John 20:21-23

 

John 20:21-23

 

“So JESUS said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As My Father has sent Me, even so I send you.’ When He said this, He breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the HOLY SPIRIT. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven them. If you retain the sins of anyone, they are retained.’” This is the moment the disciples, however many were there at the time, became born again!

 

So after His resurrection JESUS said the most startling thing that He ever said to the disciples; they now had His SPIRIT and they could forgive or not forgive sin! Wow! He said something similar when Peter confessed that JESUS was The Son of GOD, The Messiah, “JESUS answered him, ‘Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father, who is in Heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’” Then during a later time of teaching about sin and reconciliation JESUS told them, “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.’” Matthew 16:17-19, 18:18 (Matthew 18:15-20) This is tremendous responsibility and power, greater then He gave the twelve and the seventy when He sent them out two by two.

 

Yet what He tells the disciples after His resurrection seems to contradict what He taught them about forgiveness. After He taught them how to pray, The LORD’s Prayer, He said, “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” Matthew 6:14-15. He also said the same thing during His last teaching time in Jerusalem before His crucifixion. Mark 11:25-26.

 

I believe that John 20:21-23 is where some religions get confessing to a priest and being forgiven by penance. But the Bible is clear that GOD’s forgiveness comes by confession to GOD and repentance in behavior. Yet JESUS does say that we can retain someone’s sin. I’m sure that if we read all the commentaries we will find a couple of different explanations, but the responsibility of this requires us to have such a relationship with GOD that we know His heart concerning people who He knows will never repent. Paul spoke of Alexander the coppersmith who did him much harm and said, “May The LORD repay him according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words.” 2 Timothy 4:14-15 John did the same about fallen brothers in 3 John 9-12 stating, “Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of GOD, but he who does evil has not seen GOD.” These both were for personal experiences.

 

There are some in the Church who believe they have the ministry of pointing out other ministers’ sins. There is no such ministry! In fact we are taught throughout the Bible that love covers a multitude of sins.

 

Here is the tricky part; those who expose others’ sins use Matthew 18:15-17 as the basis for what they do. The problem is that JESUS was speaking of personal offense, see Matthew 5:23-26, all of these scriptures speak of personal relationships though these truths can be applied to groups and businesses. The catch is that JESUS and all the scriptures teach us to not just forgive other but to not judge others.

 

For those who believe that they are called to point out the faults and sins of other ministers and ministries remember two things:

David would not do anything against King Saul, even when he had the opportunity, because King Saul was GOD’s anointed King; and theirs was a personal relationship.

Paul told the Corinthian Church, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” 1 Corinthians 10:12

A Call to Pray and Fast - Truth and Light vs. Evil and Darkness

 

Today we are just 20 days away from Halloween, which when I was growing up was a great time of getting candy. Then in the 80’s it became a time to release movies of horror and evil.

 

We are just 23 days away from the most important election in our history.

 

Our nation is slowly being taken over by the darkness and evil and it is the Church’s fault. We are supposed to be the Truth and Light against the evil and darkness. But we have not been and so our country is on the verge of sliding into the evil chaos and darkness of anti GOD communism (they call themselves social democrats or socialists).

 

We, the body of CHRIST, in this nation have to be in prayer and fasting during this time for GOD’s forgiveness and deliverance for our nation.

 

This next three plus weeks is the most critical time in our history to bring the Will of GOD by our humility, repentance, prayer, fasting and voting GOD’s agenda.

 

If we want to live in a society where Truth and Light rule rather than evil and darkness it is up to us who call ourselves by His Name.

 

GOD Bless, Bob

Why Do World Socialists Reject The 1619 Project? by Edwin Benson

 

Why do World Socialists Reject The 1619 Project?

By Edwin Benson

 

Conservatives have attacked The New York Times’ 1619 Project as a radical falsification of American history. The project claims that America’s real founding was in 1619 when the first slaves were brought to the colonies. Historians have contested the project’s facts, perspectives and ideology. Many have declared it to be “fake history.”

However, it is strange to see that those on the right are not the only critics of the project. The more classical economic Marxists and Socialists are condemning the project since it fails to fit into their antiquated narrative. The new social radicals care more about race than they do about the means of production. A new revolution has supplanted the old. And these Marxists are left behind.

When are “The Oppressed” No Longer Oppressed?

Thus, the economic Marxists are going after the social Marxists.  Under the title, “The New York Times’s 1619 Project: A Racialist Falsification of American and World History,” the World Socialist Web Site has gone after those whose goal is to make the classroom safe for radicalism.

 

Marxists have always specialized in creating artificial divisions between “oppressors” and “the oppressed.” More “traditional” Marxists assign oppressor status to the “bourgeoisie.” The oppressed are the “proletariat,” their favored term to describe all laborers. At the same time, the new Marxists consider all white people oppressors of all “people of color,” minorities and women.

One group considers white factory laborers to be abused; the other invests them with “white privilege.” On the other hand, African-Americans and Hispanics who own businesses are considered elite by one group and downtrodden by the other.

It is all very confusing.

Dismissing Critical Race Theory

Consider The 1619 Project’s claim that racism is in the “DNA” of American society. This basic tenet of “Critical Race Theory” is a cornerstone of the rioters’ claims of “systemic racism.” It provides those with tenured positions in America’s ivory towers a chance to claim “solidarity” with the disadvantaged. Members of Congress, big-city mayors, and state legislators use it to claim that the paths to power are closed to them.

 

The DNA argument enrages economic Marxists. “Countries do not have DNA,” claim the World Socialists. According to Marx, “they have historically formed economic structures, antagonistic classes and complex political relationships.”

Arguing About 1776 and 1865

Another disagreement between the World Marxists and The 1619 Project is in presenting the American War for Independence. Marx and Lenin placed great importance on the events of 1776. In their fevered imaginations, the Declaration of Independence started a revolution of the middle class (bourgeoisie) against the British aristocracy. In turn, this would become an essential element in the eventual uprising of the workers against the bourgeoisie.

 

Economic Marxists tie the War for Independence directly to the Civil War. “The founding of the United States set into motion a crisis which resulted in the Civil War…. In the end, the war resulted in the greatest expropriation of private property in world history, not equaled until the Russian Revolution in 1917.” In their minds, confiscating one form of private property is a prelude to eliminating it all.

The 1619 folks see both events very differently. Perhaps the most quoted portion of 1619 is its highly inaccurate summary of the American motivation in declaring independence. “[O]ne of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect slavery.” It asserts that the British government was moving in the direction of abolition. Supposedly, this move would “have upended the economy of the colonies.”

The 1619 Project is even more dismissive of the effects of the Civil War. It briefly mentions The Emancipation Proclamation but does so in the context of a fictional narrative. The 1619‘s authors deny any significance to the Civil War – seeing it merely as a movement from chattel status to the slavery of “Jim Crow.”

 

A Satanic House Divided

The World Socialists see 1619 is an attempt to prevent revolution. For them, the New York Times is “the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party and the privileged upper-middle-class layers it represents…. They are joining with their ruling class counterparts around the world in deploying sectarian politics, be it based on race, religion, nationality, ethnicity or language to block this development.”

 

Neither clique has the truth on their side. Readers might argue about which position is preferable to the other. Such speculation is pointless. Their shared atheistic and materialistic outlook blinds both groups. Neither can approach truth because each rejects the Author of All Truth.

However, this disagreement is significant. The economic communists look at everything in terms of economic structures.  Beyond that point, they are blind. The 1619 Project doesn’t fit their narrative; therefore, it must be part of the “bourgeois” resistance to their revolution.

 

The Critical Race Theory behind 1619 is part of a cultural revolution that sees only the need to overturn social structures. The evil of racism is woven into the social fabric and cannot be eliminated without destroying all vestiges of traditional culture. For them, economic life is only one set of threads in a rotten fabric.

 

This struggle displays the faults within each narrative. Both must be rejected. The new revolution is more dangerous because its scope is broader.  Every aspect of life is at risk. Economic Communists want to overthrow the structures of life; the social Marxists want to destroy all structures.

Psalm 119 - A Study of GOD's Word

 

“I will observe Your Laws; don’t completely abandon me! … I will find my delight in Your Regulations, I will not forget Your Word. … Also Your Instructions are my delight; they are my counselors. … I will run the way of Your Mitzvot, for You have broadened my understanding. … See how I long for Your Precepts; in Your Righteousness, give me Life! … I will lift my hands to Your Mitzvot, which I love; and I will meditate on Your Laws. … This [Comfort] has come to me, because I observe Your Precepts. … The earth, ADONAI, is full of Your Grace; teach me Your Laws. … The Torah You have spoken means more to me than a fortune in gold and silver. … Let my heart be pure in Your Laws, so that I won’t be put to shame. … In keeping with Your Grace, revive me; and I will observe Your spoken Instructions. … I see the limits of all perfection, but You Mitzvah has no bounds. … From Your Precepts I gain understanding; this is why I hate every false way. … I have resolved to obey Your Laws forever, at every step. … My body trembles for fear of You; Your Rulings make me afraid. … Thus I direct my steps by [Your] Precepts; every false way I hate. … Rivers of tears flow down from my eyes, because they don’t observe Your Torah. … Your instruction is Righteous forever; give me understanding and I will Live. … Long ago I learned from Your Instruction that You established it forever. … The main thing about Your Word is that it’s true; and all Your Just Rulings last forever. … I observe all Your Precepts and Instructions, for all my ways lie open before You. … I strayed like a lost sheep; seek out Your servant; for I do not forget Your Mitzvot.”

Psalm 119:8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 72, 80, 88, 96, 104, 112, 120, 128, 136: the last verse of each alphabetical paragraph. This is a complete study of the importance of GOD’s Word in our life. If you want an even fuller understanding, study each section.

GOD Bless, Bob

Covid-19 Stats 10/7/2020

 

Covid-19 Update 10/7/2020

 

Tonight on a CBS News report I heard Tom Perez the DNC Chairman state something I have heard others state: That in the next 100 days we could have another 100,000 deaths from Covid-19 and blaming President Trump.

 

Here are the facts:

The first Covid-19 death in the USA was reported to have been in early February 2020 according to Wikipedia.org

The 100,000^th death from Covid-19 in the USA was reported on May 20, 2020 according to CDC.gov

The 200,000^th death from Covid-19 in the USA was reported on September 22, 2020 according to NPR.org

Since it took proximally 4 months (February, March, April, May) to reach 100,000 deaths and another 4 months (June, July, August, September) to reach another 100,000, then it makes sense that it will take about 4 months (October, November, December, January) for another 100,000 Americans to die from Covid-19 if we do not get a vaccine before then.

From today, 10/7/2020 that would be about January 15, 2020; while this statement is basically true, the way it is stated is to make it sound like the death rate is increasing, According to CDC.gov infection and death rates from Covid-19 in the USA are decreasing.

 

As of 10/7/2020 there have been 7,776,224 total positive cases of Covid-19 in the USA according to WorldOMeter.com

As of 10/7/2020 there have been 216,784 total deaths from Covid-19 in the USA according to WorldOMeter.com

As of 10/7/2020 there have been 4,983,380 reported recoveries from Covid-19 in the USA according to WorldOMeter.com (I could find this stat no place else!)

 

NYTimes.com reports that as of 10/6/2020 there have been 36,236,000 positive cases of Covid-19 reported in the world; 1, 054, 51 deaths from Covid-19 reported in the world; there have been 25,000,000 recoveries from Covid-19 reported in the world; but they and the CDC do not have any recorded recoveries from Covid-19 in the USA.

 

Be safe and do your own research to know the facts.

 

GOD Bless, Bob

Supreme Court Nominees and Justices: The Only People “Exempt” from The Natural Law By John Horvat II

 

Supreme Court Nominees and Justices: The Only People “Exempt” from The Natural Law

By John Horvat II

In his book about natural law, Prof. J. Budziszewski explains how this fundamental law is written on the hearts of everyone without exception. Indeed, natural law is so evident that he claims it is “what you can’t not know.” Hence, the title of his book.

Everyone–at all times and places–knows that lying, stealing and killing are evil. The Ten Commandments succinctly sum up the natural law making it easy for Christians to remember. From these basic tenets come more elaborate legal systems and applications.

Dr. Budziszewski explains how this set of moral truths, called natural law, is “a universal possession, an emblem of rational mind, an heirloom of the family of man.” Thus, no one has an excuse for not knowing what it is. No nation has an excuse for not being governed by its general tenets. It is the higher law upon which all law is based.

The Exception to a Universal Rule

This universal knowledge applies to everyone. However, one human category seems exempt from knowing about this moral treasure and the obligation to obey it: Supreme Court Justices.

It seems they must officially not know natural law. All the current justices claim not to orient their decisions according to its precepts. Court nominees dare not mention the term lest it dashes their hopes of confirmation.

The modern law establishment hates natural law because it highlights a moral perspective. It has long sought to expel it from the judicial system. Everyone, even Supreme Court Justices, must find some way to reject that which “you can’t not know.”

Different Schools

Such an attitude is something to be expected from the liberal side of the Supreme Court. These justices belong to a historical school of law that believes that law evolves. Theirs is a living Constitution that adapts to the latest cultural fancies. They believe their job is to sprinkle stale law with fresh interpretations, legislating from the bench to update the law to changing morals. From such jurisprudence, creative justices easily find things in the Constitution’s “penumbra” that were never there.

Others take the positivist vision of law, by which the State is the foundation of law. Positivism frees law from its metaphysical moorings and makes the State responsible for order, contracts and legal agreements. The State changes law according to its practical needs without considering moral principles.

The Reluctance of Conservative Justices to Embrace Natural Law

And then there are the conservatives, who find a way around the awkward question of natural law so hated by modernity. They adopt a “constitutionalist” approach to American law, based on a strict reading of the Constitution. “Originalist” and “textualist” judges interpret the law according to what they consider was the original intent of the Framers and thus avoid messy moral questions.

These conservative approaches to law do tend to conserve some tradition and morality. However, they are not anchored in an objective and higher moral law but fallible documents, opinions and intentions. Speculation about the original legislator’s intentions can also have disastrous consequences, as seen in the recent Bostock decision, in which originalist Justice Neil Gorsuch “discovered” homosexual and transgender equality in the word sex.

 

Thus, conservatives constantly face the disappointment of putting in some justices who appear to be conservative but later bow to pressure and find creative “originalist” interpretations that are not in the Constitution. Without the solid foundation of natural law, law will always be arbitrary and unstable. Those who uphold God’s law will always face disillusionment.

Founders Informed by Natural Law

What makes the “originalist” reading of law so frustrating to natural law advocates is that the Constitution’s Framers and the Founders were informed by natural law. The “constitutionalist” approach should channel natural law when interpreting cases through the prism of the founding documents. However, more often than not, their rulings become ill-advised detours around natural law that open the way for errors to sneak in through the backdoor. It is much better to go straight to the source where there is no danger of going astray.

A Strong Attachment to Natural Law

The evidence establishing a natural law source is compelling.
American law’s attachment to a natural law dates back before independence, as can be seen in the ultimate authority on both American and English common law, the renowned English jurist Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780). His reference is clear: “This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”

Earlier, Sir Edward Coke (1552–1634), who strongly influenced American law, also recognized natural law as the foundation of all law. This strong view of natural law was widespread. The colonial lawyers that founded the nation were familiar with these ideas, circulated in those times before written constitutions or “constitutionalists.” Moreover, Americans tended to reject the later deviations of natural law by Grotius and Pufendorf in favor of the more Scholastic-minded Englishman Richard Hooker.

Natural Law Theory Written into the Constitution

This natural law outlook is infused into the Constitution. Law historian Harold Berman suggests that the judging of law, according to the Constitution, was merely a transposition for prior criteria of judging law according to the natural law. He writes that “One may compare it with the theory that accompanies the law of the United States, under which any positive law must conform to the constitutional requirements of ‘due process,’ ‘equal protection,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘privacy,’ and the like, or lose its validity. ‘Due process of law’ is, in fact, a fourteenth-century English phrase meaning natural law. Thus, natural law theory is written into the positive law of the United States.”

Robert Reilly, in his book, America on Trial: A Defense of the Founding, claims that those who wrote the Constitution and the founders were inserted into a “natural law tradition reaching back to Aquinas, Cicero, and Aristotle.” He further asserts that “The evidence is overwhelming that they expressed themselves in terms of this tradition and meant the same thing by it.”

 

Only later, in the nineteenth century, did the modern schools of law depart from this tradition and embrace historical and positivist innovations. This trend favored the emerging liberal order. Social theoretian Wilhelm Schwer takes note of a generalized hostility to natural law among all schools. The innovaters went so far as to see this cornerstone of Western law as “imagined law, a weed that deserves to be eradicated.”

The Orignial “Originalists”

If justices really want to be originalists, they will recognize that the original “originalists” who wrote “the supreme law of the land,” the Constitution, were informed by a higher law tradition. They should not second-guess the Framers’ intentions, replacing them with straying speculation. Rather, they should go straight to the source. America needs to recognize that the constitutionalist work-around is flawed and will eventually lead to ruin.

If America is to return to sound justice, Supreme Court nominees (and its justices) must embrace “what you can’t not know.” Until then, there will be no order in the Court.

 

The Media is Silent

 REPORT: Biden Used Tax Code Loopholes to Avoid Hundreds of Thousands In Taxes, Media Silent

By  Mark Lutchman September 28, 2020

 

The liberal media went absolutely ballistic after the New York Times released a hit-piece on President Trump over his tax records. The problem is, the same media is totally failing to report on loopholes that Former Vice President Joe Biden used where he avoided paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes.

This massive report was dropped by Chris Jacobs with the Wall Street Journal.

“How the Bidens Dodged the Payroll Tax,” the headline read.

“Joe Biden responded to President Trump’s partial suspension of payroll-tax collections with a statement calling it the ‘first shot in a new, reckless war on Social Security,’” Jacobs wrote. “‘Our seniors and millions of Americans with disabilities are under enough stress without Trump putting their hard-earned Social Security benefits in doubt.’ Mr. Biden’s objections might be more persuasive had he and his wife, Jill, not gone out of their way to avoid funding seniors’ entitlement benefits. According to their tax returns, in 2017 and 2018 the Bidens and his wife Jill avoided payroll taxes on nearly $13.3 million in income from book royalties and speaking fees. They did so by classifying the income as S-corporation profits rather than taxable wages.”

“According to the Urban Institute, a couple featuring one high earner and one average earner, retiring this year, will have paid a total of $209,000 in Medicare taxes during their working lives,” Jacobs added. “The Bidens avoided paying nearly twice that much in Medicare taxes during two years. The maximum payroll tax affected by Mr. Trump’s suspension is $1,984—less than 1/250th of the amount the Bidens avoided in 2017-18. The Bidens didn’t avoid any Social Security tax, which applied only to the first $127,200 of income in 2017 and $128,400 in 2018. But they would under Mr. Biden’s tax plan, which would impose the 12.4% Social Security tax on income over $400,000; the same loophole he used in 2017-18 would shield him from his own tax. And how can Mr. Biden claim to protect Medicare and Obama Care when he avoided more than $500,000 in taxes that fund the two programs? The media have largely ignored the Bidens’ accounting legerdemain, fixating on Mr. Trump’s tax returns instead. But at least the president isn’t looking to raise taxes on everyone else.”

Breitbart reports:

The Wall Street Journal is hardly the only outlet to illustrate how the Bidens used this tax code loophole of creating an S-Corporation to save themselves from paying hundreds of thousands—perhaps now millions—of dollars in taxes over the years.

CNBC’s Darla Mercado in 2019 wrote about it explaining to her readers how they can use the same loopholes Biden did to avoid paying their taxes.

“The former vice president and 2020 presidential contender and his wife Jill Biden reported about $10 million in income in 2017 from a pair of S-corporations, CelticCapri and Giacoppa,” Mercado wrote in CNBC. “The two entities were paid for the couple’s book deals and speaking gigs. That mean any amounts the Bidens received as a distribution wasn’t subject to the 15.3% combined Social Security and Medicare tax. Here’s how it works. S-corporations pay their employee shareholders in two ways: wages and distributions. The S-corps reported another $3.2 million in income in 2018.”

In other words, on much of the income Joe and Jill Biden generated through the corporations they established to pay themselves—CelticCapri and Giacoppa are the names of the two so-called S-Corporations—they did not have to pay payroll taxes collected to fund Social Security and Medicare.

Those on the left are not happy with the Bidens over the hypocrisy, either. The Intercept’s Ryan Grim in 2019 noted Biden has used Delaware corporation laws to hide his financial information from the American people.

“The Bidens have used their home state’s financial privacy laws to shield his income from public view, by setting up two tax- and transparency-avoidance vehicles known as S corporations,” Grim wrote. “He and his wife Jill Biden called them CelticCapri Corp. and Giacoppa Corp., respectively, and, according to the Wall Street Journal, have reported more than $13 million in profits the previous two years that weren’t subject to specific disclosure or self-employment taxes. As CNBC has described, money Biden made from book deals and speeches flowed into the S corporations and was then remitted to Biden and his wife as ‘distributions’ rather than salary. When money is funneled through an S corporation, the recipient doesn’t owe Social Security or Medicare taxes on it, nor can the source of revenue be traced. (In addition to the distributions, the Bidens drew relatively small salaries from the S Corporations: under half a million dollars, for which they owed self-employment taxes.)”

What’s more, as Ryan Ellis from the Center for a Free Economy wrote in a Washington Examiner op-ed last year, the last budgets from the Barack Obama and Joe Biden administration called for an end to this loophole allowing S-Corporations to avoid payroll taxes.

That means Barack Obama, the former Democrat president of the United States, does not support what Biden has established in these S-Corporations to avoid payroll tax liability on millions of dollars in income.