher-good notions of history or progress, or, as Thomas Sowell has written, the visions of the anointed.”

“None of this, of course, was an improvement on the principles of the Declaration. Tocqueville’s Democracy in America is largely about how America owed its superiority over Europe to its conscious decision to reject central planning and administrative rule, root and branch.”

“Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive.”

“Obama Killed Jesus” Did He? (TRUMP UPDATE!)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Originally Posted September 2014 — Updated After OG Post

Someone on my YOUTUBE (BTW, I removed all comments years ago as that was a trigger point for YouTube censors) jokingly or sarcastically said: “Obama Killed Jesus.” (More at Is Barack Obama the Messiah?)

He is provocative in insisting on an outstretched hand, where others only see animosity.

His tangible results in the short time that he has been active – are few and far between. His greatest results have been created with words and speeches – words that remain in the consciousness of their audience and have long-term effects.

He comes from humble beginnings and defends the weak and vulnerable, because he can identify himself with their conditions.

And no we are not thinking of Jesus Christ, whose birthday has just been celebrated – – but rather the President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama. […]

If such a comparison were to be made, it would, of course, inevitably be to Obama’s advantage.
Today, his historic Health Reform is being passed through the American Senate – a welfare policy breakthrough that several of his predecessors have been unable to manage. […]

On the other hand, we have Jesus’ miracles that everyone still remembers, but which only benefitted a few.

Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus – if we have to play that absurd Christmas game. But it is probably more meaningful to insist that with today’s domestic triumph, that he has already assured himself a place in the history books – a space he has good chances of expanding considerably in coming years.

Source: “Obama greater than Jesus” Politiken Editorial [Denmark] December 29, 2009. 

Which I responded to thus:

He did in a sense that he and many others sit in a pew for twenty years that teach a post-modern culturally Marxist Jesus… with sermons sold in the church’s bookstore (the entire twenty years Obama attended) by Farrakhan. Remember, he is the guy who said was taken up in a UFO and told by Jesus and Elijah Muhammad that he was the little messiah. He sermonized ideas like Yakub (the crazy scientist) creating the white man [aka, the Devil] on the island of Cypruss 6,600 years ago. That blacks alone are the true Jewish descendant and that white’s are lying who say they are Jewish. Books in that same church book store that said this:

“It is dangerous because the true prophet of the gospel of God must become both ‘anti-Christian’ and ‘unpatriotic.’ (55) …. Because whiteness by its very nature is against blackness, the black prophet is a prophet of national doom. He proclaims the end of the ‘American Way…‘” (56)

“… it is that whites are incapable of making any valid judgment about human existence. The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods. The God of black liberation will not be confused with a blood’ thirsty white idol. Black theology must show that the black God has nothing to do with the God worshiped in white churches whose primary purpose is to sanctify the racism of whites and to daub the wounds of blacks. Putting new wine in new wineskins means that the black theology view of God has nothing in common with those who prayed for an American victory in Vietnam or who pray for a “cool” summer in the ghetto…. There is no place in black theology for a colorless God in a society where human beings suffer precisely because of their color. The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…. Because God has made the goal of blacks God’s own goal, black theology believes that it is not only appropriate but necessary to begin the doctrine of God with an insistence on God’s blackness.” (62-63)

Contrasting evil theologies/ideologies

“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.” — Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

  • The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods. (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) — A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.62
  • White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality. (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) — A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.64

“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” — Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

  • There is no place in black theology for a colorless God in a society where human beings suffer precisely because of their color. The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) — A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.63
  • Christianity is not alien to Black Power, Christianity is Black Power. (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) — Black Theology & Black Power, James Cone, p.38
  • In contrast to this racist view of God, black theology proclaims God’s blackness. Those who want to know who God is and what God is doing must know who black persons are and what they are doing. (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) — A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.65

“The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!” ~ Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

  • These new theologians of the “Third World” argue that Christians [liberation theology accepting Christians] should not shun violence but should initiate it… (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) — Black Theology & Black Power, James Cone, p.32
  • It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it. (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) — Black Theology & Black Power, James Cone, p.14
  • It is this fact that makes all white churches anti-Christian in their essence. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people! (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) — Black Theology & Black Power, James Cone, p.151
  • It [black liberation theology] is dangerous because the true prophet of the gospel of God must become both “anti-Christian” and “unpatriotic.”…. Because whiteness by its very nature is against blackness, the black prophet is a prophet of national doom. He proclaims the end of the “American Way,”… (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) — A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.55-56

While reading these books cover-to-cover I also noted that Louise Farrakhan was given a lifetime achievement award at Obama’s church. Not only that though, but Farrakhan was given three cover spreads on the church’s magazine, the Trumpet. One of those his face shot put alongside Obama as well as Elijah Muhammad, the second leader of the Nation of Islam. His [Elijah Muhammad’s] many books are sold by the Nation of Islam not to mention being taught by Louise Farrakhan as theological doctrine. Since Obama’s church gave such a prestigious award to the current leader of the Nation of Islam, whom Obama’s pastor was a part of in his younger years, let us see what some of these books they tout say as well:

It is due to your ignorance of God, or you are one deceived by the devil, whose nature is to mislead you in the knowledge of God. You originally came from the God of Righteousness and have the opportunity to return, while the devils are from the man devil (Yakub) who has ruled the world for the past 6,000 years under falsehood, labeled under the name of God and His prophets.

So Obama did kill Jesus in one sense…but so do millions of adherents to cults.

As an aside, the “Hope Poster” which was used by the Obama campaign was a bit “messianic” in my mind.

Trumped Update ! (4-17-2026)

This update revolves around this [now removed] TRUTH post by our President, of which a cyber friend said:

  • I love most of Trump’s policies, but this is the epitome of “Bad Trump!” I condemn this stupidity!

Now here are a couple “reprints” from I can support via THE BAPTIST INSTITUTE:

Remember, the press made Obama seem “Messianic” in trying to give the idea that Obama was “mainstream” in his religious view:

And this revealing short article by the TRINITY FORUM (December 2013):

In an interview Barbara Walters did with CNN’s Piers Morgan, this exchange took place:

MORGAN: You have interviewed every president of my lifetime. Why is Obama facing so much opposition now? Why is he struggling so much to really fulfill the great flame of ambition and excitement that he was elected on originally in 2009?

WALTERS: Well, you’ve touched on it to a degree. He made so many promises. We thought that he was going to be – I shouldn’t say this at Christmastime, but – the next messiah. And the whole ObamaCare, or whatever you want to call it, the Affordable Health Act, it just hasn’t worked for him, and he’s stumbled around on it, and people feel very disappointed because they expected more.

Ms. Walters is right to say it might not be quite appropriate to say around Christmastime that Mr. Obama had been widely thought to be “the next messiah,” though I’d recommend that be expanded to include anytime, not just Christmastime.

What’s revealing, of course, is that Ms. Walters ever thought that is what Obama would be. And note the use of the pronoun “we”–as if we, all of us, had messianic expectations for Mr. Obama. Actually, many of us did not, though I think it’s fair to say some of Ms. Walters’ colleagues in the media and other members of the political class did.

To appreciate the hagiography once surrounding Mr. Obama, it’s worth going beyond the thrill he sent up the leg of Chris Matthews. Consider as well that the historian Garry Wills favorably compared Obama’s 2008 “A More Perfect Union” speech, on the issue of race and his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, to Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 Cooper Union speech. In the Nation magazine Tom Hayden, Barbara Ehrenrich, Bill Fletcher, Jr. and Danny Glover wrote that Obama’s address on race “was as great a speech as ever given by a presidential candidate, revealing a philosophical depth, personal authenticity, and political intelligence that should convince any but the hardest of ideologues that he carries unmatched leadership potentials for overcoming the divide-and-conquer tactics that have sundered Americans since the first slaves arrived here in chains.”

Immediately after his election, on the November 7, 2008 broadcast of PBS’s Charlie Rose, the historian Alan Brinkley said, “I don’t think we’ve had a president since Lincoln who has the oratorical skills that Obama has. Obama has that quality that Lincoln had.” David Remnick of the New Yorker also compared Obama’s rhetorical skills to Lincoln. (It got to the point that Remnick had to say, “We’ll climb out of the tank soon.”) Nor should we forget when in 2009 presidential historian Michael Beschloss said of Obama: “He’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.” ……

See more in a few articles:

  • Religion and Politics ’08: Barack Obama (PEW RESEARCH)
  • ‘Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus’ (WORLD NET DAILY covering Dutch paper article)
  • Messianic rhetoric infuses Obama rallies (POLITICO)

This next article is from THE CHRISTIAN POST, and the reason I reproduce it here is due to the ads and the sectioned portions of the post. But one should visit the POST’s stuff!

4 times Barack Obama likened to Jesus, the Messiah: ‘This is the New Testament’

  1. ‘The Truth’

In 2009, artist Michael D’Antuono sought to display a painting called “The Truth” in New York City’s Union Square to celebrate the 100th day of Obama’s presidency. The painting portrayed Obama in front of the presidential seal with his arms in a V-shape and a crown of thorns on his head, in the position that Jesus Christ was in when he was crucified on Good Friday.

Backlash forced D’Antuono to cancel his planned event in Union Square. Responding to the outcry over his depiction of Obama, D’Antuono stated through a publicist that “The religious reference was used metaphorically and not to insult anyone’s religious beliefs.”

“If that is the effect that my art has had on anyone, I am truly sorry,” the statement added. Three years later, around the time of Obama’s re-election, “The Truth” was displayed at the Bunker Hill Community College Art Gallery in Boston, Massachusetts, as part of an exhibit titled “Artists on the Stump: The Road to the White House 2012.”

D’Antuono addressed the controversy over his painting three years earlier, telling Fox News that “I always regretted canceling my exhibit in New York because I feel my First Amendment rights should override someone’s hurt feelings.” He attributed the cancellation of his exhibit to the “religious right’s extreme outrage.”

“Interpreting the political piece as blasphemy, they planned protests and wrote thousands of letters demanding the show be canceled,” he added.

  1. ‘Blessing’

According to Calisphere, which describes itself as a “gateway to digital collections from California’s great libraries, archives, and museums,” “Blessing” was a papier-mâché statue of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama displayed at a gallery in downtown Chicago, Illinois, in 2007. Created by David Cordero, an undergraduate student at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago at the time, the statue depicts Obama in a white robe with a red shawl over his shirt and tie, and his head surrounded by a glowing halo.

While the Obama campaign tried to distance itself from the sculpture and insisted that the then-U.S. senator “isn’t a fan of art that offends religious sensibilities,” Cordero denied that he was attempting to portray Obama as a God-like figure. Instead, he maintained the purpose of his art was to stress the importance of taking “caution in assigning all these inflated expectations on one individual, and expecting them to change something that many hands have shaped.”

  1. Obama for Messiah images

The website Obama for Messiah ’08 was created to “poke a little fun at those who seem to be waiting for Christ to abdicate his throne to Senator Barack Obama.” Although designed as a medium for satirical posters depicting Obama as a religious figure, the website contains multiple quotes from public figures likening Obama to a religious figure.

One image on the website features Obama wearing a robe emblazoned in red, white and blue, accompanied by the caption: “Walks on water but still needs your vote.” Another image shows Obama wearing a robe with his hand up in the air, along with text reading “heals the lame and promises health care.”

The third image on the site shows Obama making a thumbs up while his other hand is extended out along with text reading “taxes the wealthy and redeems our sins.” The fourth image is designed to emulate the Black Madonna painting of Mary and Jesus and features a woman holding Obama alongside text reading, “She will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.”

  • “This guy was president before I was . . . This guy was God before I was.”– Barack Obama -in reference to Morgan Freeman’s portrayal in “Deep Impact and “Bruce Almighty”
  • “This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament.” . . .”I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event.”— Chris Matthews
  • “Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves.”— Ezra Klein
  • “I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let’s say, blessed and highly favored. That’s not routine. There’s something else going on. I think that Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered. . . . I know that that was God’s plan.”– Bill Rush
  • “I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. … The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.” —  Jesse Jackson Jr.
  1. ‘The next Messiah,’ ‘triumph of word over flesh,’ fulfillment of ‘the New Testament’

Portrayal of Obama as a Christ-like figure wasn’t limited to artwork. As highlighted on the website Obama for Messiah ’08, liberal figures in politics and the media did not hesitate to invoke biblical comparisons when talking about Obama. In a 2008 column written for The American Prospect, liberal commentator Ezra Klein wrote, “He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.”

In a 2013 interview on CNN, longtime journalist Barbara Walters acknowledged that many thought that he was going to be “the next Messiah.” During the Democratic presidential primary season in 2008, MSNBC host Chris Matthews described Obama as “bigger than [former President John F.] Kennedy.”

“[Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament. This is surprising,” he said.

Much of Calvinism Found in Augustinianism

Published by Papa Giorgio

UPDATED QUOTE!

An updated excerpt from the book “The Dark Side of Calvinism: The Calvinist Caste System” (PDF) – part of a Calvary Chapel “series” (3 books) on Calvinism [back cover at bottom of quote – click to enlarge]:

THE AUGUSTINIANISM OF CALVINISM

Although the five points of Calvinism are most closely associated with the sixteenth century Protestant Reformer John Calvin (and for good reason), they did not originate with him. Calvinists would, first and foremost, contend that the five points faithfully represent the teaching of the New Testament in general, and of the apostle Paul in particular. Obviously, I do not agree with this contention. I do, however, agree with Calvinists when they point out that Calvin was not the first notable figure in church history to champion the views that led to what is today the Calvinist or Reformed system of theology. Just as the Synod of Dort, which first formally presented these points as the five points of Calvinism, was a Calvinist synod, so John Calvin was an Augustinian.

This is especially true with regard to the later Augustinian view of predestination and its bearing upon the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate. Norman Geisler makes the point that Augustine held two contradictory views, reflecting a change of thought over time. According to Geisler, it is the views of Augustine in the latter part of his Christian life that had such an influence on Calvin and many other Calvinists down through the centuries. This is especially so with regard to the Reformed view of salvation and damnation.59 Lawrence Vance makes the case that Augustine was at once both the father of Roman Catholicism and of Reformed Theology.60

Because of Augustine’s association with the Roman Catholic Church, there are some uninformed Calvinists who believe that Calvin was not influenced by Augustine and that to make this connection is nothing more than a smear tactic on the part of anti-Calvinists. Calvin’s repeated references to Augustine, however, reveal that he gave a lot of weight to what Augustine taught and was in fact echoing Augustine on the most central tenets of Reformed doctrine. Because some Calvinists object to the assertion that Calvin relied upon Augustine to develop and defend his doctrinal distinctives, I will quote from a wide variety of leading Calvinists to establish this statement. Herman Hanko, as non-Roman Catholic as one can be, says:

In fact, our fathers at Dordrecht knew well that these truths set forth in the Canons could not only be traced back to the Calvin Reformation; they could be traced back to the theology of Saint Augustine who lived almost a millennium before Calvin did his work in Geneva. For it was Augustine who had originally defined these truths. Calvin himself, again and again, pays tribute to the work of Augustine and points out that what he is saying has been said before him by the Bishop of Hippo. The Synod of Dordrecht was conscious of this.61

In agreement, Loraine Boettner says:

It was Calvin who wrought out this system of theological thought with such logical clearness and emphasis that it has ever since borne his name. He did not, of course, originate the system but only set forth what appeared to him to shine forth so clearly from the pages of Holy Scripture. Augustine had taught the essentials of the system a thousand years before Calvin was born, and the whole body of the leaders of the Reformation movement taught the same. But it was given to Calvin with his deep knowledge of Scripture, his keen intellect and systematizing genius, to set forth and defend these truths more clearly and ably than had ever been done before.62

Calvinist theologian, R. Laird Harris, also agrees when he points out that:

Although Calvin gave the Reformed doctrine its most thorough formulation, the theology had long been held. Calvin would have been the first to deny its novelty. … Indeed Calvinism is often called Augustinianism.63

Boettner went so far as to say:

The Reformation was essentially a revival of Augustinianism … ,64

  1. I. Packer echoes this sentiment saying:

The Reformation was an Augustinian Revival.65

Edwin Palmer explains:

The name Calvinism has often been used, not because Calvin was the first or sole teacher, but because after the long silence of the Middle Ages, he was the most eloquent and systematic expositor of these truths.66

For these reasons and some others, Calvin gets the lion’s share of credit for what he did with the teachings of Augustine. According to Boettner:

Inasmuch as it was Calvin who first formulated these principles into a more or less complete system, that system, or creed, if you will, and likewise those principles which are embodied in it, came to bear his name.67

Boettner explains the Reformed view of Calvin’s role in Calvinism as follows:

Calvin’s active and powerful intellect led him to sound the depths of every subject which he touched. In his investigations about God and the plan of redemption he went very far, penetrating into mysteries concerning which the average man seldom if ever dreams. He brought to light a side of Scripture which has as yet been very much in the shade and stressed those deep truths which in the ages preceding the Reformation had comparatively escaped notice in the Church. He brought to light forgotten doctrines of the apostle Paul and fastened them in their full and complete sense upon one great branch of the Christian Church.68

Spurgeon probably speaks for all authentic Calvinists when he says:

That doctrine which is called “Calvinism” did not spring from Calvin; we believe that it sprang from the great founder of all truth. Perhaps Calvin himself derived it mainly from the writings of Augustine. Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through the Spirit of God, from the diligent study of the writings of Paul, and Paul received them of the Holy Ghost, from Jesus Christ the great founder of the Christian dispensation. We use the term then, not because we impute any extraordinary importance to Calvin having taught these doctrines. We would be just as willing to call them by any other name, if we could find one which would be better understood, and which on the whole would be as consistent with fact.69

William S. Reid, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, says:

John Calvin, often regarded as “the systematizer of the Reformation,” was a second generation Protestant Reformer of the sixteenth century who brought together biblical doctrine systematically, in a way that no other Reformer before him had done … all Reformed and Presbyterian churches look back to him as the founder of their biblical-theological doctrinal position. … Although Calvin was the systematizer of the Reformation theology, since his day those who have accepted his structure of theology have continued to develop many of his ideas. During his own lifetime he himself developed his thought in the successive editions of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. With the writing of various Calvinistic confessions as the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and the Canons of Dort (1618), and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms (1647-48) additions to and further developments in theological thought have appeared.70

While Reformed Theology—the theology of Calvin and Calvinism itself—is often thought of as the theology of the Reformation, this is imprecise at best. In fact, church historian Bruce Shelly says:

Calvin’s leadership … shaped a third reformation tradition. Today we call it Reformed or Calvinistic Christianity. It includes all Presbyterians, Dutch and German Reformed Churches, and many Baptists and Congregationalists.71

In fairness, I should point out that when Reformed denominations become liberal they lose their Calvinism along with their part in biblical Christianity. Thus, one could qualify the Calvinists among these groups as Evangelical or even Conservative Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc. I should also point out that while there have always been Calvinist Baptists, variously called Reformed, Particular, or even Sovereign Baptists, etc., Baptists as a whole tend not to buy in to Reformed Theology. Still, in all of the mainstream Baptist denominations, there are those who are mounting a major effort to turn all Baptists (or as many as possible) into Reformed or Calvinist Baptists. Some even believe that a non-Reformed Baptist is not a true Baptist. One only needs to read The Other Side of Calvinism to see how wrong it is to equate Reformed Theology with the theology of mainstream Baptists.

NOTES

59 Norman Geisler, Predestination and Free Will (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 68.

60 Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, 37-68.

61 Hanko, Hoeksema, and VanBaren, The Five Points of Calvinism, 10.

62 Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 3-4.

63 Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, and John Rea, eds. The Wyclijfe Bible Encyclopedia A-J. R. Laird Harris, “Calvinism.” (Chicago, 111.: Moody Press, 1975), 293.

64 Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 367.

65 J. I. Packer, “The Love of God: Universal and Particular.” Schreiner and Ware, eds. The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, 420.

66 Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, Foreword.

67 Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 4.

68 Ibid, 5.

69 Spurgeon, The Spurgeon Sermon Collection, Vol. 2, 216.

70 William S. Reid, “Calvinism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1984), 186-188.

71 Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Dallas, Tex.: Word Publishing, 1995), 257.

(PDF of the above)

(Video Description – below) The provided text, excerpts from “AntiCALVIN The Gnostic Origins of Calvinism” by Ken Johnson, Th.D., establishes a detailed argument tracing the theological origins of Calvinism, particularly the doctrines codified in TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints), back to ancient Gnostic and Manichaean heresies rather than scriptural orthodoxy. The author contends that concepts such as predestination and the denial of free will were first espoused by groups like the Valentinian Gnostics and were later incorporated by thinkers like Augustine of Hippo during debates against Pelagianism. A significant portion of the material contrasts the Calvinist definitions of these core theological points with the Arminian and “biblical” positions, often appealing to the writings and testimonies of the Ancient Church Fathers to support the idea that early Christianity affirmed free will and resisted doctrines leading to double predestination. Ultimately, the work aims to dismantle Calvinist theology by exposing its claimed “Gnostic origins” and demonstrating its contradiction with the beliefs of the immediate successors to the apostles.

MORE HERE.

A simplistic understanding of church history claims:

  • “Augustine introduced a dozen novel Doctrines in the course of his writing one short letter; then, he developed amnesia on his new doctrines for the next fifteen years.”

However, we know from his going back in time and changing [rewriting portions of] his views (for instance in Ad Simplicianum [2.5-22] and Lib. arb.3.47-54) that his reverting back to his neo platonic/Gnostic roots is clearly earmarked at the AD 412 mark.

His changes included not acceptance of,

  1. Total Inability
  2. Double Predestination
  3. No choice in choosing spiritual goodness
  4. God is just despite creating people intended for an eternal torture in hell with no ability to choose the good even when offered it.

Calvin (and to a lesser degree, Luther) plumed these later changes and incorporated them specifically into their reformational undercutting of the early Baptists and the SOLAs.

ADDITION: to be clear, we possess no writings from any prior Christian author who held such pagan views – which were plentiful in Platonism, Stoicism, and Gnosticism before AD 412.

I wish every person interested could at least read chapter 6 of “Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique” WOWZA.

Here are a few pages (& PDF)

Why Did Augustine Revert to Pagan Salvific Determinism in AD 412?

The major influence on Augustine’s AD 412 reversion to his prior deterministic Manichaean interpretations of Scripture was the arrival of Pelagius and Caelestius near his North African home in late AD 411. Augustine previously admitted (AD 405) he did not know why infant baptism was practiced (Quant.80). But the conflict with Caelestius and Pelagius forced him to rethink the church’s infant baptismal tradition and precipitated his reversion to his pagan DUPED.26 Caelestius had argued that infants did not receive baptism for salvation from sin but only for inheritance of the kingdom. Augustine’s polemical response to Caelestius in AD 412 was logical: (1) Infants are baptized by church tradition; (2) water baptism is for forgiveness of sin and reception of the Holy Spirit; (3) some dying infants are rushed by their Christian parents to the bishop for baptism but die before baptism occurs, while other infants born of prostitutes are found abandoned on the streets by a church virgin who rushes them to the baptismal font where the bishop baptizes them; (4) these infants have no “will” and no control over whether or not they are baptized to receive the Holy Spirit to become Christians. Therefore, God must unilaterally and unconditionally predetermine which infants are saved by baptism and which are eternally damned without baptism (unconditional election).27 God’s election must be unconditional since infants have no personal sin, no merit, no good works, no functioning free will (incognizant due to the inability to understand at their age), and therefore, no choice.

In his next work that same year, Augustine concluded if this is true for infants, then unbaptized adults also have no choice or free will (Sp. et litt.54– 56). The Holy Spirit was received in water baptism, transforming the person into a Christian with a free will. Since humans have no free will before baptism, God must unilaterally choose who will be saved and infuse faith into those persons. Augustine taught even when “ministers prepared for giving baptism to the infants, it still is not given, because God does not choose [those infants for salvation]” (persev.31). Infant baptism became the impetus for Augustine’s novel theology when he reinterpreted that church tradition and reached a logical conclusion. By doing this he abandoned over three hundred years of church teaching on free will. According to the famous scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, Augustine departed from traditional Christian theology by incorporating his prior pagan teachings and thereby developed inconsistencies in his new anthropology and theology of grace, especially his “idiosyncratic theory of predestination.”28

Augustine Reverted to His Prior Pagan Philosophies in AD 412

The controversy over infant baptismal regeneration propelled Augustine to revert to his pagan training. Augustine’s reading of the Neoplatonism of Plotinus (Enneads) and Porphyry provided vital concepts he would incorporate from philosophy into his new theology.29 Evil produced an incapacitating fall with a total loss of the image of God in humans (Enn.1.1.12; 1.8.5; 4.3.12). In Neoplatonism, all humans were created as pure spirits (no physical body). Their voluntary choice to become physical resulted in the loss of free will.

By this choice humanity lost the “good will” and became inextricably chained in universal wickedness from an “evil will” (Enn.3.2.10; cf. Stoicism). This required the Spirit to implant the desired love and restore the “good will” by divine infusion (Enn.3.5.4; 1.7.9; 3.2.9.1; 2.3.1.1; 3.3.19–21; 4.8.5.1– 4). Although human souls do not possess genuine free will, (somehow) neither do they act by compulsion (Enn.4.3.13).30 The Neoplatonic “Reason-Principle” (god) purposefully created only a few individuals to whom he would gift a “good will” but created many more evil individuals who would remain devoid of personal choice. These evil persons were created as predestined to damnation. Nevertheless, those created for damnation remain inexcusably culpable and guilty, because the universe is just and good when each person accepts his or her god-imposed role, including those eternally tortured screaming in pain (Enn.3.2.17). Because “The One” (god) can only do good, he is exonerated by doctrinal definition from committing any injustice. These pagan philosophical teachings were the warp and woof of Augustine’s earlier studies, and these buttressed his theological answers to the Pelagian challenge.

Augustine utilized all these Neoplatonic doctrines after AD 411: (1) humanity’s fall resulted in total inability to respond with loss of free will (leaving only an evil will); (2) individuals were created for the purpose of damnation unto God’s glory; (3) individuals were culpable despite the lack of any choice to do good or respond positively; and (4) God was just, despite deliberately creating persons for eternal torture. After AD 412 Augustine regurgitated these pagan doctrines. “This absolutely obvious truth by which we see that so many are not saved because God does not will this, though human beings do” (Ep.217.19). God purposefully created persons to damn them eternally (Nupt. et conc.2.31–32). We possess no writings from any prior Christian author who held such pagan views.

Similarly, in AD 412, Manichaean Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies (DUPED) invaded Christianity through Augustine. Foreknowledge now resulted from God unilaterally predetermining the elect (in other words, divine foreordination preceded divine foreknowledge). This was a Gnostic requirement. “Present a command to us to see Thee, so that we may be saved. Knowledge of Thee, it is the salvation of us all! Present a command! When Thou dost command, we have been saved” (The Three Steles of Seth, 125). Augustine wrote a similar line: “Give what you command, and command what you will” (Conf.10.40).

Thus, Augustine abandoned the unanimous consensus of the earlier Christian view and reverted to his Gnostic-Manichaean deterministic interpretations of Christian Scripture in AD 412. This can be best visualized by examining the following chart that compares the different interpretations of key Scripture passages by early Christians, Gnostic-Manichaeans, and Augustinian-Calvinists.

*Greek eudokias; the five other texts (Ps 5:13, 68:14, 144:16; Sir 15:15; Luke 2:14) containing eudokia refer to favor, acceptance, or good pleasure; “good willer” is my pejorative term for the pagan concept of a formal faculty that can “will good” (Stoic/ Neoplatonic/ Manichaean). It must be gifted by god/ the One to overcome the “evil will” in spiritually dead persons incapable of a positive response to god/ the One’s offer of salvation. The same passages the Gnostics and Manichaeans had interpreted as deterministic are now used by modern Calvinists to prove total depravity and unconditional election (the essential elements of Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies, DUPED).

Gnostics and Manichaeans had used these same Christian Scriptures (listed above) for centuries to promote their unilateral determinism. Before Augustine, orthodox Christians had refuted heretical Gnostic and Manichaean DUPED and “interpreted proorizō [election] as depending upon proginoskō (foreknow)—those whom God foreknew would believe he decided upon beforehand to save. Their chief concern was to combat the concept of fatalism and affirm that humans are free to do what is righteous.”31

Augustine’s move toward DUPED was recognized by his peers, so he was accused of reverting to his prior Manichaean theology.32 But as a splendid rhetorician, Augustine defended himself brilliantly by creating a subtle distinction. He modified Gnostic/Manichaean “created human corrupt nature” (producing damnation) into a Christianized “fallen human corrupt nature” in Adam with inherited guilt (producing damnation; Nupt. et conc.2.16). Augustine’s novel nuanced “fallen” nature borrowed a key Gnostic/Manichaean and Neoplatonic doctrine: humans have total inability to respond to God until divinely awakened from spiritual death.

Furthermore, to avoid violating centuries of unanimous Christian teaching, Augustine had to redefine the Christian meaning of free will. He concluded God must micromanage and manipulate the circumstances that guarantee a person would “freely” respond to the invitation of God’s calling to eternal life.33 This should be compared to placing a mouse in a maze, then opening and closing doors so the mouse could “freely” reach the cheese. (In Christian theology that emphasized free will, all doors remained open for the maze traveler to choose his or her own path.) Augustine’s redefined free will was Stoic “non-free free will.” A millennium later, Calvinists would label this divine manipulation of the human free will by the term irresistible grace (God forcing a person to “love” him).

NOTES

26 Wilson, 285. See also Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, 110–11.

27 Augustine, Pecc.mer.1.29–30. In contrast, ca. AD 200, Tertullian had rejected infant baptism, stating one should wait until personal faith was possible (De bapt.18).

28 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 278–327, quotation at 325.

29 O’Daly, Platonism Pagan and Christian, 719.

30 This equivocation was also practiced by the ardently deterministic Stoics, since a total absence of free will was untenable to many among the ancient populace.

31 Carl Thomas McIntire, “Free Will and Predestination: Christian Concepts,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, 15 vols., ed. Lindsay Jones, 2nd ed. (Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005), 5:3206–9.

32 C. Jul. imp.1.52. His ordination as a bishop was blocked and almost prevented due to his prior Manichaeism. See Jason D. BeDuhn, “Augustine Accused: Megalius, Manichaeism, and the Inception of the Confessions,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 17, no. 1 (2009): 85–124; and Henry Chadwick, “Self-Justification in Augustine’s Confessions,” English Historical Review 178 (2003): 1168. As in the chart above, see Augustine’s Manichaean interpretations of Romans 9–11 (Pecc. merit.29–31, Spir. et litt.50, 60, 66; Nupt.2.31–32, C. du ep. Pelag.2.15, Enchir.98, C. Jul. 3.37,4.15, Corrept. 28); Eph 2:8–10 (Spir. et litt.56, C. du ep. Pelag., Enchir.31, Praed.12); John 14:6 and 6:44, 65 (C. du ep. Pelag.1.7, Grat.3–4,10); and Phil 2:13 (Spir. et litt.42, Grat. Chr.1.6, C. Jul.3.37, 4.15, Grat.32, 38).

33 Burns, “From Persuasion to Predestination,” 307.

David L. Allen (Editor), Steve W Lemke (Editor), Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2022), 222-226.

A Recent Sermon Maligning God’s Character/Holiness

Published by Papa Giorgio

Originally posted January 1st, 2026

My visual video response:

Yes, this is from the church I attend. A wonderful place to attend, but definitely Calvinistic. This is a newer pastor, and I must say, even though I vehemently disagree, at least he is preaching honestly. Another pastor months before preached a sermon where he quoted Joshua 24:15 and said:

  • “Make a choice. Choose this day. In fact, you can choose one of the… He’s not saying that he’s happy if you choose the pagan gods, but he says, in fact, pick one of the pagan gods. Do you know that something that God is extremely kind and gracious to us and that he gave us free will? Did you know that? He didn’t force a relationship on us. He gave us free will. Do you remember what he gave Adam and Eve? Free will. You can make a choice. I’m not gonna force it. Hey, you choose, yeah, you, make the choice.”

When I asked an elder if this pastor really believed this statement he made regarding free will from the pulpit, I got an honest answer of “No.”

So I love the almost Provisionist preaching and call to come to God in faith — but this is not what is REALLY believed as these pastors overlay TULIP on to their understanding of Biblical text. I struggle with the good that can come from the “alter call” type preaching of the “Armininian style” while they sleep as a Calvinist. That being said, it is a duplicitous preaching like they make God out to be by overlaying a 16th century philosophy onto God. A Jaundiced view at best. AND, I can truly appreciate the rawness of the logical outcomes being honestly preached from the pulpit. Although even this pastor does not follow his own thinking to their ends without hemming and hawing with a myriad of qualifiers and nuances.

Here is my FACEBOOK comments on this sermon:

So, in the past I have praised good sermons from my church… if I do that, should I at times not critique [as publicly] a bad one? I will be clipping the main idea of it from the video for my site [like I have uploaded some clips from the good ones], but that is in the future tense. I am thankful, however, that this pastor was so forthright, and didn’t hide behind the “preaching as an Arminian, sleep as a Calvinist” idea.

Honest preaching is laudable. This was essentially the sermon:

(a) God decrees and ordains all evil for His glory
(b) God saves us from the evil He decreed and ordained…. for His glory.

In other words, while this pastor didn’t follow his sermon to its logical conclusion, it is essentially God saving us from Himself. So, all the pain and suffering mentioned in stories and text… are all God caused. Remember, this pastor chose AW Pink’s book for the last Monday men’s service series. [It could have been more in the pastorate choosing Pink’s book, as far as I know — because I do not actually know how these books are approved.] Pink is a hyper Calvinist, like this Pastor publicly is.

All I was thinking was,

  • “well, people who don’t get the raw [5-point, Calvinist] truth from other pastors are hearing it now.”

On the flip side of that “positive”, the new people on the “faith fence” — which only makes sense to those of the non-Calvinist soteriological bent — may have wrote off Crossroads as their home. Or worse yet, wrote off God.

Which in this pastor’s view, was also ordained.

The same pastor here eisegetes into Scripture a 16th century doctrine not understood as being the Bible before Calvin popularized it via his doctrinal hero:

  • The reason I added the SNL skit was to note that right when the sermon was starting to state some good position or truth, it was dashed shortly after by the “doctrines of grace.”

UPDATED CONVO

In another example, after a wonderful, Gospel oriented presentation by a senior pastor at the men’s Monday night class, I was perplexed. I thought I was crazy in fact. I was just about to tender my separation letter to the elders, pastors, and peeps at church. So I asked a question in text of the pastor (again, no names):

Ouch. That confirmed and upset me a bit. Did you catch it? This pastor admits that in order to convert people with the Gospel message, he withholds parts of his systematic because it would interfere with his evangelism.

Um… yeah it would.

But again, it is duplicitous in nature, as stated earlier.

How?

There is no Gospel in Calvinism.

See also: “Logical Ends of TULIP (No Rebellious Creatures)“

This illustration [via NotWilliangThatAny] is aiming to reflect a real tension in Calvinist theology, not exaggerate it. It takes the idea of election and shows it visually in terms of proportion. One petal represents the elect, while many “nots” represent those passed over. The focus is on how small the number of the elect might be compared to everyone else.

First, this connects to limited atonement. In this view, Christ’s death is effective only for the elect, not for every individual. Passages like John 10:26, “you do not believe because you are not among my sheep,” and John 17:9, “I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me,” are often used to support this. The illustration reflects that by showing a small number who are truly loved in a saving sense, and many who are not.

Second, it ties to unconditional election and reprobation. God chooses some to receive mercy while others are passed over. Romans 9:13 says, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” and Romans 9:22 speaks of “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” The many “nots” in the image visually represent this larger group who are not chosen, emphasizing the imbalance.

Third, it reflects the idea that salvific love is not universal. While Calvinists affirm that God shows a kind of general love or kindness to all (Matthew 5:45), His saving love is reserved for a specific people. The illustration presses on that distinction by asking what it means in practice. If most people are not recipients of that saving love, then the experience of humanity is largely outside of it.

This leads to a key question. If Scripture says God “so loved the world” (John 3:16) and desires “all people to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), how should we understand the scope of His love? Does the picture of a few loved and many not align with the overall tone and message of the Bible, or should we rethink how we define God’s saving love?

 

 

TikTok Conspiracies | Trump On Epstein Island

Published by Papa Giorgio

GROK:

No, there is no credible evidence that Donald Trump ever visited Jeffrey Epstein’s private island (Little Saint James). — politifact.com

Flight logs from Epstein’s planes (often called the “Lolita Express”) show Trump flew on them several times in the 1990s—recently released documents confirm around 6–8 flights, more than previously known—but none of those flights went to or from the island. The documented trips were domestic routes, such as Palm Beach to New York/Newark or similar East Coast legs, often with family members. — newsweek.com

Trump flew four times in 1993, as well as once in 1994, 1995 and 1997. The flights were between Palm Beach, Florida, and New York City airports, with one 1994 flight stopping at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

In another June 1994 flight, Trump traveled with a woman named “Marla”—presumably then-wife Marla Maples—and his then-infant daughter, Tiffany, along with a nanny.

Trump’s son Eric is also listed on a flight in August 1995 from Palm Beach to New York, and would have been 11 at the time of the flight.

There is no evidence that Trump visited Epstein’s notorious Little St. James island, where the late financier is alleged to have trafficked and sexually abused young women and girls. Trump has also never been implicated in the offenses committed by Epstein or Maxwell.

(NEWSWEEK)

Key facts from court records, victim statements, and investigations

  • No island visitor logs or flight records list Trump: Extensive Epstein flight logs, island visitor data, and court-released documents (including millions of pages unsealed in 2025–2026) contain no record of Trump traveling to Little Saint James. Fact-checkers and news outlets reviewing the files have repeatedly stated this. — poynter.org
  • Virginia Giuffre (a central Epstein victim and accuser): In a sworn deposition, Giuffre—who was recruited while working at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort—explicitly said she never saw Trump on the island, never observed him and Epstein together in compromising situations, and had no recollection of Trump visiting any of Epstein’s properties in a way tied to the abuse. She later clarified that any earlier flirtation claim was inaccurate. — abcnews.com
  • No corroboration in victim accounts or prosecutions: Major Epstein-related trials, depositions, and FBI files include tips and uncorroborated allegations about Trump (some old and withdrawn lawsuits from the 1990s/2010s alleged misconduct at Epstein’s New York apartment, not the island), but nothing places him on Little Saint James. Prosecutors and investigators have never used such evidence against him.

Trump and Epstein were socially acquainted in New York/Palm Beach circles in the late 1980s–1990s (photos and quotes from that era exist), but Trump publicly distanced himself around 2004–2005 after banning Epstein from Mar-a-Lago over an alleged incident involving a young girl at the club. Trump has said he turned down an invitation to the island and hadn’t spoken to Epstein for roughly 15 years by the time of Epstein’s 2019 arrest. Conspiracy theories and social media claims persist, but they rely on speculation, not logs, testimony, or documents. Major outlets (including those critical of Trump) and fact-checkers have consistently found zero evidence of an island visit. — politifact.com

In short: social ties and plane flights (not to the island) = documented. Actual trip to Epstein’s island = no evidence whatsoever.

Happy First Fruits

Published by Papa Giorgio

Jesus is the center of history… in more ways than one!

Some Historical Reflections

Napoleon said this about Jesus:

  • I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him.

H.G. Wells, the famous novelist and historian in his own right agreed:

  • I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.

Albert Einstein adds his intellect:

  • As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene….No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.

Church historian Philip Schaff concludes:

  • Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms, conquered more millions than Alexander the Great, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, he shed more light on things human and divine than all philosophers and scholars combined; without the eloquence of school, he spoke such words of life as were never spoken before or since, and produced effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet; without writing a single line, he set more pens in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons, orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art, and songs of praise than the whole army of great men of ancient and modern times.

Robert Hume

The nine founders among the eleven living religions in the world had characters which attracted many devoted followers during their own lifetime, and still larger numbers during the centuries of subsequent history. They were humble in certain respects, yet they were also confident of a great religious mission. Two of the nine, Mahavira and Buddha, were men so strong-minded and self-reliant that, according to the records, they displayed no need of any divine help, though they both taught the inexorable cosmic law of Karma. They are not reported as having possessed any consciousness of a supreme personal deity. Yet they have been strangely deified by their followers. Indeed, they themselves have been worshipped, even with multitudinous idols.

All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. Confucius, late in life, confessed his own sense of shortcomings and his desire for further improvement in knowledge and character. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their practical policies under change of circumstances.

Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a consistent program for his religion. The most remarkable and valuable aspect of the personality of Jesus Christ is the comprehensiveness and universal availability of his character, as well as its own loftiness, consistency, and sinlessness.

(Robert Hume, The World’s Living Religions [New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959], 285-286.)

The Crown of Thorns

RESURRECTION PRESENTATIONS

The Joy of the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas

Lee Strobel

A SEASONED JOURNALIST CHASES DOWN THE BIGGEST STORY IN HISTORY – Is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God? Retracing his own spiritual journey from atheism to faith, Lee Strobel, former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, cross-examines a dozen experts with doctorates who are specialists in the areas of old manuscripts, textual criticism, and biblical studies. Strobel challenges them with questions like; How reliable is the New Testament? Does evidence for Jesus exist outside the Bible? Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual event? Strobel s tough, point-blank questions make this bestselling book read like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it is not fiction. It is a riveting quest for the truth about history s most compelling figure. What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ?

Lecture by Dr. Craig Hazen | “Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus”

Shroud of Turin

“The Face of God”
Michael Knowles and Dr. Jeremiah Johnston

Just as a pat on my back, I have been following this guy since his “infancy” in apologetics in the public (social media now) square. I am so stoked for Doctor J to be on the cutting edge of delivering and studying this stuff. (See my Previous Post on the matter via Doc J.)

Is the Shroud of Turin the real burial cloth of Jesus Christ—or the greatest mystery in Christian history? In this powerful episode of Michael &, Michael Knowles is joined by theologian and historian Dr. Jeremiah Johnston to uncover the mind-blowing discoveries surrounding the Shroud. From scientific analysis and historical evidence to theological significance, they explore what makes the Shroud one of the most studied and debated relics in the world—and what it could mean for believers today.

The Shroud of Turin and the Resurrection of Jesus | SRS #293
Shawn Ryan and Dr. Jeremiah Johnston

Dr. Jeremiah J. Johnston is a world-renowned scholar on the Historical Jesus, specializing in archaeology, ancient history, and the New Testament.

In 2026, Dr. Johnston became the only academic invited to present evidence for Jesus and the Resurrection at the World Economic Forum in Davos—bringing the Gospel into one of the most influential global stages. His evidence-based approach bridges rigorous research and compelling communication, making the case for faith both intellectually credible and spiritually transformative.

He is the author of The Jesus Discoveries: 10 Historic Finds That Bring Us Face-to-Face with Jesus, which highlights top archaeological discoveries corroborating the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus outside the biblical record. Known for his evidence-first, no-nonsense style, Dr. Johnston powerfully confronts myths and cultural skepticism while offering hope and clarity in an age of confusion.

A hands-on scholar, he uses authentic and replica artifacts;  such as the Shroud of Turin, crucifixion nails, the Titulus Crucis, the Pilate Stone, ossuaries, early New Testament papyri, Dead Sea Scroll facsimiles, and Roman coins. to bring history alive in vivid detail. His passion is showing how fresh discoveries, like the Shroud’s fading image, inscriptions mocking early Christians, and coins tied to Gospel events—continue to strengthen the historical case for Jesus Christ.

The Face

The Shroud Evidences – Dr. Johnston

(March 29, 2024) Is there enough evidence to prove that the Shroud of Turin is real? Prestonwood Baptist Church apologetics pastor Jeremiah Johnston used to be a skeptic. But once he did a deep dive into the history of the Shroud, he became a “total defender” of the Shroud’s authenticity. This Easter Week, Pastor Johnston joins the Glenn Beck Program to lay it all out from a scientific perspective. Plus, he explains why you don’t need to be Catholic to believe the Shroud is truly the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

 

  • (John 20:5-8, CSB) 5Stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then, following him, Simon Peter also came. He entered the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there. 7 The wrapping that had been on his head was not lying with the linen cloths but was folded up in a separate place by itself. 8 The other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, then also went in, saw, and believed.

The indomitable Leon Morris:

6–7 It is not said how much later Peter arrived. But when he got there he did not hesitate but went straight into the tomb. He saw the cloths that had been around the body. John specifically mentions that the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head was not with the others, but was wrapped up in a place of its own (Berkeley [Berkeley The Holy Bible, The Berkeley Version (Grand Rapids, 1959)] renders “in its particular place,” but this seems to go beyond the meaning of the Greek). In recent years this has often been taken to mean that the grave clothes were just as they had been when placed around the body. That is to say, Jesus’ body rose through the grave-clothes without disturbing them. This is not inconsistent with the language, but we should bear in mind that John does not say this. That the headcloth18 was not with the others scarcely supports the view, for had this been the case it would have been right alongside them, with no more than the length of the neck (if that) between them. Moreover, “folded up” does not look like a description of the way it would have appeared if the head had simply passed through it. However, whatever be the truth of this, John is plainly describing an orderly scene, not one of wild confusion. This means that the body had not been taken by grave robbers. They would never have left the cloths wrapped neatly. They would have taken the body, cloths and all, or would have taken the cloths off and dropped them in a heap.19 [1]

18 σουδάριον is a loanword from the Latin sudarium, a cloth for wiping off sweat (sudor); it denotes a cloth more or less like our handkerchief. Here it apparently signifies a jawband, a cloth that went “round the face and over the head” (Robinson, Priority, p. 292) to hold the jaw in position.

19 Long ago Chrysostom remarked: “For neither, if any persons had removed the body, would they before doing so have stripped it; nor if any had stolen it, would they have taken the trouble to remove the napkin, and roll it up, and lay it in a place by itself; but how? they would have taken the body as it was. On this account John tells us by anticipation that it was buried with much myrrh, which glues linen to the body not less firmly than lead …” (85.4; pp. 320–21). Grave robbing was regarded as a serious offense; Barrett cites an ordinance of Claudius prescribing capital punishment for offenders (The New Testament Background: Selected Documents [London, 1957], p. 15).

[1] Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 735.

The Shroud Evidences – Mr. Schwortz

(July 30, 2023) Is the debate over the Shroud of Turin over? Many Christians believe it was the burial cloth of Jesus and even non-Christian scientists struggle to explain how the image of a man was imposed onto it. But some scientists have claimed that carbon dating has proven it is much younger than previously thought. However, Shroud of Turin Research Project Official Photographer Barrie Schwortz joins Glenn to explain why he’s refuting that claim. According to Schwortz, who was once a “total skeptic” of the Shroud, the carbon dating was improperly done. Instead, he believes the most plausible explanation is simple: “This is the burial shroud of the historic Jesus of Nazareth.”

The NEW YORK POST updates the issue a bit with [of course] an A.I. rendering:

New X-ray analysis seems to prove that the Shroud of Turin was indeed from Jesus Christ’s time – allowing artificial intelligence to recreate stunning images of what many believe could be Christ himself.

Christians have long believed that the treasured relic was the burial cloth of Jesus, showing an imprint of their Messiah’s face.

While dating analysis from the 1980s suggested it was actually a painted forgery from the 1300s, new X-ray dating evaluation suggests it was from 2,000 years ago, putting it in Christ’s time, according to a study published in the Heritage journal.

That knowledge has since allowed cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) technology to creating vivid, eerily lifelike renderings of the facial impression that believers are convinced was left on the cloth at the moment of Christ’s resurrection.

One image drawn from the facial imprint by AI site Midjourney was eerily similar to many classical art historical depictions of Jesus, including the shoulder-length hair and beard. 

The AI image also shows the man with wounds on his bare chest, suggesting that he had just been tortured and killed, noted the Daily Express, which generated the image.

[….]

Dr. Liberato de Caro, the leader of the Heritage analysis, claimed that the wide-angle X-ray analysis proved that the Shroud of Turin matched a similar fabric sample from Masada, Israel dating between 55 to 74 CE.

“The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the Turin Shroud is a 2000-year-old relic,” the study said, claiming that the previous definitive analysis was flawed due to contamination.

There were also tiny particles of pollen from the Middle East lodged in the linen fibers of the shroud, which seemingly ruled out the idea that the fabric came from Europe, Dr. de Caro added. …

Of course, there are other A.I. renderings of the image, and they vary in appearance. So know that man-made parameters for the programs change the end result — in other words, the images may be close, but no cigar.

My dad had this same painting hanging in his hallway. The eyes are painted shut, but it also loos like he is staring at you:

Spooky Jesus

… Uhm … I would much rather have the A.I. renderings than this.

Note that Doc Habermas talks about the “teeth image” that makes the accurate image of God

The Shroud Evidences – Dr. Habermas

Dr. Gary Habermas shares the special qualities of the Shroud of Turin and problems with the most recent Carbon 14 dating.

The Resurrection Evidences – Dr. Craig

Answering Skeptics

Matthew 27:52-53

While this is cute, it is how skeptics view this passage… as myth. I DO NOT.

The tombs were also opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And they came out of the tombs after His resurrection, entered the holy city, and appeared to many. (Matthew 27:52-53, HCSB)

On this Easter and a verse at church about the first-fruits and then ending with the new heaven and new earth… I remembered a book I read from many, many years ago. So I dug it out and excerpted the portion I was thinking of. Enjoy and happy “First-fruits”!

  • Grant R. Jeffrey, Heaven: The Last Frontier (Toronto, Ontario: Frontier Research Publications, 1990), 25-28.

The Firstfruits of Resurrection

The Bible uses the word “firstfruits” to describe this First Resurrection which leads to eternal life in Heaven. In Israel the Feast of Firstfruits happened in the spring of the year to celebrate the first fruits of the harvest. As the Jews brought these tokens of the bounty of the coming harvest to the Temple they were acknowledging that God was the provider of the harvest. This word “firstfruits” became a proper symbol of this first group of resurrected saints, a token of the great harvest when Jesus, the Lord of the Harvest, will come to gather the saints to meet Him in the air.

The writer of the book of Hebrews, after recounting the many acts of faith of Old Testament saints, told his readers about their life in Heaven. He declares “we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1). They still live! They have been transformed and are now in Paradise, watching our walk of faith. Many of those Old Testament saints participated in this first stage of the First Resurrection, when Jesus rose from the grave.

Matthew 27:52-53 describes the amazing and exciting events that happened after Jesus rose from the dead, during the Feast of the Firstfruits: “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His Resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.”

The various writers who observed this miraculous resurrection recounted it in their histories of the day. Jesus Christ had risen from the dead and won victory over death, not only for Himself as the Son of God, but also for those saints who had died centuries before and for all who would believe in Him as their Lord and Savior for centuries to follow.

Writings by Christians of that time have been collected in the Ante-Nicene Library. They describe that more than twelve thousand of these Old Testament saints walked through Galilee for forty days, appeared in Jerusalem before many, and later ascended into Heaven when Jesus Christ ascended to His Father.

This undeniable fact of Christ’s Resurrection and the resurrection of Old Testament saints who identified themselves to many Jews created a ground swell of belief in the claims of Christ that He was the Messiah and the true Son of God. The Lord proved forever that His power of resurrection and eternal life was available to all who would receive His offer of salvation. God will not force you to accept eternal life, nor will He force you to live in Heaven if you choose not to claim this “indescribable gift” (2 Corinthians 9:15) as Lord and Savior.

These saints who rose from the dead when Christ arose were the “firstfruits” of the first resurrection to eternal life in Heaven. It is no coincidence that this seventeenth day of Nisan in A.D. 32 was the Feast of the Firstfruits. Other notable events connected with resurrection also happened on this anniversary.

On this day the ark of Noah rested on Mount Ararat and the human race was resurrected following the flood. Almost a thousand years later, on this anniversary, Moses led the people of Israel through the Red Sea to be resurrected as a nation from the bondage of Egypt. Forty years later, Israel crossed the Jordan on the seventeenth day of Nisan, and the people enjoyed the firstfruits of the Promised Land. In the sovereignty of God, He caused Jesus Christ to rise from the dead and to bring these saints with Him into new life on this same day, during the Feast of Firstfruits.

These resurrected saints had bodies that were real. Several documents from this era claim that among those raised by Jesus were the Temple priest, Simeon, who had once waited in the Temple to see the baby Jesus, and his two sons who lived in Arimathaea. The records state their resurrection was specifically investigated since they were well-known to the Sanhedrin because of their Temple service as priests. After so many centuries, it is impossible to ascertain the documentary accuracy of these ancient texts, but it is interesting to note that they confirm the details of the event which Matthew recorded in his Gospel.

These records in the Ante-Nicene Library claim that during the investigation each of the sons of Simeon was separately and simultaneously interrogated. They both told the same story, namely that Christ had appeared to them in Hades, preached to all, and that those who had earlier responded to God were miraculously given new bodies and resurrected when Christ rose from the grave.

Matthew’s record of this event is tantalising in both what it reveals and what it conceals. He states that these Old Testament saints “went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Remember that all the events involved with the death and resurrection of Jesus happened in Jerusalem during the busiest season of the year, the Feast of Passover. Every Israelite male who was capable made an effort to come to Jerusalem for the Passover festival. Deuteronomy 16:2 records this as a command of God. Each home in the holy city had upper rooms which were supplied without cost to fellow Israelites who came on these pilgrimages. Therefore, during this Feast of Passover, the population of Jerusalem had swollen to five times the normal number. Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian, says in his Jewish Wars that, according to Roman records, the number of sheep sacrificed during the Passover was 256,500. Since one sheep would serve as a sacrifice for five people, the conclusion is that during the time of Christ up to 1,250,000 people would come to the city during Passover instead of the usual 250,000 city dwellers.

Both the New Testament and letters of first-century Christians record that these resurrected saints identified themselves to the people as historical, biblical characters. With 1,000,000 visitors already in the city, obviously these resurrected saints must have appeared different in some way from other men, or they would simply have been lost in the crowd. Possibly their faces were transfigured with God’s reflected glory as the faces of Moses and Elijah were on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Those saints who rose with Christ did not die again, according to the writings of the first century. They were raptured to Heaven when Christ was raptured. These saints are now enjoying a “better that is, a heavenly country…for He has prepared a city for them” (Hebrews 11:16). These raptured believers are the firstfruits of the first resurrection, which is “the resurrection of life” (John 5:29).

Paul described this resurrection in his first epistle to the church at Thessalonica: “If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus” and if we are still alive on earth, “we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord” (4:14,17) in eternal life in the New Jerusalem forever. The rapture of the saints will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. Those who miss the first resurrection will also rise again, but they will partake of the dreaded second resurrection, which is a spiritual, eternal death in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:15).

Some Early Church Father’s Take:

This gem comes from BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS – Ask A Question section

It is defended regularly by Early church fathers such as:

Ignatius to the Trallians (c. AD 70-115)

  • “For Says the Scripture, ‘May bodies of the saints that slept arose,’ their graves being opened. He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude” (chap. Ix, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p. 70).

Ignatius to the Magnesians (c. AD 70-115)

  • “…[T]herefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master—how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He who they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead” [Chap. IX] (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I (1885). Reprinted by Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, p. 62. Emphasis added in all these citations).

Irenaeus (c. AD 120-200)

  • “…He [Christ] suffered who can lead those souls aloft that followed His ascension. This event was also an indication of the fact that when the holy hour of Christ descended [to Hades], many souls ascended and were seen in their bodies” (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus XXVIII, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, Alexander Roberts, ibid., 572-573).

Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 155-200)

  • “‘But those who had fallen asleep descended dead, but ascended alive.’ Further, the Gospel says, ‘that many bodies of those that slept arose,’—plainly as having been translated to a better state” (Alexander Roberts, ed. Stromata, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, chap. VI, 491).

This does not include the *multiple times the phrase was quoted by later church Fathers (Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyril, etc). If one suggests that it was added to the text, they must first grapple with its extended use in these and other very early documents and decide how an error was placed within the text so early in transmission.

The below is most likely where the above responder got his quotes from:

*TO WIT…

This comes by way of an excellent dealing with the topic/Scripture, DEFENDING INERRANCY — via Dr. Norman Geisler titled:

(Emphasis in the original) BTW, this section is titled: “A Survey Of The Great Teachers Of The Church On The Passage,” as, “early Church Fathers” are not the only persons listed below.

Tertullian (AD 160-222)

  • The Father of Latin Christianity wrote:  “’And the sun grew dark at mid-day;’ (and when did it ‘shudder exceedingly’ except at the passion of Christ, when the earth trembled to her centre, and the veil of the temple was rent, and the tombs burst asunder?) ‘because these two evils hath My People done’” (Alexander Roberts, ed. An Answer to the Jews, Chap XIII, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, 170).

Hippolytus (AD 170-235)

  • “And again he exclaims, ‘The dead shall start forth from the graves,’ that is, from the earthly bodies, being born again spiritual, not carnal.  For this he says, is the Resurrection that takes place through the gate of heaven, through which, he says, all those that do not enter remain dead” (Alexander Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5,  The Refutation of All Heresy, BooK V, chap. 3, p. 54).  The editor of the Ante-Nicene Fathers footnotes this as a reference to the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:52, 53 (in Note  6,  p. 54.), as indeed it is.

Origen (AD 185-254)

  • Despite the fact that Origen was known for his Neoplatonic spritualizing of some biblical texts, Origen declared that Matthew 27 spoke of a literal historical resurrection of these saints.  He wrote:  “Now to this question, although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than the Gospel narratives, which state that ‘there was an earth quake, and that the rock were split asunder, and the tombs were opened, and the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom, an the darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light’” (Against Celsus, Book II, XXXIII. Alexander Roberts, ed.  Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, 444-445).
  • “But if this Celsus, who, in order to find matter of accusation against Jesus and the Christians, extracts from the Gospel even passages which are incorrectly interpreted, but passes over in silence the evidences of the divinity of Jesus, would listen to divine portents, let him read the Gospel, and see that even the centurion, and they who with him kept watch over Jesus, on seeing the earthquake, and the events that occurred [viz., the resurrection of the saints], were greatly afraid, saying, ‘This man was the Son of God’” (Ibid., XXVI, p. 446).

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. AD 315-c. 386)

  • Early Fathers in the East also verified the historicity of the Matthew text.  Cyril of Jerusalem wrote: “But it is impossible, some one will say, that the dead should rise; and yet Eliseus [Elisha] twice raised the dead,–when he was live and also when dead…and is Christ not risen? … But in this case both the Dead of whom we speak Himself arose, and many dead were raised without having even touched Him.  For many bodies of the Saints which slept arose, and they came out of the graves after His Resurrection, and went into the Holy City, (evidently this city in which we now are,) and appeared to many” (Catechetical Lectures XIV, 16,  Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 7, p. 98).
  • Further, “I believe that Christ was also raised from the dead, both from the Divine Scriptures, and from the operative power even at this day of Him who arose,–who descended into hell alone, but ascended thence with a great company for He went down to death, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose through Him” (ibid., XIV, 18, vol. 7, p. 99).

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. AD 330-c. 389)

  • “He [Christ] lays down His life, but He has the power to take it again; and the veil rent, for the mysterious doors of Heaven are opened;5 the rocks are cleft, the dead arise.  He dies but he gives life, and by His death destroys death.  He is buried, but He rises again. He goes down to Hell, but He brings up the souls; He ascends to Heaven, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead, and to put to the test such words are yours” (Schaff, ibid., vol. VII, Sect XX, p. 309).

Jerome (AD 342-420)

  • Speaking of the Matthew 27 text, he wrote: “It is not doubtful to any what these great signs signify according to the letter, namely, that heaven and earth and all things should bear witness to their crucified Lord” (cited in Aquinas, Commentary on the Four Gospels, vol. I, part III: St. Matthew (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1841), 964.
  • “As Lazarus rose from the dead, so also did many bodies of the Saints rise again to shew forth the Lord’s resurrection; yet notwithstanding that the graves were opened, they did not rise again before the Lord rose, that He might be the first-born of the resurrection from the dead” (cited by Aquinas, ibid., 963).

Hilary of Poitiers (c. AD 315-c.357)

  • “The graves were opened, for the bands of death were loosed.  And many bodies  of the saints which slept arose, for illuminating the darkness of death, and shedding light upon the gloom of Hades, He robbed the spirits of death” (cited by Aquinas, ibid., 963).

Chrysostom (AD 347-407)

  • “When He [Christ] remained on the cross they had said tauntingly, He saved others, himself he cannot save. But what He should not do for Himself, that He did and more than that for the bodies of the saints.  For if it was a great thing to raise Lazarus after four days, much more was it that they who had long slept should not shew themselves above; this is indeed a proof of the resurrection to come.  But that it might not be thought that that which was done was an appearance merely, the Evangelist adds, and come out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many” (cited by Aquinas, ibid., 963-964).

St. Augustine (AD 354-430)

  • The greatest scholar at the beginning of the Middle Ages, St. Augustine, wrote: “As if Moses’ body could not have been hid somewhere…and be raised up therefrom by divine power at the time when Elias and he were seen with Christ: Just as at the time of Christ’s passion many bodies of the saints arose, and after his resurrection appeared, according to the Scriptures, to many in the holy city” (Augustine, On the Gospel of St. John, Tractate cxxiv, 3, Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VII, 448).
  • “Matthew proceeds thus: ‘And the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arise, and come out of the graves after the resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.’ There is no reason to fear that these facts, which have been related only by Matthew, may appear to be inconsistent with the narrative present by any one of the rest [of the Gospel writers)…. For as the said Matthew not only tells how the centurion ‘saw the earthquake,’ but also appends the words [in v. 54], ‘and those things that were done’….  Although Matthew has not added any such statement, it would still have been perfectly legitimate to suppose, that as many astonishing things did place at that time…, the historians were at liberty to select for narration any particular incident which they were severally disposed to instance as the subject of the wonder.  And it would not be fair to impeach them with inconsistency, simply because one of them may have specified one occurrence as the immediate cause of the centurion’s amazement, while another introduces a different incident” (St. Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, Book III, chap. xxi in Schaff, ibid., vol. VI, p. 206, emphasis added).

St. Remigius (c. 438-c. 533) “Apostle of the Franks”

  • “But someone will ask, what became of those who rose again when the Lord rose.  We must believe that they rose again to be witnesses of the Lord’s resurrection.  Some have said that they died again, and were turned to dust, as Lazarus and the rest whom the Lord raised.  But we must by no means give credit to these men’s sayings, since if they were to die again, it would be greater torment to them, than if they had not risen again.  We ought therefore to believe without hesitation that they who rose from the dead at the Lord’s resurrection, ascended also into heaven together with Him” (cited in Aquinas, ibid., 964).

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274)

  • As Augustine was the greatest Christian thinker at the beginning of the Middle Ages, Aquinas was the greatest teacher at the end.  And too he held to the historicity of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27, as is evident from his citations from the Fathers (with approval) in his great commentary on the Gospels (The Golden Chain), as all the above Aquinas references indicate, including Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, Chrysostom, and Remigius (see Aquinas, ibid., 963-964).

John Calvin (1509-1564)

The chain of great Christian teachers holding to the historicity of this text continued into the Reformation and beyond.  John Calvin wrote:

  • Matt. 27.52.  And the tombs were opened. This was a particular portent in which God testified that His Son had entered death’s prison, not to stay there shut up, but to lead all free who were there held captive….  That is the reason why He, who was soon to be shut in a tomb opened the tombs elsewhere.  Yet we may doubt whether this opening of the tombs happened before the resurrection, for the resurrection of the saints which is shortly after added followed in my opinion the resurrection of Christ.  It is absurd for some interpreters to image that they spent three days alive and breathing, hidden in tombs.  It seems likely to me that at Christ’s death the tombs at once opened; at His resurrection some of the godly men received breath and came out and were seen in the city.  Christ is called the Firstborn from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:18)…. This reasoning agrees very well, seeing that the breaking of the tombs was the presage of new life, and the fruit itself, the effect, appeared three days later, as Christ rising again led other companions from the graves with Himself.  And in this sign it was shown that neither His dying nor His resurrection were private to himself, but breathe the odour of life into all the faithful (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, trans. A. W. Morrison. Eds. David and Thomas Torrance.  Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, vol. 3, pp. 211-212).

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Of course, there are some aspects of this Matthew 27 text of the saints on which the Fathers were uncertain.  For example, there is the question as to whether the saints were resurrected before or after Jesus was and whether it was a resuscitation to a mortal body or a permanent resurrection to an immortal body.  However, there is no reason for serious doubt that all the Fathers surveyed accepted the historicity of this account.  Their testimony is very convincing for many reasons:

First, the earliest confirmation as to the historical nature of the resurrection of the saints in the Matthew 27 passage goes all the way back to Ignatius, a contemporary of the apostle John (who died. c. AD 90).  One could not ask for an earlier verification that the resurrection of these saints than that of Ignatius (AD 70-115).  He wrote: “He who they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead”[Chap. IX]. And in the Epistle to the Trallians he added, “For Says the Scripture, ‘May bodies of the saints that slept arose,’ their graves being opened.  He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude” (chap.IX, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p. 70). The author who is a contemporary of the last apostle (John) is speaking unmistakably of the saints in Matthew 27 who were literally resurrected after Jesus was.

Second, the next testimony to the historicity of this passage is Irenaeus who knew Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John.  Other than the apostolic Fathers, Irenaeus is a good as any witness to the earliest post-apostolic understanding of the Matthew 27 text.  And he made it clear that “many” persons “ascended and were seen in their bodies”(Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus XXVIII. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, ibid., 572-573).

Third, there is a virtually unbroken chain of great Fathers of the church after Irenaeus (2nd cent.) who took this passage as historical (see above).  Much of the alleged “confusion” and “conflict” about the text is cleared up when one understands that, while the tombs were opened at the time of the death of Christ, nonetheless, the resurrection of these saints did not occur until “after his resurrection” (Mt. 27:53, emphasis added) 7  since Jesus is the “firstfruits” (1 Cor. 15:23) of the resurrection.

Fourth, the great church Father St. Augustine stressed the historicity of the Matthew 27 text about the resurrection of the saints, speaking of them as “facts” and “things that were done” as recorded by the Gospel “historians” (St. Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, Book III, chap. xxi in Schaff, ibid., vol. VI, p. 206, emphasis added).

Fifth, many of the Fathers used this passage in an apologetic sense as evidence of the resurrection of Christ.  This reveals their conviction that it was a historical event resulting from the historical event of the resurrection of Christ.  Irenaeus was explicit on this point, declaring, “Matthew also, who had a still greater desire [to establish this point], took particular pains to afford them convincing proof that Christ is the seed of David…” (Irenaeus, ibid., 573).

Some, like Chrysostom, took it as evidence for the resurrection to come.  “For if it was a great thing to raise Lazarus after four days, much more was it that they who had long slept should not shew themselves above; this is indeed a proof of the resurrection to come” (cited by Aquinas, ibid., 963-964).

Origen understood it as “evidences of the divinity of Jesus” (Origen, ibid., Book II, chap. XXXVI. Ante-Nicene Fathers, 446).  None of these Fathers would have given it such apologetic weight had they not been convinced of the historicity of the resurrection of these saints after Jesus’ resurrection in Matthew 27.

Sixth, even the Church Father Origen, who was the most prone to allegorizing away literal events in the Bible, took this text to refer to a literal historical resurrection of saints.  He wrote of the events in Matthew 27 that they are “the evidences of the divinity of Jesus” (Origen, ibid., Book II, chap. XXXVI. Ante-Nicene Fathers, 446).

Seventh, some of the great teachers of the Church were careful to mention that the saints rose as a result of Jesus’ resurrection which is a further verification of the historical nature of the resurrection of the saints in Mathew 27.  Jerome wrote: “As Lazarus rose from the dead, so also did many bodies of the Saints rise again to shew forth the Lord’s resurrection; yet notwithstanding that the graves were opened, they did not rise again before the Lord rose, that He might be the first-born of the resurrection from the dead” (cited by Aquinas, ibid., 963).  John Calvin added, “Yet we may doubt whether this opening of the tombs happened before the resurrection, for the resurrection of the saints which is shortly after added followed in my opinion the resurrection of Christ.  It is absurd for some interpreters to image that they spent three days alive and breathing, hidden in tombs.”  For “It seems likely to me that at Christ’s death the tombs at once opened; at His resurrection some of the godly men received breath and came out and were seen in the city.  Christ is called the Firstborn from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:18” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, vol. 3, pp. 211-212).

Eighth, St. Augustine provides an answer to the false premise of contemporary critics that there must be another reference to a New Testament event like this in order to confirm that it is historical.  He wrote, “It would not be fair to impeach them with inconsistency, simply because one of them may have specified one occurrence as the immediate cause of the centurion’s amazement, while another introduces a different incident” (St. Augustine, ibid., emphasis added).

So, contrary to the claims of many current New Testament critics, the Matthew 27 account of the resurrection of the saints is a clear and unambiguous affirmation of the historicity of the resurrection of the saints. This is supported by a virtually unbroken line of the great commentators of the Early Church and through the Middle Ages and into the Reformation period (John Calvin).  Not a single example was found of any Father surveyed who believed this was a legend.  Such a belief is due to the acceptance of modern critical methodology, not to either a historical-grammatical exposition of the text or to the supporting testimony of the main orthodox teachers of the Church up to and through the Reformation Period.

Ninth, the impetus for rejecting the story of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27 is not based on good exegesis of the text or on the early support of the Fathers but is based on fallacious premises:

(1) First of all, there is an anti-supernatural bias beginning in the 17th century and lying beneath much of contemporary scholarship.  But there is no philosophical basis for the rejection of miracles (see our Miracles and the Modern Mind, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), and there is no exegetical basis for rejecting it in this text.  Indeed on the same ground one could reject the resurrection of Christ since it supernatural and is found in the same text.

(2) Further, there is also the fallacious premise of double reference which affirms that if an event is not mentioned at least twice in the Gospels, then its historicity is questioned.  But on this grounds many other events must be rejected as well, such as, the story of Nicodemus (Jn. 3), the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn. 4), the story of Zaccchaeus (Lk. 19), the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn. 11), and even the birth of Christ in the stable and the angel chorus (Lk. 2), as well as many other events in the Gospels.  How many times does an event have to be mentioned in a first century piece of literature based on reliable witnesses in order to be true?

(3) There is another argument that seems to infect much of contemporary New Testament scholarship on this matter.  It is theorized that an event like this, if literal, would have involved enough people and graves to have drawn significant evidence of it in a small place like Jerusalem.  Raymond Brown alludes to this, noting that “…many interpreters balk at the thought of many known risen dead being seen in Jerusalem—such a large scale phenomenon should have left some traces in Jewish and/or secular history!”  8 However, at best this is simply the fallacious Argument from Silence.  What is more, “many” can mean only a small group, not hundreds of thousands. Further, the story drew enough attention to make it into one of the canonical Gospels, right along side of the resurrection of Christ and with other miraculous events.  In brief, it is in a historical book; it is said to result from the resurrection of Christ; it was cited apologetically by the early Fathers as evidence of the resurrection of Christ and proof of the resurrection to come.  No other evidence is needed for its authenticity.

(MUCH MORE TO READ!)

Some more various views from commentaries can be found here:

Gavin Newsom’s Empire of Fraud | Larry Elder/City Journal

Published by Papa Giorgio

Tonight, on The Larry Elder Show, California fraud makes Minnesota’s look like couch-cushion money. Larry reads from an article to just scratch the surface of Cali Fraud!

Here is a portion of the CITY JOURNAL Larry was reading from:

…. Welcome to Gavin Newsom’s empire of fraud.

Fourteen months after Newsom began his first term as governor of California, the Covid-19 pandemic swept the world. Roughly 2.7 million Californians eventually lost their jobs. The state’s economy went into freefall as its leaders imposed some of the country’s most restrictive public-health measures. In response to the crisis, Newsom sought to dump pallets of cash across the state—as quickly as possible.

One way to inject money was through California’s massive unemployment insurance program (UI). Unemployment insurance is administered by the state’s Employment Development Department (EDD), which can process billions of dollars in payments monthly. Before the state turned on the cash machine, however, experts had warned that the system was ripe for fraud.

Haywood Talcove, one of America’s leading fraud specialists and CEO of LexisNexis Risk Solutions for Government, was one such expert. “I was begging [federal officials] not to let the money go out like that, because it was going to be the biggest fraud in the history of our country,” he said. “Obviously, I wasn’t successful.”

For many reasons, California was particularly susceptible to the large-scale fraud schemes Haywood Talcove saw on the horizon. Not only did the state have some of the most generous welfare programs in the country; its bureaucrats had also failed to implement some basic fraud controls during Newsom’s tenure.

“They literally suspended all of the rules for the [unemployment insurance] program,” Talcove said. “[That made] it possible for anyone to get that benefit even if they weren’t entitled to it. It was very intentional. They knew what they were doing. But it caught up to them because it just got so out of control.”

The scams began almost immediately, with criminals from around the world reportedly siphoning cash from the program. In one case, a Romanian-led fraud ring orchestrated a $5 million unemployment-insurance scheme. Members allegedly “recruited potential [EDD-benefit] applicants through Facebook” and met them at “parks throughout Southern California to complete the application process,” according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. “Applicants paid . . . a partial fee up front for assisting with fraudulent applications and another fee after applicants received EDD payments,” the office said. Many of the fraudsters wired the stolen funds to Romania.

Around September 2020, Fontrell Antonio Baines, a rapper from Memphis known as Nuke Bizzle, released a music video on YouTube entitled “EDD.” In the song, Baines bragged about ripping off California’s UI program. “Go to the bank with a stack of these,” Baines rapped, holding up EDD envelopes. Another rapper can be heard saying: “You gotta sell cocaine, I just file a claim.” All told, Baines obtained more than $700,000 in stolen funds using preloaded EDD debit cards. He pleaded guilty to federal charges.

Nor were these isolated incidents. A member of the SFV Peckerwoods, a California-based neo-Nazi gang, allegedly ran an unemployment scam during the pandemic. So did Michael Thompson, a one-time leader of the Aryan Brotherhood, who was eventually convicted. California’s prison population apparently got in on the action, too: the EDD allegedly paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent claims in prisoners’ names, including those of at least 133 inmates on death row.

Remarkably, EDD not only failed regularly to cross-reference its unemployment payouts with a list of state prisoners, but it also had just two bureaucrats assigned manually to inspect reports of suspected fraud. State officials eventually admitted to having paid out approximately $20 billion in fraudulent claims during the pandemic, and to making an estimated $55 billion in improper payments. Talcove claims those figures don’t even tell the full story. “The state lost $32.6 billion dollars of taxpayer money to fraudulent applications,” he said. “In California, at one point, you had more people applying for unemployment insurance benefits than you had people over the age of 18.”

While Newsom has conceded that “bad actors” took advantage of the UI program, he has also defended his government’s record, saying they took swift action as soon as the alleged prison scheme surfaced. The EDD, for its part, has a webpage documenting its anti-fraud efforts. But any suggestion that California has fraud under wraps is contradicted by findings from its non-partisan state auditor.

Last December, the auditor reported that EDD’s UI program—which remains on the auditor’s “High Risk” list—had a fraud rate of 7.6 percent in 2023 and 7.9 percent in 2024. Applied to the state’s UI spending, those figures suggest more than $1 billion in stolen taxpayer funds since the pandemic. “EDD continues to have high rates of improper UI payments, including fraudulent payments,” the auditor wrote. “These inadequacies have resulted in a substantial risk of serious detriment to the State and its residents.”

While many states dealt with UI scams during the pandemic, California stands in a class of its own. At best, the EDD’s performance amounted to mass government incompetence; at worst, it reflects total indifference to fraud.

“This happens in every single state,” Talcove concluded, “but it happens a lot more in California.”…..