“Today, Surrender, Tomorrow, Nuclear War!”

“Today, Surrender, Tomorrow, Nuclear War!”
Vol: 79 Issue: 22 Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Today could, in theory, be the day that the Democrats will have their final candidate. But only in theory.

There is a lot riding on the Pennsylvania primary, but it will take a lot to dislodge Hillary Rodham Clinton.

According to Peter Fenn, a former Clinton campaign advisor, Hillary would have to ‘blow out’ expectations, but to do that, “the wheels would have to come off the Obama bus and the engine would have to blow.”

(I love these campaign metaphors — they’re so colorful)

A Hillary Clinton presidency has been pretty much a foregone conclusion ever since she made her first run at the Senate in 2000. The Clintons practically had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, from the place in 2001.

They liked the White House so much they pried all the presidential insignia from the interior walls.

They liked the furniture so much they took some of it home with them, resulting in an embarrassing, but amusing “Repo Man” scenario on the Clinton’s front lawn as federal agents carried the stuff back out and loaded on a government truck.

They liked Air Force One so much that, when it came back from taking them home, the plane had to be restocked with presidential dishes, towels, and other federally-owned ‘memorabilia.’

And who can forget that bizarre ‘Farewell to the Chief’ ceremony as Clinton arranged as pompous an exit as was his arrival eight years earlier? No doubt they’ve dreamed of nothing else for eight years — but along came Obama.

Obama currently leads by a margin of 1,645 to 1,504 among pledged delegates and those super-delegates — elected and party officials who get an automatic vote on the nomination — who have indicated a preference.

It will take 2,025 delegates to win the nomination. There aren’t enough uncommitted delegates to put either candidacy over the top unless Obama loses every remaining primary by wide margins.

To get the brass ring, Hillary needs to win Pennsylvania by 25 points, and score 20-point margins of victory in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.

Plus, she’d have to at least break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon.

So, Peter Fenn is right — the wheels will have to come off Obama’s bus for the Clintons to have a shot at another four years of paid public housing.


Although Hillary has won all the ‘big states’ Obama still leads comfortably, not just in the delegate count, but by almost a million popular votes.

So Pennsylvania is a bellwether state worth watching closely. It will set the tone for the rest of the primary season. Depending on how the Pennsylvania primary turns out, Hillary will have one of three options remaining.

She can win big, re-energizing her campaign, or she lose big, which could cause her to drop out, kicking off the general election campaign early. In the event of something approximating a tie, she still has her third option — and the one that offers her the best chance at victory.

She could try to steal the nomination at the convention.

To do that, she would have to convince the party big-wigs at the convention that Obama is unelectable, and that her campaign gives the Dems the best shot at beating McCain in November.

In Democratic internal politics, the popular vote is only a guide. Obama could win the majority of delegates and popular votes and the Nominating Committee could legally ignore the results and give the nomination to Clinton and the left foot of fellowship to Barack Obama.

That is the scenario most dreaded by the DNC and the most hopeful scenario possible for the GOP.

How important is Pennsylvania to Hillary? Important enough to ‘obliterate’ Iran, if necessary.

Iran??? That’s what she promised yesterday on ABC’s “Good Morning America”.

Chris Cuomo asked her directly how she’d respond should Iran attack Israel with nuclear weapons. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said.

“In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

That statement provides the clearest contrast yet between Hillary Clinton and, er, Hillary Clinton.

Since voting to authorize the war in Iraq, she’s made surrendering to al-Qaeda in Iraq and their Iranian handlers a mainstay of her campaign — not because she thinks its the right thing to do — but because she thinks it will get her elected.

On the other hand, she is equally willing to ‘obliterate’ (presumably with nuclear weapons) 45 million Iranians — if she thinks that it will get her elected.

Surrendering in Iraq would essentially hand that country to the Iranians, emboldening them to the point where they just might feel strong enough to take on Israel. And then, after surrendering to them and handing them Iraq, she’ll nuke ’em all til they glow?

The story here is not so much that Hillary will do ANYTHING to win, or that Pennsylvania may or may not be her Waterloo.

The real story is that there are people that will vote for her anyway. Lots of them, if the polls are right.

There is something we Christians could do to influence the primaries — we could pray and pray hard.

Except how do we pray that they both lose?

Note to the Members:

What are your political instincts telling you? Who do you think will ultimately face off against McCain in November? Take a second to vote in this morning’s poll. (Remember, you must be logged in to vote)

Carter Brings Peace to Middle East

Carter Brings Peace to Middle East
Vol: 79 Issue: 21 Monday, April 21, 2008

It would be nice to simply speak something into the air and, by virtue of your ‘positive confession’ for that ‘something’ to become the truth.

Former president Jimmy Carter spoke into the air that he could accomplish what no sitting president could, and bring peace between Israel and her enemies.

Carter was SO certain that only he could bring this off that he traveled to Damascus, in defiance of both the State Department and Israeli Foreign Ministry.

He met with the leader of Hamas, in violation of US laws that prohibit giving “aid and comfort” (in this case, a propaganda victory) to a declared enemy of the United States.

Now, having gone over to the other side in defiance of his own government, Carter is now acting as a spokesman for Hamas.

The former US president emerged from the meeting and declared that, “Hamas is prepared to accept Israel’s right to exist and to live as a next-door neighbor in peace.”

Of course, Hamas isn’t prepared to do that without expecting certain concessions, Carter cautions.

Hamas is sad. It seems that neither Israel nor the United States will meet with them just because they won’t stop attacking Israeli civilians. But, as Carter patiently explains, Hamas can’t stop attacking — it is a ‘cycle of violence’.

What is a cycle of violence? Let’s break it down to its component elements.

I walk up and punch you in the nose. You punch me back, knock me down, and walk away. So I hunt down one of your kids and punch him in the nose.

Then I punch your kid in the nose every time I see him, until finally, after a half dozen more attacks on your kid, you come and knock me down again. So I set fire to your house.

A ‘cycle’ of violence!

THIS is how Jimmy Carter sees the conflict. If I attack you and you retaliate in self-defense, then my retaliation justifies your escalating the conflict. It is a ‘cycle’ of violence that can only stop when I stop attacking.

Here’s is Jimmy Carter’s solution. Give me your house and I won’t set fire to it.

That’s fair, isn’t it?


According to Jimmy Carter, “The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria. The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved.”

You see? The ‘problem’ is that the United States and Israel are wrong, Hamas is justified in its attacks, because Israel and the US won’t meet with Hamas BECAUSE they won’t stop attacking. And only Jimmy Carter can solve the problem.

All America and Israel have to do is surrender to the demands of Hamas in exchange for a cessation of terror and everything will be just fine.

“Hamas indicated to us at least – I’m not guaranteeing their commitment – that if Israel is willing to have a mutual ceasefire and a renunciation of violence in Gaza and in the West Bank, they will accept it, and as a first step they would even accept just limiting that to Gaza. . . . so I think that what they have said, if they were honest and we wrote it out so there wouldn’t be a mistake, it’s a very significant development.”

Aye, there’s the rub! “IF they were honest AND we wrote it out.”

Exactly. Except that if they were ‘honest’ then there’d be no war. And WE can write out anything we want — Hamas already wrote its charter.

In its charter, Hamas lays out the only reason for its existence: the destruction of Israel. So Carter’s position is that Hamas is prepared to abandon its reason for existing, but not prepared to disband. Or something.

And, according to Carter, Israel is at fault because Cpl. Gilad Shalit has been held by Hamas for two years. If Israel had met with Hamas, then Hamas would have released him.

One wonders if Carter knows how Cpl Gilad Shalit came to be a Hamas prisoner in the first place? Answer? He was kidnapped from inside Israel, by armed terrorist thugs, and spirited away into Gaza.

Carter says the major difficulty was in agreeing to the identity of the Palestinian prisoners Hamas is demanding in return for his release. Carter says that Hamas is demanding one thousand Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Cpl. Shalit.

Shalit remains in captivity, says Carter, because Israel has only accepted seventy-one names of the thousand Hamas is demanding.

Is it just me? Or does this sound just a bit odd? A thousand prisoners who are in prison for terrorism against Israel, in exchange for a 20-year old kidnapped Israeli soldier guilty of serving his country?

I have to tell you, even as I explain this, it sounds like some kind of bad joke. A former US president defending the application of terror as ‘justified’ is stunning enough. A former US president defending holding a kidnap victim because the ransom wasn’t sufficiently high is beyond belief, even if this IS Jimmy Carter.

Carter offered as evidence of Hamas’ sincerity, the promise that Cpl Shalit will be “allowed to send a letter, soon,” as a ‘humanitarian gesture.’

As former president Jimmy Carter was lecturing the United States and Israel for isolating Hamas, Hamas decided it would send Israel a message of good faith to back up Carter’s message.

In celebration of Passover, it loaded to US-made vehicles donated to the Palestinians by the US with explosives, disguised them as Israeli military vehicles, and blew them up at at the Kerem Shalom crossing, the main Israeli transport area for goods and humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Muhammad Abdel-Al, the spokesperson and a leader of the Hamas-allied Popular Resistance Committees terrorist organization, explained:

“We warned you we would obtain all the weapons the Zionists and Americans gave to your puppets in Fatah. It is only a matter of time before we take over the West Bank and obtain the American weapons you are giving Fatah now.”

Thirteen Israeli soldiers were wounded in that attack. Three other Israeli soldiers were killed when they were ambushed the same day along an Israeli border fence with Gaza.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said of that attack: “These operations are the beginning of the explosions that Hamas has warned of. . . if the parties don’t intervene quickly to save Gaza and break the siege, what is coming will be greater.”

Last week, Carter met in Egypt with senior Hamas leaders Mahmoud al-Zahar and Saeed Seyam. Israeli security officials stated it was “almost a one hundred percent certainty” both al-Zahar and Seyam were involved in planning this weekend’s border attacks.

Al-Zahar and Seyam are identified by both Israeli and Palestinian security officials as the two most senior leaders of Hamas’ so-called military wing, which carries out terrorist activities from the Gaza Strip, including rocket strikes, suicide bombings, border raids, kidnappings and shooting attacks.

These are Jimmy Carter’s interlocutors for peace.

“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. In that day, saith the LORD, I will smite every horse with astonishment, and his rider with madness: and I will open mine eyes upon the house of Judah, and will smite every horse of the people with blindness.” (Zechariah 12:2-4)

“Astonishment, blindness and madness” — that just about sums it up perfectly.

Myth-Busting 101

Myth-Busting 101
Vol: 79 Issue: 19 Saturday, April 19, 2008

One of the most important differences between Biblical Christianity and most other belief structures, (including atheism) is that, by its very nature, Christianity discourages becoming mythologized.

That is one reason that twenty centuries after the fact, Jesus is still God, but ‘Jupiter’ is a planet in the solar system.

Mythological religious figures are larger-than-life, have supernatural power, are somewhat mischievous, and their deeds tend to grow with time.

One could say that about Zeus, one could say that about about Mohammed, or one could say that about Charles Darwin.

Jesus Christ was larger-than-life in His humility. No other mythological god ever washed the feet of his servants. Jesus did not exercise His Personal power, but always accredited it to God the Father.

Jesus was kind and friendly, but deadly serious — no one could accuse Him of being mischievous. And Jesus Christ was the same yesterday as today.

There are no eyewitnesses to the life and times of Zeus or Jupiter. The Koran contains no eyewitness accounts — it was compiled after the death of Mohammed from oral tradition.

Charles Darwin was not the committed atheist his followers claim, but rather, he was the son of a preacher who attended Divinity School.

And, according to an eyewitness to his death, a Lady Hope, he underwent a ‘deathbed conversion’ in which he renounced atheism.

Darwin’s followers call that a ‘myth’. That’s my point. There are more written eyewitness accounts to the life and times of Jesus Christ than of any major historical figure of antiquity.

(And more eyewitnesses to His last words, (“It is finished”) than there were to Charles Darwin’s.)

Any attempt to mythologize Jesus Christ runs into that brick wall of eyewitness testimony. Jesus Christ has been mythologized by cults, but that is why they are called cults.

Because they introduce an element of unprovable myth to a life already marked by proven miracles well attested to by multiple, unrelated eyewitnesses.

In Jesus’ day, Jerusalem was a relatively small, close-knit city, many of whose residents could trace their genealogy back to Adam. Everybody knew everybody, or they knew somebody who knew somebody — like in many small towns today.

There is a story in which Jesus was preaching in a crowded synagogue. A paralytic, desiring to be healed, couldn’t be maneuvered through the crowd, so instead, they tore a hole in the roof and lowered the guy down.

(Like THAT wouldn’t be the talk of the town, in and of itself – the text says he was a paralytic from birth, and well known to his neighbors.)

Having lowered the guy down from the roof (picture it from the perspective of the audience) to Jesus, Jesus says to the guy, “Arise, take up thy bed, and walk.”

And he does! He picks up his bed, and walks out through the crowd.

The Gospel of Mark, which related the story, was already in circulation sometime around 45 AD — fifteen years after the fact. (There is little reason to doubt the healed paralytic was still alive and telling his own story, as well).

It is fair to assume that Jesus had at least as many enemies as He had friends. But there are no contemporary records denying that event took place.

Why? Too many eyewitnesses were there to see what really happened.

One cannot mythologize Jesus for several reasons; 1) the incredible detail of the written eyewitness record; 2) the contemporary acceptance of the Gospels as fact; and, 3) when it comes to the life and times of Jesus Christ, no myth is necessary.

The truth is staggering enough.


Those are the reasons why Jesus can’t be mythologized. There is also a reason why few, outside of the cults, have tried. There is no motive. To be saved, one must accept Jesus Christ as He is.

A Christian’s motivation is a sincere belief in heaven and hell and an equally sincere desire to keep his fellow man from ending up in hell. A mythologized Jesus cannot save anyone.

On the other hand, atheism has no eternal power, demands no eternal accountability, and therefore, has no absolute truth.

Consequently, it is built entirely on a foundation of mythology.

Let’s examine just a few examples of atheist mythology (with acknowledgment to Vox Day’s brilliant book, “The Irrational Atheist.”)

Day takes on the most specious arguments offered by the three best-selling atheist authors of our time, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

Myth: Atheists make up a smaller percentage of prison inmates than their religious counterparts. Fact: Surveys show that those who profess no religion are four times as likely to be incarcerated than Christians.

Myth: Cities in Blue States are safer than Red-State (“Jesus Land”) cities. Fact: The safest cities in “Blue” states are in “Red” counties. The most dangerous cities in “Red” States are in “Blue” counties. (It all depends on how you frame the facts)

Myth: Richard Dawkins claimed in his book, “The God Delusion” that religions are responsible for the destruction of religious art and literature. Fact: Vox Day counters by pointing out the 41,000 churches destroyed the Soviet atheists, and thousands of Buddhist temples destroyed in Tibet, North Korea, and Vietnam, as they attempted to persecute religious belief out of existence.

Myth: Hitler was a Christian. Fact: Hitler was a baptized Catholic who was heavily involved in the occult, Theosophy, Arianism etc. who hated Christians and planned to replace Christianity with Aryanism, an atheistic religion based in racial eugenics.

Myth: Atheists are rational, and therefore would never commit atrocities. Fact: Most of the dictators of the 20th century were atheists. The Soviet Union was an officially atheist state.

According to Day, “…the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.”

Myth: Morality is a function of democracy in which the majority, rather than God, establish fundamental morality. Fact: Both Hitler and Hamas were elected in free and fair democratic elections. Moral democracy is no guarantee of a ‘moral majority’.

According to Day, “…the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them.”

Christopher Hitchens wrote, in his book, “God is not Great” that “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence,” as his ‘evidence’ that proves God is a myth.

Day identifies fifty-one statements made by Hitchens for which Hitchens offers no evidence. (Therefore, by Hitchens’ own logic, his book can be dismissed much more easily that the Bible.)

My favorite chapter title is Day’s “Occam’s Chainsaw” in which he applies the logical principle of “Occam’s Razor” to the logical contradictions offered by Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris, et al.

In it, Day tackles the various logical problems inherent in the atheist arguments, including those rooted in lack of evidence, hallucination, temporal advantage, fiction, unfairness of hell, God’s character, moral evolution, etc.

Bottom line? It takes far more faith in the face of the contradictions, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, and outright mythology of atheism than it does to accept the premise of a loving God who is intimately concerned with the spiritual well-being of His creation.

“For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.” (2nd Timothy 1:12)

Marantha! (Come, Lord Jesus)

Clueless Old War Horses

Clueless Old War Horses
Vol: 79 Issue: 18 Friday, April 18, 2008

Former Marine and one-time patriot US Representative John “Jack” Murtha [D-Pa] made headlines this week when he threw another group of Americans that he represents under the wheels of the ’08 campaign bus.

“This one guy running is about as old as me,” Murtha, 75, told a group of union members in Washington yesterday. “Let me tell you something, it’s no old man’s job.”

This brings up two immediate points. In the first, Murtha is two years younger than Ronald Reagan was when Reagan had concluded one of the most successful two-term presidencies of the 20th century.

The second point is that Jack Murtha has never been President of the United States, so he is talking out his, er, hat.

As to age, the average age, across-the-board for US presidents on election is age 55, the average age upon leaving office is 60. While that might seem young to the Gray Panthers of 2008, for most of America’s history, that was pretty old.

When the Social Security system was being formulated in the 1930’s the retirement age was set at 65 because most retirees weren’t expected to live more than another two years.

Today, a person retiring at age sixty-five can reasonably expect to live another 20.9 years to age 86. Statistically, having attained age 75, Murtha can expect, barring accident or major illness, to live to age another 13.7 years, according to 2004 US mortality rates.

Granted, John McCain, if elected, would be the oldest first term president in history. At age 72, he is already four years older than Reagan was in his first term. But he need only survive four years of his remaining 20.9 for Murtha to be as wrong about his fellow oldsters as he was about his fellow Marines.

Ronald Reagan not only survived his own two terms, but George Bush’s term, both of Bill Clinton’s terms, and died just five month’s shy of seeing George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004.

Reagan was one month shy of 78 when he left office. Eisenhower was over 70, Jackson, Buchanan and Truman almost 70.

The average age for presidents who die in office is 58. But five former presidents lived well into their 90’s, and the elder President Bush is over 85.

Herbert Hoover lived 31 years after leaving office, Gerald Ford 29 years, John Adams 25 years, Martin Van Buren and Millard Fillmore both lived an additional 21 years after leaving the Oval Office. And of the only five US Presidents not to live to see age 60, three were assassinated, Garfield, Lincoln and Kennedy.

There is a new website set up by Steve Rosenthal, a former political director at the AFL-CIO and executive director of America Coming Together, a massive soft money effort organized around the 2004 presidential race.

The website is called, “Younger Than McCain” and made a list of all the things John McCain is “older” than. For example, John McCain is older than the Golden Gate Bridge, plutonium, Coke in cans, Velcro, McDonalds, Burger King, color TV and FM radio.

(Starting with Velcro and moving forward, so am I — and I’m 55)

Here is how Rosenthal — and the group of twenty-somethings he worked with, see John McCain at 72:

“John McCain comes from another time, an old war-horse stuck in the past with an old-world view of things,” said Rosenthal. “Our videos — hopefully in a funny way — are aimed at pointing out just how old, out of touch and clueless he is.”

“Out of touch, clueless and a joke.” That’s what McCain’s experience really means — to America’s youth.

God help us.


What the website actually proves is how clueless and out of touch Rosenthal and his posse are. In the first place, why do we let twenty-somethings drive but don’t let 12 year olds? What do they have that 12 years olds don’t?

In a word, experience. How did they get that experience? By not dying. Why don’t we elect twenty-somethings to the White House? Lack of experience.

Does this seem like a difficult concept?

Nobody (under 40) is going to debate that a twenty-something is better qualified to lead the country because of his youth, any more than anyone (under 18) would argue that a 12 year old is experience and mature enough to navigate a six thousand-pound steel projectile down a busy interstate at 180 feet per second.

But my mother-in-law, who is eighty-six, still has her own car, her driver’s license, and has not had an accident in forty years. If I had my choice as to whose hands I’d put my life in on the highway, I’d pick my mother in law over my granddaughter every single time.

(Might take me a little longer to get there, but I’d get there.)

It is counterintuitive — age and experience wins out over youth and enthusiasm every time — it takes a conscious effort at self-deception to see it any other way. But, as we’ve explored in many previous discussions, self-deception is a major hallmark of the last days. When asked of His return, the first words from the Lord’s lips were these: “Take heed that no man deceive you.”

Describing the world as it will be when the antichrist makes his appearance on the world stage, “for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” (2nd Thessalonians 2:11)

Consider the power of the lie we are discussing here. Who would you prefer take out your appendix? A kid out of medical school? Or a doctor with forty years experience? You tell me.

But when it comes to leading the most powerful nation on the face of the earth, age and experience are a political liability.

(“Up is down, in is out, black is white, and would you like one lump, or two?” asked the Mad Hatter.)

Those of us who are old, out of touch and clueless today, remember a different world, the one run by old, clueless guys like Dwight Eisenhower. When old, clueless guys were in charge, the biggest problem facing teachers were kids chewing gum in class.

Growing up, I didn’t have a single friend whose parents were divorced. Being a Christian was something to be admired. We didn’t lock our doors at night — or even if we went out of town.

In the 1960’s attitudes about age began to shift. The new catch phrase was ‘Never trust anybody over thirty.’

Power began to shift as well, beginning with John Kennedy, (at 41, the youngest president in US history) and by the end of the decade, most of our lawmakers looked just as weird as their kids did.

The political shift toward youth and inexperience has been reflected in each decade since.

Youth and inexperience scream out at us through laws that blame guns for the actions of their owners, advocate abortion as a method of birth control, or propose legislation like ‘involuntary’ assisted suicide.

(Apparently, one must be ‘old and clueless’ before one recognizes the nuances that separate ‘involuntary assisted suicide’ from ‘murder’ don’t actually exist.)

It screams at us from our school systems, where the kids run the classrooms and the teachers run for their lives.

It screams at us from our practice of locking old people up in assisted living facilities, treating them like idiot children rather than tapping the deep wells of knowledge and experience that they possess.

John McCain is an old war horse, out of touch and clueless, because John McCain also remembers what it was like when the grownups were in charge.

One of the reasons that our culture has turned away from its elders is because it has turned away from the Bible and the wisdom it contains. The Bible, the argument goes, is also ancient, clueless and out-of-touch with modern times.

The Bible celebrates age — indeed, it commands we respect our elders.

“Thou shalt rise up before the hoary [grey-haired] head, and honor the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD.” (Leviticus 19:32)

“The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of righteousness.” (Proverbs 16:31)

Under Mosaic law, a child becomes a ‘man’ at thirteen, but cannot serve in a position of public responsibility until he has reached the age of thirty.

In 2nd Chronicles, we find that King Rehoboam rejected the counsel given him by the old men in favor of that given by the young. It is a fascinating story, in that it is so applicable today.

The counsel given Rehoboam by the old men went like this. “If thou be kind to this people, and please them, and speak good words to them, they will be thy servants for ever.”

Rehoboam rejected this advice, forsaking “the counsel which the old men gave him, and took counsel with the young men that were brought up with him, that stood before him.” (2nd Chronicles 10:7-8)

“And answered them after the advice of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add thereto: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” (10:14)

Rehoboam forsook the advice of the elderly, hearkened unto the young men, and the result was that Israel divided into two kingdoms — the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah.

A generation later, the Kingdom of Israel had ceased to exist. The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel remain lost to history to this day.

There is a lesson in here, somewhere. But I’m too old and clueless to explain it to anybody under thirty.

In Defense of the Pope

In Defense of the Pope
Vol: 79 Issue: 17 Thursday, April 17, 2008

I think maybe it might be time to defend the Pope. Wow. I can’t believe I just typed that line, so perhaps we should start by setting the parameters.

Let’s start with Catholicism. The non-Catholic beef with the Vatican is both deep and wide. The term ‘Dark Ages’ refers to the period between the 4th century and the 17th century in Europe, when the Vatican kept the Bible under lock and key.

All Bibles were published in Latin — a language used only by the priesthood, and possession of a Bible by non-clergy was a capital offense. For twelve centuries, there was no way to fact-check Vatican theology, until the first Bibles were printed in a common language.

Once the laity was able to fact-check the Vatican’s theology against the Bible, the Reformation went into high gear. Once the Vatican lost its lock on Christianity, its political power began to wane.

In an effort to retain its power, the Vatican launched the infamous Inquisition, in which torture was used to force conversions, non-Catholics were burned at the stake as ‘heretics’ etc.

The fire that burned John Wycliffe, who published the first English-Bible, was fueled by a stack of Wycliffe Bibles.

The papacy during the Dark Ages was a cesspool of corruption and vice, sex and murder. Some Popes bought their titles, others inherited them, others murdered for the job.

Pope Alexander VI fathered at least four children, including the infamous Lucretia Borgia, with whom he is reputed to have had an incestuous relationship.

And the Borgia Pope wasn’t the worst. Indeed, he was pretty typical for the Dark Ages. Pope Benedict IX became pope sometime between age 11 and 20; Pope John XII was 18.

Pope John XI was the illegitimate son of Pope Sergius III. Indeed, the history of the papacy in the tenth century was nicknamed by historians as the ‘Pornocracy’.

What is a bit less well-known about the Vatican was something known as the ‘Counterreformation’ of 1565, or the Council of Trent.

It was at the Council of Trent that the Vatican formally adopted the position that salvation is obtained through a combination of grace and works.

The Council of Trent also reaffirmed such practices as indulgences, pilgrimages, the veneration of saints and relics, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary were strongly reaffirmed as spiritually vital.

The Council also commissioned the Roman Catechism, which still serves as authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church.

The most recent edition, updated in 1992, updated and modernized the language, but the basic Catholic doctrines remain unchanged from 1565.

But of all the beefs non-Catholics have with the Vatican, the most intractable was the doctrine of heresy which stood in force until Vatican II in the early 1960’s. Under that doctrine, non-Catholics were declared heretics who were ineligible for salvation.

There is a joke about a guy who arrived at the gates of heaven and noticed an area of heaven separated from the rest by a high, impenetrable wall. The guy asks St. Peter what the wall is for, and St Peter says, “It’s for the Catholics.”

“Why?” the guy asks. “Did they do something wrong?” “No,” Peter replies. “They think they are the only ones here.”

My defense of this pope isn’t spiritual, or theological, or even remotely religious. My defense of this pope is logical.


I said at the outset that it is time to defend the pope. But before I did so, I wanted to spare everyone sending me the history of the papacy or some of the Vatican’s dogmatic statements about salvation and who qualifies as a Christian, so we could get to the meat of the matter.

Newsweek ran a cover story of the Pope’s visit under the sub-headline, “American Muslims Wait to See if Pope Will Reach Out to Them.”

It was an impassioned defense of the Muslim reaction to the Pope’s lecture at a German university in which he invoked the words of a 14th century Byzantine Emperor concerning Islam.

“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Newsweek made much of the fact that the Pope ‘never apologized.’ It tracked down Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of a Muslim lobbying group, whom they gleefully quoted;

“We want a meeting with his bishops and key Muslim figures in the U.S. The topic should specifically be Muslim-Catholic issues. But it doesn’t seem to be a priority [for them] right now, even though the pope seems to be a person with very strong views about Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.”

The Pope did NOT express his own views about Islam and Mohammed, he quoted the views of an emperor dead more than 600 years.

And the anger the Muslims have directed at the Pope is still white-hot because, while they may find the quote insulting, it is impossible to dispute the accuracy of the offending statement, when weighed against the historical record.

I’m trying to think of how such an apology would be worded. “I’m sorry he felt that way 600 years ago?” “I’m sorry I know what he said?” “I’m sorry that history confirms the emperor’s assessment?”

Or the apology I’d like to see: “I’m sorry you guys are evil and inhuman.”

I am not defending the Vatican, or its doctrine, or the papacy — just this papal visit. A lot of us are disgusted with all the pomp and circumstance, but the ‘lot of us’ are not the whole world.

All this pomp and circumstance being heaped on this Pope is being heaped upon him by Catholics, non Catholics, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Budhhists and Jews alike.

Now to the heart of the question. Why? To the world at large, who does the Pope represent?

Forget, for a moment, the deep theological differences that exist between Catholics and non-Catholics and take a look at what the world sees. (The lost and dying world that is our mission field).

Listen to the praises and honorifics being extended; “His Holiness”, the “Vicar of Christ”, the “Visible Representative of Christ on Earth” — the list is as long as one wants it to be.

To non-Catholic Christians, all this praise is being heaped on ‘just a man’. It makes us angry and bitter, and we are not shy about expressing our feelings.

Like I said, forget about fine points of theology for a second — they are meaningless to the lost anyway.

Who is the world honoring when it honors the Pope? Joe Ratzinger of Germany? Regardless of the way we Christians might view him, the lost and dying world is honoring the Person that they believe the Pope represents.

The honorifics are not being extended to Joe Ratzinger, but to Jesus Christ. Don’t misunderstand me. I could bash Catholic theology in every OL for the rest of the year and never go over the same points twice.

But in all the years I’ve been a Christian, I’ve never convinced a Catholic by bashing their faith or their theology. Why?

Because to a Catholic, it is like bashing Jesus. We can go over all the reasons why they’d be wrong to see it that way, but that doesn’t make any difference to the Catholic.

If I walked up to you and told you that your faith is in vain and that you aren’t really saved, I doubt that you’d wait around to let me explain why.

More probably, you’d never speak to me again, so what good have I done either of us?

The world’s interest in the Pope is an excellent opportunity for us to discuss Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, and the Biblical definition of salvation, but I fear that most of us will blow the opportunity in favor of explaining all the things that are wrong with the Vatican.

Think of it from the perspective of some lost person who suddenly wants to know more about Jesus Christ.

So they come to their spiritual friend who is always talking about Jesus and they bring up ‘His Holiness’ — hoping to learn a bit about Jesus and using the Pope’s visit as an ice-breaker.

They mention the Pope, and we blast the Vatican, give a thumbnail history similar to the one I just did, explain why the Pope isn’t really a Christian.

And then, having done all we can to destroy the Pope’s Christian testimony, we invite our friend to enter into the ‘love of Christ’.

To a Catholic, one can’t be saved unless one is a member of the Catholic Church. To many Christians, one can’t get saved unless one is NOT a member of the Catholic Church.

We explain all this carefully, warn of the dangers of Mariolatry, the ridiculousness of Catholic doctrines like transubstantion, confession and purgatory — but all our friend wanted to know about was Jesus Christ and salvation.

And in our zeal to protect them from the evils of Vatican error, we never present the Gospel. We present TWO Gospels. The first is the one that labels the very Pope that prompted their interest in Jesus as really the leader of the ‘synagogue of Satan’.

The second Gospel, (notice we always wait and give the true Gospel second) then falls on deaf ears – ears deafened by our impassioned ‘defense of the faith’ to somebody who only wants to know if Jesus is real and that His promises can be trusted.

So I must defend the Pope’s visit to the United States. Not his theology, not his papacy, not his doctrine, but his visit.

For some Americans, it is the first time they’ve heard the phrase “Jesus Christ” without someone having first hit his thumb with a hammer.

For others, it is the first time they’ve heard His Name expressed in a positive context. It isn’t about the Pope, or the Vatican, or the divisions that exist between the Vatican and non-Catholic Christendom.

Somewhere, here in America, at some point during the papal visit, somebody is going to ask somebody else, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ — because of all the pomp and circumstance. Odds are, though, he’ll be treated to a history of the Vatican and the ‘synagogue of Satan’.

The whole thing reminds me of when Mary Magdalene washed the feet of Jesus with her tears, and anointed Him with expensive oil.

The Apostles cried out against her act, saying the ointment used could have been sold for ‘three hundred pence’ (almost a year’s wages) and given to the poor.

“And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on Me.” (Mark 14:6)

So, too will the Pope have ‘wrought a good work on Him’ if just one person asks that question, “What must I do to be saved?” We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ.

Church membership is irrelevant to salvation. Each of you knows that — or I’ve not been doing my job. One can be saved on the floor of St Peter’s Basilica, at the altar of a Baptist Church — or in the middle of a cornfield.

It isn’t church membership that saves, it is Jesus Christ.

I pray that, should I be the one blessed to receive that question, that I remember the correct answer isn’t, “avoid the Vatican at all costs,” but rather, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

Don’t blow your opportunity by getting the cart in front of the horse. Salvation first. There is plenty of time for doctrine later.

At the moment, I am enjoying all the positive press Jesus is getting. The papal visit ‘hath wrought a good work in Him.’

And I don’t want to be the one to spoil it.

The Company You Keep

The Company You Keep
Vol: 79 Issue: 16 Wednesday, April 16, 2008

It is one of those life principles that most of us learned at our mother’s knee; “A man is known by the company he keeps.”

I learned that adage when my mother forbade me to play with one of the neighborhood ‘bad’ kids. Other kids learned that adage when their mothers forbade them to play with me.

But we all learned the same lesson, and like most of the life lessons that I learned at my mother’s knee, this one proved invaluable to me my whole life through.

Knowing that little tidbit of information has served me well over the course of my life; both for myself and in taking the measure of others. You can tell a lot about a person by the people he chooses to associate with. And even more from the people who choose to associate themselves with him.

People tend to associate with others in whom they see a kindred spirit, bringing up another old adage; “birds of a feather, flock together.” This one always kind of baffled me.

It isn’t true about birds — there are two robins, a sparrow and a pigeon sitting on a telephone wire outside my window right now — but it absolutely true about people.

We tend to employ the lessons contained in those two cliches in all our dealings with people. If you want to know something about new acquaintances on a new job, you pay attention to who people associate with, whether you are aware of it or not.

Who tends to gravitate to whom is information so vital that we often assess it unconsciously and make decisions based on information we’re oftentimes unaware we are even processing.

We apply it in every facet of our lives — except we would never admit it in public. That would be politically incorrect. — the slur that applies here would be ‘profiling’.

So the one place nobody dares to mention what EVERYBODY does instinctively is in politics.


John McCain is a known associate of liberals and Democrats, charges the anti-McCain conservative lobby. Merely hearing the phrase, “McCain-Feingold” sets conservatives’ teeth on edge.

But not so much because of what the McCain-Feingold Bill is about so much as that Senator Russ Feingold is about as far to the Left as one can go without falling off the page. It is almost as painful as seeing McCain’s name linked to Teddy Kennedy as in the McCain-Kennedy Immigration reform bill.

For reasons not entirely clear, conservatives are less vulnerable to charges of ‘profiling’ when they are profiling one of their own.

McCain was offered two opportunities to generalize his opponents at Villanova College yesterday, once at Barack Obama’s expense, the second at Hillary Clinton’s. McCain passed on the opportunity each time, saying he wanted to run a respectful campaign.

But neither Kennedy and Feingold are endorsing McCain. What does that reveal? If nothing else, it reveals that McCain, Kennedy and Feingold aren’t birds of a feather, after all. McCain is not known for siding with liberals because they are liberals, instead, he is known as a ‘maverick’ who occasionally bucks his own party for the good of the country.

You can learn a lot from the associations enjoyed by McCain’s opponents, but you’ll have to do it on your own. No liberal is going to ‘profile’ his own candidate for you. That would be political suicide.

Seemingly most of Hillary Clinton’s associates are white-collar criminals, shady donors, or agents of foreign governments. The ‘Clinton List’ was several hundred names long already before she even ran for the Senate.

It is much longer now; Ron Burkles, Jose Cabrera, Johnny Chung, Vini Gupta, Frank Guistra, John Huang, Norman Hsu, Joseph Pellicano and Peter Paul, just to mention a few.

But bringing up any of those past associations is labeled an ‘attack’ — even when they are extremely relevant to evaluating the candidate. The more damaging the association, the more it seems to advantage her. It is counterintuitive.

Even more baffling is the pass being given to Barack Obama. They guy started out his candidacy promising to ‘transcend’ race — but it is the only thing he’s talked about since.

His association with Jeremiah Wright and his Black Liberation Theology is the black equivalent to David Duke and the KKK.

Yet the speech he gave justifying black racism against whites was hailed as “the best speech on race since Martin Luther King”.

His refusal to distance himself from Wright’s racist anti-Americanism earned him accolades for his ‘loyalty’ to Rev. Wright, even as they dismissed any allegations that his loyalty to Wright superseded his loyalty to his country.

Although Obama claims that his candidacy ‘transcends’ race, it only transcends to the degree he allows it to.

Which is almost never.

Last night, HBO broadcast an interview between Obama and Bryan Gumble. It was supposed to about basketball. It seems that while Obama was in high school, he played ‘black’ basketball (meaning he was pretty good) but as he aged, he started to play ‘white’ basketball (meaning he was no longer pretty good.)

His explanation to an elite crowd of Marin County voters for why white rural voters are so, ummm, backward (Middle America is composed of white, gun-toting, church-going, racist, immigrant-hating xenophobes) temporarily raised a few eyebrows.

But those eyebrows went back down as his supporters concluded that Obama must be right after all. He should know, the thinking goes. After all, Obama understands the ‘Black Experience’ and whites don’t — so they should trust him.

Besides, as Obama pointed out, it isn’t the fault of Middle America — they’re that way because they can’t find jobs.

And everybody evidently knows those in ‘the Bible Belt’ who ‘cling’ to God and guns can’t help themselves. In the final analysis, his supporters concluded that Obama wasn’t being a racist, an elitist or condescending. He was just ‘tellin’ it like it is.’

Ahmed Yousef, Hamas’ top political advisor in the Gaza Strip, told John Batchelor in a radio interview that; “We like Mr. Obama. We hope that he will win the elections.”

Hamas says it isn’t fooled by Obama’s condemnation of terrorist attacks against Israel.

“I understand American politics and this is the season for elections and everybody tries to sound like he’s a friend of the Israelis,” he said. All that would change if Obama would get elected. “I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse….”

“I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance.”

Obama is the first choice among angry anti-American liberals, first choice among angry American blacks, first choice among angry American Muslims, hailed by Hamas, and despised and feared by most Israelis and almost all American Jews.

Those qualities appear to be the ones that will ultimately win him the Democratic nomination for the President of the United States.

A man is known by the company he keeps. A nation is known by the leaders it chooses. America’s choices are McCain, Clinton and Obama.

If my mother were still living, I wouldn’t be allowed to play with any of them.

The Name of the Lord. . .

The Name of the Lord. . .
Vol: 79 Issue: 15 Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The Name of the Lord. . .

One of the most baffling claims I’ve heard repeated about Jesus is the one that says Jesus Christ never claimed to be God.

Indeed, some will go so far as to say that Jesus Christ didn’t even THINK He was God. I read one critic’s opinion that said if Jesus were alive today, He would be astonished and dismayed to find Himself an object of worship.

If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a thousand times, and I’ve seen it in print under the names of some otherwise fairly astute and intelligent authors.

There are as many opinions about Jesus as their are religious worldviews on this planet. Everybody wants to include Him as part of their own religious dogma, provided He doesn’t mind playing second fiddle to their own deity.

There is a Muslim ‘Jesus’ [Isa] but the Muslim Jesus is not God. The Muslim Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin, did not go to the Cross, and certainly never rose again from the dead. The Muslim Jesus was not God, but instead, he was a prophet and a teacher.

Jesus plays some kind of role in most the great pagan religions of the world. But with the exception of Christianity, the pagan Jesus was invariably depicted as a ‘good man’ or as a ‘wise teacher’.

And for THAT reason, those who deny the Deity of Christ do so in order to keep their own religious doctrine from flying apart. If the real Jesus claimed to be God, then He was neither ‘good’ nor ‘wise’.

‘Good’ men don’t lie about who they are. ‘Wise’ men don’t allow themselves to be executed to perpetuate a lie. If Jesus Christ wasn’t God, but claimed He was, then He was a liar and a lunatic.

So whether or not Jesus Christ believed He was God is of critical importance to their doctrine. The Islamic Jesus says of himself,

He [Jesus] said: ‘I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!’ Such was Jesus the son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” (Sura 19:30-35).

So Islam’s Jesus is NOT the begotten Son of God — because it does not befit their god to have a son.

“Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!” (5:75).

For Islam to recognize that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God would require throwing out the Koran.

The Koran advances the belief that Mohammed was the final prophet of God. But if Jesus had claimed to be the only begotten Son of God, then Mohammed would not only be a liar, he would have been unnecessary.

Or Jesus would have to be exposed as a fraud. Since Mohammed evidently couldn’t credibly deny His existence, the best he could do instead was ‘adopt’ Him as a mascot.

Islamic theology relies on Mohammed being superior to Jesus, but makes no claim that Mohammed was divine. If Jesus therefore simply CLAIMED to be the Son of God, then Mohammed would either be an inferior prophet, or Isa couldn’t be a prophet at all. In either case, Islam’s foundational stone would crumble.

Most cults find a way to reduce Jesus to the status of a created being, for the same reason. If Jesus claimed to be God, then their god can’t be, or they wouldn’t need a Jesus. They’d have their own Jesus and wouldn’t need to steal ours.

To the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ isn’t the Eternal God, but rather, a creation OF God.

Charles Taze Russell accomplished this transformation by in including a single letter in the text of John 1:1 in his ‘New World Translation: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was [a] god.”

The Mormons not only deny the Deity of Christ, they deny the Deity of God Himself. The Mormon God was once a man himself, and Jesus Christ was really Satan’s smarter brother.

Mormons believe that God liked the plan for the salvation of mankind that Jesus submitted better than the one that Satan came up with. So Jesus got to be the Savior of Mankind, and Lucifer became Satan out of sibling rivalry.

All the cults who claim Jesus do so on the grounds He was either a good man and a wise teacher or that He was a prophet sent from God.

If at some point, Jesus claimed to be God come in the flesh, then He could be neither.


As I said at the outset, the argument that Jesus never claimed Divinity is among the most baffling of all.

Consider this. There are somewhere between a billion and two billion Muslims on this planet. They not only believe He was just another prophet, their entire religion demands it.

It isn’t that Islam would crumble if Jesus WAS Divine, it would crumble if Jesus simply BELIEVED He was Divine. As previously noted, if He believed He was the Son of God, He could NOT be a prophet of God. He could only be Who He claimed to be, or He would be a liar. There is no logical third option.

If He said He was the Son of God, He cannot be a prophet. And if He thought that He was, and was mistaken, deluded or insane, well, then He cannot be a prophet.

Jesus never said, “I am God” in the English Bible. Instead, the Bible quotes Jesus as saying, “before Abraham was, I am.” “I am” is one of the Hebrew Names for God. When Moses asked God to identify Himself, He replied, “I am that I am. Tell them that I AM sent you.”

To the Jews living under the Mosaic Law, “I AM” could only be a reference to the God Who handed Moses the two tablets.

Jesus knew exactly what He was saying, and so did the assembled Jews. Abraham lived around 2160 BC; about as far removed from Christ’s time as Christ’s time was from our point on the timeline. After He made the claim, the Jews prepared to stone Him for blasphemy, but He slipped away in the crowd.

To somehow see this as a claim of anything other than one of Divinity is an act of desperation. What else could it POSSIBLY mean? If I said to you, “before Jesus was, I am,” how would YOU, a non-Jew living in 21st century, interpret that remark?

If YOU see it that way, how could the religious Jews of the 1st century have interpreted it to mean something different?

Matthew 28:18 records Jesus saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” Who has ALL authority in heaven and earth? Who does Islam think that refers to?

Mohammed? Hardly. Only Allah is all-powerful. Who do the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe has all power in heaven and earth? Or the Mormons? Or any other religion that co-opts Christ in a supporting role?

Jesus claimed to be “Lord of the Sabbath”. Who did the Jews believe was the Lord of the Sabbath? (Answer: the One Who gave Moses the tablets. They knew Him as “I AM”.)

Jesus said that authority was given Him to forgive sins. Remember, He was addressing the most religious Jews of His day — they knew that the authority to forgive sins belongs to God alone.

Jesus claimed to be the “light of the world’ that provides salvation. David identified Jehovah as his “light and salvation.” (Psalms 27:1)

Jesus identified Himself as “the Good Shepherd” who was ‘sent to the lost sheep of Israel’ (Matthew 15:24) Ezekiel 34:11 identifies the Good Shepherd; “Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out.”

Jesus said He would separate the sheep nations from the goat nations. Ezekiel 34:17 says that this is a function of God: “And as for you, My flock, thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Behold, I will judge between one sheep and another, between the rams and the male goats.”

Jesus said of His sheep: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand.” (John 10:27-28)

Now, is it even POSSIBLE that the observant Jews of Israel circa AD 30 could be confused as to the identity of the One Who gives eternal life? Can you conceive of the possibility that the observant Jews of circa AD 30 were unfamiliar with the identify of the “Great I AM”?

Or that there is any other way for the Jews to have understood Christ’s claim to be anything less than Divinity? What was the charge under which Christ was convicted by the Sanhedrin?

Did Jesus ever directly claim to be the Christ, the Son of God? You tell me.

“Again the high priest asked Him, and said unto Him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I AM:” (Mark 14:61-62)

Is this unclear?

If one requires proof that Jesus Christ is real, and that Jesus Christ IS the only-begotten Son of God, the most convincing evidence is found in the number of religions that co-opted Him into it — to lend themselves legitimacy.

Why do the religions that claim Christ do so? And having done so, why claim a watered-down version of who He is? The reason they cannot deny Him outright is because He is real.

The reason they cannot acknowledge Him for Whom He claims to be is because it would expose their own religion as false.

Even acknowledging that He made the claim of Divinity exposes that religion as false. If He claimed Divinity, but was merely a man, He has no credentials as a prophet of God.

God cannot lie. If He was a liar Who allowed Himself to be executed to perpetuate a myth, then He has no credentials as a wise teacher.

In either case, there would be no reason for any other religion to even WANT Him, let alone kidnap Him as their prophet.

In the final analysis, logic dictates that the Person of Jesus Christ was either the Son of God, truly God and truly Man, Who lived a sinless life and died a sinner’s death as full payment for the sins of mankind, and now sits at the Right Hand of the Father.

Or those religions who have adopted Him as their prophet are following a liar and a lunatic.

In either case, it exposes them as cheap counterfeits. If He is not Lord OF all, then He cannot be Lord AT All.

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

That Name is Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.