“I have come for sinners”

Posted on December 3, 2017 by Royal Rosamond Press

 ^“To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.”

Jesus made a strange statement that took me fifteen years to solve the riddle in it.

“I have come, not to get the upright, but sinners, so that they may be turned from their sins. ”

The Liberal Jesus

A Discourse

by

John Presco

Let me begin by saying…..I TOLD YOU SO! Secondly…..much of the Jesus’ teaching might in truth be the teaching of John the Baptist. Jesus was…….A KING! He was not God’s Son. To be a king was to be a co-sovereign and ruler of The Children of God. The God of the Jews did not begot a son in order to replace Himself.

Here is an article that claims Clarence Thomas told an aid he is on a mission to make the lives of Liberals – MISERABLE! You can say Donald Trump – went on the same crusade! Trump Junior just claimed women will now suffer because Obama insulted his father. These Republican men USED the Christian-right – AND THE SON OF GOD – to reap revenge. Both men were ACCUSED BY WOMEN of being sexually abusive. The liberals, and their press, did not INVENT these accusations. Clarence Thomas, and Donald Trump, a Supreme Court Justice, and a President of the United States – USED AND WEAPONIZED UNBORN FETESUS to exact revenge on adult men and women. They USE pregnant women. Once again – THEY ABUSE WOMEN – and this is what I and God accuse them of, and, they will be tried by God and His Prophet.

For fifteen years I have blogged on Paul Weyrich being THE INVENTOR of the fake Abortion Crisis order to weaken THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMONT. He did this because The Government took away the tax exempt status of Bob Jones University for BANNING MIXED RACE COUPLES on campus. Clarence Thomas is in a mixed-race marriage. If he and Ginni were lovers attending Bob Jones University, and they held hands while walking around campus – THEY WOULD BE CAST OUT!

A Black Supreme Court Judge has betrayed the Black Race and the Civil Rights Movement, because he got caught sexually abusing a woman. Donald Trump betrayed his country – and conducted a coup. He knows the women he abused will come out with books – once he is out of power! Here is how the Liberal-radical left reacted in Eugene. Sounds like the second generation of Alleybellites.

10 Arrested in Eugene Protest Over Abortion Ruling | Oregon News | US News

Did I declare I would take Jesus from Christians – if Christians took away the right for women to do what they will with their bodies. So be it. IT IS DONE!

Twenty years ago I found a book at the University of Oregon Library that listed rulings by the Sanhedrin -, the Highest Court of God’s Kingdom. This court did away with the Jubilee about fifty years before the birth of Jesus and John. Jesus declares has come to RESTORE the Jubilee, where every fifty years GOD HIMSELF sit on The Mercy Seat and shows himself to his people. Where is this Throne of the Lord? The other ruling states that all children born with a defect ARE BORN SINNERS that were JUDGED BY GOD WHILE IN THIER MOTHER’S WOMB, and thus – no rabbi should minister to them.

Today, the Supreme Court is that old Sanhedrin – reborn! For thirty years I have looked at the real possibility Jesus was born with a club foot, a genetic trait in the linage of David and the House of Judah. Why has no Christian scholar, leader, supreme judge, and Roman-like fake Christian president, discovered this truth?

I told the five sisters that were in my home, that timing in everything. I bid the Mormon Trail of John to build the Ark and Mercy Seat, and put it in the new temple that is going to be built near me. Put up – or shut up! We no longer have a Nation, a Rule of Law – or a National Religion – but the one I ordain!

Take it…..or leave it!

Imagine a mother going to the synagogue with her two year old daughter who was born with deformed legs, A guard blocks the door.

“You and your child are not welcome anymore. Go away!”

The rich Jews were bringing their rich Greek and Roman friends to the synagogues. Many wanted to convert. But, they did not want to get close to the lame and their sorrowful mothers who were making pitiful sacrifices, while rich Romans made wonderful offerings at the altar.

Then appear a man, a rabbi….

“I will minister to you and your child.”

Sanhedrin – Wikipedia

Fake religious hypocrites have divided the people of America, and made the unborn – sacred to their cult. They offer NO PROOF, or evidence. I and God – do! You are welcome to use this discourse in a class lawsuit. Clarence Thomas and his wife USED dead fetuses, the unborn, and women who are traumatized when considering getting a abortion to exact revenge in order TO HURT THE LIBERALS! These is monstrous! They could care less. The REAL GOD………cares!

Oh, did I tell you the Sanhedrin did away with the Judging of the Sotah, the woman accused of adultery? The wealthy Jews did not want their Roman buddies to see allot of whores crawling around, seeking…..mercy.

Thomas is thinking about going after same sex marriage. I highly suggest his allies in high places build the Ark as GOD INSTRUCTED in the Old Testament, and leave gay folk alone.

John Presco ‘The Nazarite’

“They still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. ¹⁹ “Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?”

“Violates our rights as Jews to freely practice our religion” • “A direct violation of American values and Jewish tradition”

American Jews ‘outraged’ over Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade overturn – The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)

Clarence Thomas Told His Clerks He Wants to Make Liberals Miserable (businessinsider.com)

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks he intended to serve on the highest court of the land to make the lives of liberals “miserable,” according to a 1993 report from The New York Times. 

Thomas, who was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1991 amid contentious confirmation hearings, resented the media coverage surrounding his appointment. Central to the hearings were accusations and testimony about alleged sexual harassment of one of his subordinates, Anita Hill, who accused the justice of repeated, unwanted sexual advances and inappropriate conduct in the workplace.

He was ultimately confirmed in a 52-48 vote. 

• Donald Trump Jr. suggested the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade because Obama made fun of his father.
• Obama poked fun at Trump for hyping the “birther” conspiracy theory at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
• Trump was reported to have been furious with Obama over the jokes.

Donald Trump Jr. suggested Roe v. Wade was overturned as a direct result of Obama making fun of his father in 2011 (msn.com)

WASHINGTON — Weeks of sustained, high-profile discussion about Donald Trump’s attempt to overthrow democracy may not change the minds of his devoted followers, but they could well thwart Trump’s efforts to delegitimize criminal charges that prosecutors might wind up filing against him.Jan. 6 Hearings Could Stymie Trump’s Attempt To Delegitimize Criminal Charges (msn.com)

Leviticus 19:18
Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against any of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Deuteronomy 32:35
Vengeance is Mine; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; for their day of disaster is near, and their doom is coming quickly.”

According to a report from Jonathan Swan over the differing ways that Donald Trump and former vice president Mike Pence celebrated the Supreme Court’s controversial gutting of Roe v. Wade, the Axios correspondent claimed the former president was muted in his response because he still bears a grudge against conservative members of the court.

When the decision was announced Pence’s team was already armed with a video of Trump’s former running mate praising the ruling to the high heavens that stripped women of their right to get an abortion based upon where they live. On top of that, Pence made the case that he would like to go even further and see a nationwide ban put in place by a, presumably, Republican Congress.

In 1974, the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, then president of the University of Notre Dame, warned Roman Catholics against ceding the abortion debate to “crude zealots who have neither good judgment, sophistication of procedure nor the modicum of civility needed for the rational discussion of disagreements in a pluralistic democracy.”

This week, the “crude zealots” won. America’s Catholic bishops are doing a victory lap over this decision. Four of the five justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade were conservative Catholics. (Chief Justice John Roberts, also a conservative Catholic, voted to uphold the Mississippi abortion ban at issue in the Dobbs case, but did not support overturning Roe outright.)

The bishops have been pushing for the overturn of Roe for decades, and many of them were glad to overlook Donald Trump’s moral lapses because he declared himself anti-abortion. In his single term (at least so far), Trump, with the help of then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, kept his promise and larded the court with three conservative justices eager to reverse 50 years of court precedent. 

Mormon Trail Of John | Rosamond Press

The Rise of The Two Witnesses | Rosamond Press

The Ark was housed in the tabernacle where Israelites brought offerings to God. Before God gave instructions to build the tabernacle, he told Moses “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8). Part of the sanctuary included the Ark of the Covenant which had an atonement cover. Two angels sat on top of the chest’s cover, with a Mercy Seat in between them. The Lord said he would come to the Mercy Seat to give the Israelites the commandments.

God came to the Ark when priests were present. They carried the sacred object with poles. Because of his holy nature, the priests would die if they touched the place God resides. Crosswalk.com explains “The reason for this is because God’s glory and presence cannot be touched by man. Our sinful natures cause us to keel over if we come into the presence of the Lord, without the Holy Spirit residing within us.” As mentioned above, because these traditions took place in the Old Testament before the birth and death of Jesus, the Israelites did not have direct access to the Holy Spirit.

The Ark of the Covenant – Bible Story and Meaning (biblestudytools.com)

Mercy Seat Meaning – What Was This on the Ark (crosswalk.com)

CBS News poll: Americans react to overturning of Roe v. Wade (msn.com)

10 Arrested in Eugene Protest Over Abortion Ruling | Oregon News | US News

EUGENE, Ore. (AP) — Police in Eugene say 10 people were arrested during a Friday night protest following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade.

The arrests were mostly for disorderly conduct, Portland television station KOIN reported. The protest started as a gathering near an anti-abortion-focused pregnancy center and grew to about 75 people, the Eugene Police Department said. It drew a heavy response from local law enforcement.

CBS News poll: Americans react to overturning of Roe v. Wade

Jennifer De Pinto – 46m ago

React|105

The American public is rendering its initial judgment on the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and most disapprove of the ruling, including two-thirds of women who disapprove. 

By more than a 20-point margin, Americans call it a step backward rather than forward for America. And women, by more than three to one, think the ruling will make women’s lives worse rather than better. 

Those who approve — and in particular, the three-fourths of conservatives who do — say they feel both hopeful and happy. 

As they look ahead, those disapproving of Friday’s ruling are especially likely to think the high court might someday limit or end birth control and also same-sex marriage.

The Racist Anti-Abortion Prophets

Posted on February 19, 2012 by Royal Rosamond Press

The holy war against the Federal Government and abortionists began when Bob Jones University was going to lose its tax exemption for practicing racism. White Baptists went looking for a moral issue they could use as a club against the Feds and the Civil Rights Movement. Abortion was always a tragic moral issue. These evil white men grabbed the unborn and came out swinging with the pure intent of turning back the gains my kindred made, and the Jubilee Revolution of Martin Luther King.

Jon Presco

“This makes all the more outrageous the occasional attempts by leaders of the Religious Right to portray themselves as the “new abolitionists” in an effort to link their campaign against abortion to the nineteenth century crusade against slavery.

The IRS sought to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University in 1975 because the school’s regulations forbade interracial dating; African Americans, in fact, had been denied admission altogether until 1971, and it took another four years before unmarried African Americans were allowed to enroll. The university filed suit to retain its tax-exempt status, although that suit would not reach the Supreme Court until 1983 (at which time, the Reagan administration argued in favor of Bob Jones University).

‘Thy Kingdom Come’
by Randall Balmer

In the 1980s, in order to solidify their shift from divorce to abortion, the Religious Right constructed an abortion myth, one accepted by most Americans as true. Simply put, the abortion myth is this: Leaders of the Religious Right would have us believe that their movement began in direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Politically conservative evangelical leaders were so morally outraged by the ruling that they instantly shed their apolitical stupor in order to mobilize politically in defense of the sanctity of life. Most of these leaders did so reluctantly and at great personal sacrifice, risking the obloquy of their congregants and the contempt of liberals and “secular humanists,” who were trying their best to ruin America. But these selfless, courageous leaders of the Religious Right, inspired by the opponents of slavery in the nineteenth century, trudged dutifully into battle in order to defend those innocent unborn children, newly endangered by the Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision.

It’s a compelling story, no question about it. Except for one thing: It isn’t true.

Although various Roman Catholic groups denounced the ruling, and Christianity Today complained that the Roe decision “runs counter to the moral teachings of Christianity through the ages but also to the moral sense of the American people,” the vast majority of evangelical leaders said virtually nothing about it; many of those who did comment actually applauded the decision. W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press wrote, “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision.” Indeed, even before the Roe decision, the messengers (delegates) to the 1971 Southern Baptist Convention gathering in St. Louis, Missouri, adopted a resolution that stated, “we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” W.A. Criswell, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, expressed his satisfaction with the Roe v. Wade ruling. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” the redoubtable fundamentalist declared, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

The Religious Right’s self-portrayal as mobilizing in response to the Roe decision was so pervasive among evangelicals that few questioned it. But my attendance at an unusual gathering in Washington, D.C., finally alerted me to the abortion myth. In November

1990, for reasons that I still don’t entirely understand, I was invited to attend a conference in Washington sponsored by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Religious Right organization (though I didn’t realize it at the time). I soon found myself in a conference room with a couple of dozen people, including Ralph Reed, then head of the Christian Coalition; Carl F. H. Henry, an evangelical theologian; Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family; Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association; Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Edward G. Dobson, pastor of an evangelical church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and formerly one of Jerry Falwell’s acolytes at Moral Majority. Paul M. Weyrich, a longtime conservative activist, head of what is now called the Free Congress Foundation, and one of the architects of the Religious Right in the late 1970s, was also there.

In the course of one of the sessions, Weyrich tried to make a point to his Religious Right brethren (no women attended the conference, as I recall). Let’s remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies.

Bob Jones University was one target of a broader attempt by the federal government to enforce the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Several agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, had sought to penalize schools for failure to abide by antisegregation provisions. A court case in 1972, Green v. Connally, produced a ruling that any institution that practiced segregation was not, by definition, a charitable institution and, therefore, no longer qualified for tax-exempt standing.

The IRS sought to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University in 1975 because the school’s regulations forbade interracial dating; African Americans, in fact, had been denied admission altogether until 1971, and it took another four years before unmarried African Americans were allowed to enroll. The university filed suit to retain its tax-exempt status, although that suit would not reach the Supreme Court until 1983 (at which time, the Reagan administration argued in favor of Bob Jones University).

Initially, I found Weyrich’s admission jarring. He declared, in effect, that the origins of the Religious Right lay in Green v. Connally rather than Roe v. Wade. I quickly concluded, however, that his story made a great deal of sense. When I was growing up within the evangelical subculture, there was an unmistakably defensive cast to evangelicalism. I recall many presidents of colleges or Bible institutes coming through our churches to recruit students and to raise money. One of their recurrent themes was,We don’t accept federal money, so the government can’t tell us how to run our shop—whom to hire or fire or what kind of rules to live by. The IRS attempt to deny tax-exempt status to segregated private schools, then, represented an assault on the evangelical subculture, something that raised an alarm among many evangelical leaders, who mobilized against it.

For his part, Weyrich saw the evangelical discontent over the Bob Jones case as the opening he was looking for to start a new conservative movement using evangelicals as foot soldiers. Although both the Green decision of 1972 and the IRS action against Bob Jones University in 1975 predated Jimmy Carter’s presidency, Weyrich succeeded in blaming Carter for efforts to revoke the taxexempt status of segregated Christian schools. He recruited James Dobson and Jerry Falwell to the cause, the latter of whom complained, “In some states it’s easier to open a massage parlor than to open a Christian school.”

Weyrich, whose conservative activism dates at least as far back as the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964, had been trying for years to energize evangelical voters over school prayer, abortion, or the proposed equal rights amendment to the Constitution. “I was

trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” he recalled in an interview in the early 1990s. “What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.”

During the meeting in Washington, D.C., Weyrich went on to characterize the leaders of the Religious Right as reluctant to take up the abortion cause even close to a decade after the Roe ruling. “I had discussions with all the leading lights of the movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s, post–Roe v. Wade,” he said, “and they were all arguing that that decision was one more reason why Christians had to isolate themselves from the rest of the world.”

“What caused the movement to surface,” Weyrich reiterated,”was the federal government’s moves against Christian schools.” The IRS threat against segregated schools, he said, “enraged the Christian community.” That, not abortion, according to Weyrich, was what galvanized politically conservative evangelicals into the Religious Right and goaded them into action. “It was not the other things,” he said.

Ed Dobson, Falwell’s erstwhile associate, corroborated Weyrich’s account during the ensuing discussion. “The Religious New Right did not start because of a concern about abortion,” Dobson said. “I sat in the non-smoke-filled back room with the Moral Majority, and I frankly do not remember abortion ever being mentioned as a reason why we ought to do something.”

During the following break in the conference proceedings, I cornered Weyrich to make sure I had heard him correctly. He was adamant that, yes, the 1975 action by the IRS against Bob Jones University was responsible for the genesis of the Religious Right in

the late 1970s. What about abortion? After mobilizing to defend Bob Jones University and its racially discriminatory policies, Weyrich said, these evangelical leaders held a conference call to discuss strategy. He recalled that someone suggested that they had

the makings of a broader political movement—something that Weyrich had been pushing for all along—and asked what other issues they might address. Several callers made suggestions, and then, according to Weyrich, a voice on the end of one of the lines said, “How about abortion?” And that is how abortion was cobbled into the political agenda of the Religious Right.

The abortion myth serves as a convenient fiction because it suggests noble and altruistic motives behind the formation of the Religious Right. But it is highly disingenuous and renders absurd the argument of the leaders of Religious Right that, in defending the rights of the unborn, they are the “new abolitionists.” The Religious Right arose as a political movement for the purpose, effectively, of defending racial discrimination at Bob Jones University and at other segregated schools. Whereas evangelical abolitionists of the nineteenth century sought freedom for African Americans, the Religious Right of the late twentieth century organized to perpetuate racial discrimination. Sadly, the Religious Right has no legitimate claim to the mantle of the abolitionist crusaders of the nineteenth century. White evangelicals were conspicuous by their absence in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Where were Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham on August 28, 1963, during the March on Washington or on Sunday, March 7, 1965, when Martin Luther King Jr. and religious leaders from other traditions linked arms on the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, to stare down the ugly face of racism?

Falwell and others who eventually became leaders of the Religious Right, in fact, explicitly condemned the civil rights movement. “Believing the Bible as I do,” Falwell proclaimed in 1965, “I would find it impossible to stop preaching the pure saving gospel

of Jesus Christ, and begin doing anything else—including fighting Communism, or participating in civil-rights reforms.” This makes all the more outrageous the occasional attempts by leaders of the Religious Right to portray themselves as the “new abolitionists” in an effort to link their campaign against abortion to the nineteenth century crusade against slavery.

Weyrich Says Jews Murdered Jesus

Posted on February 19, 2012 by Royal Rosamond Press

“Last week, Paul Weyrich, head of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, circulated an Easter commentary stating in part that “Christ was crucified by the Jews.” Weyrich said the Jews wanted a “temporal ruler” to save them from the Roman authorities but instead were confronted with a “spiritual ruler,” whom they “considered … a threat.” For that reason, Weyrich concluded, Jesus “was put to death.”

A “spiritual ruler”? of whom, the Gentiles? Everything Jesus says is applicable to the teaching of the Jews. Why would Gentiles understand his parables? Did they read the Torah since childhood, and thus understood what passages Jesus was referring to?

NO!

The problem with Weyrich’s accusation, is that most Christians believe the GOD OF THE JEWS arranged Jesus’ death for the salvation of Gentiles – ONLY! Does not compute! This is why the Moral Majority abandoned Jesus on the cross, and took up an aborted fetus. Their core teaching is untenable for the simple reason Jesus’ parents were Jews, and his mother is the center alterpiece for the Catholic Religion in Rome. Mary died a Jew, and would be shocked to learn that her expectations for her son – have been utterly subverted!

Consider ‘Mary’s Song’. Surely this Jew who was visited by a Jewish – not Gentile angel – was a prophet who could fortell the future, and who would have been norrifed to see Saul-Paul inherit her dream.

Saint Paul was discribed, thus: He was 5ft tall, bowlegged with a big beaked nose and uni-brow. He was bald on top with tufts of wirey hair shooting out over his big ears. Now look at the image of the infant Jesus above. That’s an Aryan baby invented by Paul who admits to all but destroying Mary’s original church. It WAS her church, the Church of the Horn of Salvation and Atonement!

horn of salvation A horn is a sign of power (Deut. 33: 17)—literally of an ox (Num. 23: 22) or metaphorically of a people (1 Kgs. 22: 11). In Dan. 7: 8 the horns refer metaphorically to kings. So the ‘horn of salvation’ (Ps. 18: 2) indicates the saving power of the king. The four horns on the corners of altars (Exod. 27: 2) afforded sanctuary to a fugitive who clung to them. The horn of salvation in Luke 1: 69 (NRSV marg., AV) denotes royal saving power, now belonging to the Messiah.

The placing of the blood upon the four horns of the altars was designed to teach an important lesson in regard to the atonement for sin, and the Day of Atonement. It is through the blood of the sin offering that the sin was transferred from the sinner to the sanctuary. Why is the blood of the sin offerings transferred specifically to the four horns? What does a horn symbolize? Why are there four horns?

“He said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer, the God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the HORN of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my SAVIOUR thou savest me from violence.” 2 Samuel 22:2-3.

Sounds to me Jesus was the Rock – and not Peter – who was susposed to be the founder of the Catholic religion, but, is usurped by Satan Saul who said he was “the Pharisee of Pharisees”
Satan knew all the rules, and altered the original teaching – and puts himself in Jesus’ shoes!

Jon the Nazarite

“Thus some scholars have advocated substituting the terms “the authorities” or “the Temple leaders” for the collective term “the Jews” in the Gospels. Some Christian theologians have also stressed the importance of passages that can be interpreted to suggest that God himself arranged for Jesus’ death as atonement for humanity’s sins. From this perspective, dwelling on which temporal agent was responsible for Jesus’ death diverts attention from God’s design.”

Meanwhile, the New York Times Magazine featured an article in which New York Knicks point guard Charlie Ward was quoted as telling a Jewish reporter, “Jews are stubborn. … But tell me, why did they persecute Jesus unless he knew something they didn’t want to accept? … They had his blood on their hands.” When pressed to defend himself against charges of anti-Semitism, Ward told reporters, “If you want to read abut it, it’s in the Book of John or any of the Gospels. I’m just the messenger.”

Are Ward and Weyrich right? They do have textual support from the Gospels. In the Gospel of John, the phrase “the Jews” is used at least nine times to denote those who encouraged and assisted in Jesus’ execution. In the Book of Matthew (27: 25-26) the Jews accept responsibility for the execution. When the Roman governor Pontius Pilate hesitates over deciding Jesus’ fate, the Jews assembled before Pilate demand that Jesus be crucified, proclaiming “His blood be on us, and on our children.”

But are the Gospels accurate? Recent biblical scholarship has challenged them in light of the context in which they were composed. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written some 40 to 70 years after the crucifixion (which occurred around 30 C.E.). At that time, the nascent Christian sect was trying to distinguish itself from its Jewish roots for two reasons. First, the Christians wanted to attract gentile converts. Second, because the Jews were rebelling against the Romans, a repudiation of Christian kinship with the Jews could be politically advantageous. It is for these reasons, the scholars argue, that the Gospels 1) assign primary blame to the Jews, not the Romans; and 2) sympathetically portray Pilate, who is described in other ancient texts as a cruel despot. Additionally, many scholars have stressed Jesus’ identity as a political subversive, which would explain why the Romans chose a means of execution, crucifixion, usually reserved for insurrectionists.

The small clique of Jewish authorities who were in league with the Romans does share responsibility for killing Jesus. But these authorities were distinct from the majority of the Jewish people, who had rallied around the charismatic figure. Thus some scholars have advocated substituting the terms “the authorities” or “the Temple leaders” for the collective term “the Jews” in the Gospels. Some Christian theologians have also stressed the importance of passages that can be interpreted to suggest that God himself arranged for Jesus’ death as atonement for humanity’s sins. From this perspective, dwelling on which temporal agent was responsible for Jesus’ death diverts attention from God’s design.

Several Christian denominations have denounced the claim that the Jews killed Christ. In 1965, the Second Vatican Council issued the Nostra Autate statement, which declare that “what happened in His [Jesus’] passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.” In 1964, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared, “We reject the charge of deicide against the Jews and condemn antisemitism.” Other denominations, including the Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Alliance of Baptists, while not explicitly addressing the charge of deicide, have issued statements regretting “interpreting our sacred writings in such a way that we have created enemies of the Jewish people.”

I have come for sinners”

Posted on December 3, 2017 by Royal Rosamond Press

 ^“To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.”

Jesus made a strange statement that took me fifteen years to solve the riddle in it.

“I have come, not to get the upright, but sinners, so that they may be turned from their sins. ”

When I began to study the Bible at fifty years of age I had no problem with looking at the teaching of the Jews. When I read the Sanhedrin made a law stating no Rabbi need minster to a man or woman premarked a sinner by God while inside their mother’s womb, I had found the key to Jesus’s miracles and Christianity. Jesus came to get rid of this law, and as a Go’El Redeemer put an end to INHERENT SIN FROM THE PARENTS. Jesus declared there were no longer any BORN SINNERS!

This is why Rabbi Jesus died on the cross. This transference of evil from adults to the unborn, was over. Note the father of the boy born blind fears he and his son will be thrown out of the synagogue if they testify Jesus healed this son. There is no death warrant for believing Jesus is the Messiah. This is why Jesus bids them not to tell anyone so they can remain in the Synagogue and be ministered to by a Rabbi.

John ‘The Nazarite’

Everything I write is protected by a special Copyright fashioned for Ministers. With the pending passing of the Tax Bill, that applies the MARK OF THE BEAST to the poor, and gives GOLD to the rich, GOD-L has given me a message to give unto you………

“You have broken my heart!”

“They still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. ¹⁹ “Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?”

²⁰ “We know he is our son,” the parents answered, “and we know he was born blind. ²¹ But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.” ²² His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. ²³ That was why his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”

Mark 7.36 expresses Jesus’ command to the witnesses not to tell anyone of the event that had taken place. This is not the only indication of secrecy in the Markan gospel; Mark 1.43-44, Mark 5.43 and Mark 7.24, and their synoptic counterparts (Matthew 8.4 and Luke 5.14 for 1.43-44, and Luke 8.56 for Mark 5.43) exhibit this also. There is evidence to suggest that these miracle stories and this command for secrecy was not directly to do with the messianic secret because the actual identity of Jesus is not an issue. Mark’s secrecy motif though indicates that the gospel writer did acknowledge these acts as works of the Messiah.[6]  This indicates a link between Jesus’ commands and the Messianic secret. It is possible that this was the originally use of these sayings, to provide a link between the identity of the Messiah and the acts that he performed.  When one considers redaction then Mark could have recorded the verses without their original sense (the link to the identity of the Messiah), if he chose to interpret them in a different way.

Jesus’ wish for secrecy appears obvious, but this assumes the attitude of Jesus based purely on his words and not on reaction.  With Jesus telling the people not to talk of the miracle, they talked more.  By this time Jesus would have surely been aware of the reaction people would have to his miracles and his commands.  Jesus’ intention could have been a form of reverse psychology which acted as a catalyst for the spread of the story.  This is though an issue of interpretation, attitude and redaction criticism which remains in contest.

Mark 7.31-3731.) Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.32.) There some people brought to him a man who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged him to place his hand on him.33.) After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man’s ears. Then he spat and touched the man’s tongue.34.) He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, “Ephphatha!” (which means, “Be opened!”).35.) At this, the man’s ears were opened, his tongue loosened and he began to speak plainly.36.) Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it.37.) People were overwhelmed with amazement. “He has done everything well,” they said. “He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”

Matthew 15.29-3129.) Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. Then he went up on a mountainside and sat down.30.) Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them.31.) The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel.

Luke 4.38-4438.) Jesus left the synagogue and went to the home of Simon. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Jesus to help her.39.) So he bent over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. She got up at once and began to wait on them.40.) When the sun was setting, the people brought to Jesus all who had various kinds of sickness, and laying his hands on each one, he healed them.41.) Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ.42.) At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them.43.) But he said, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.”44.) And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea.

Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind

9 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. ² His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

³ “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. ⁴ As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. ⁵ While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

⁶ After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. ⁷ “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

⁸ His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, “Isn’t this the same man who used to sit and beg?” ⁹ Some claimed that he was.

Others said, “No, he only looks like him.”

But he himself insisted, “I am the man.”

¹⁰ “How then were your eyes opened?” they asked.

¹¹ He replied, “The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.”

¹² “Where is this man?” they asked him.

“I don’t know,” he said.

The Pharisees Investigate the Healing

¹³ They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. ¹⁴ Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath. ¹⁵ Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. “He put mud on my eyes,” the man replied, “and I washed, and now I see.”

¹⁶ Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.”

But others asked, “How can a sinner perform such signs?” So they were divided.

¹⁷ Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.”

The man replied, “He is a prophet.”

¹⁸ They still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. ¹⁹ “Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?”

²⁰ “We know he is our son,” the parents answered, “and we know he was born blind. ²¹ But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.” ²² His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. ²³ That was why his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”

²⁴ A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. “Give glory to God by telling the truth,” they said. “We know this man is a sinner.”

²⁵ He replied, “Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”

²⁶ Then they asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?”

²⁷ He answered, “I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples too?”

²⁸ Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! ²⁹ We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.”

³⁰ The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. ³¹ We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. ³² Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. ³³ If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.”

³⁴ To this they replied, “You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.