Posted on March 7, 2013 by Royal Rosamond Press
Every adult needs to read about the friends of Ginni Thomas. She was very close with Tim Lahaye.
People all over the world who are sure they will not be “accepting Christ” should know Christ did not forgive St. Paul and make him the head of his religion. This is the Greatest Lie Ever Told. God would not create a schism in His church called ‘The Way’ that was already under attack before this evil serial killer was HIRED by pro-Roman Slavers. Paul is saying he TORTURED WOMEN “TO THEIR DEATH” . Would that torture include – BEING CRUCIFED?
“I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished” (Acts 22:4-5).
SCOTUS sicked the Evil Eye of Paul on the alleged enemies of Christ. Write your Senators and Congress and demand they investigate Ginni Thomas and Friends.
Ginni Thomas and The LaHayes
Posted on March 25, 2022 by Royal Rosamond Press
The spiritual battle I have been having with Tim and Beverly LaHayes has reached epic proportions with the revelation their compatriot, Gini Thoams, advocated the negation and reversal of a FAIR ELECTION! We are looking at Religious-Political Propaganda built upon the Fan Base of the Left Behind series, that is Christianized Terrorism. Imagine if Dan Brown had formed a think tank in Washington aimed at gathering a flock-block of loyal voters – then selling them to the highest bidder!
Paul said married couples should live as if they were NOT married, meaning, they should NOT engage is sexual activity of any kind!
29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do NOT;
Justice Alito said this…
Returning to religious freedom, Alito said that a challenge is to “convince people that religious liberty is worth defending if they don’t think that religion is a good thing that deserves protection.”
He said that such an effort could entail a focus on how religion promotes “domestic tranquility.”
“domestic tranquility.“domestic tranquility.“domestic tranquility.“domestic tranquility.“
What is this DRAFT DODGER talking about? Is he talking about MARRIED LIFE, or, life in the streets OF AMERICA – and not the streets of Communist Hanoi that was being bombed in the illegal war the U.S. declared. These are – GODLESS PEOPLE!
“don’t think that religion is a good thing don’t think that religion is a good thing’
Alito said that a challenge is to “convince people that religious liberty is worth defending
Ginni belonged to a cult, and studied cults. Was she against the war in Vietnam? How about her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas?
John Presco
Justice Alito Sees Dark DNA Attacking Christians | Rosamond Press
“Religious liberty is under attack in many places because it is dangerous to those who want to hold complete power,” Alito said. “It also probably grows out of something dark and deep in the human DNA – a tendency to distrust and dislike people who are not like ourselves,” he added.
Justice Kagan’s prescient warning for her Supreme Court colleagues — and America
Opinion by Jessica Levinson – 1h ago
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan, perhaps more than their colleagues, are acutely aware that the Supreme Court may be hurtling toward catastrophe. They know that if the court is viewed as illegitimate, it loses its authority.
If we lose faith in the court, it has no power to make us adhere to its decisions.
After a series of draft deferments in the Vietnam era and passing one physical examination for the service, Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas was classified 4-F as he was entering Yale Law School in the fall of 1971.
Thomas received the 4-F classification – meaning not qualified for military service – on Nov. 23, 1971, after a physical examination Sept. 8 disqualified him for service, according to the Selective Service System.The Selective Service System no longer keeps records documenting reasons for the classification, said Lew Brodsky, assistant director for public affairs.
Paul Against Married Fornicators
Posted on July 2, 2021 by Royal Rosamond Press
Paul taught his cult followers not to obey Mosaic Law which meant he was against ALL THE LAWS regarding TEMPLE WORSHIP. Paul hated ALL TEMPLE WORSHIP, yet the religion formed on his teaching, built the largest cathedrals in the world. Why did Pope Gregory keep the Julian calendar that names the months after gods and goddesses? Paul is teaching the world is about to end. Why keep a calendar with the month JULY, named after Julius Caesar THE SLAVE TAKER?
Paul said married couples should live as if they were NOT married, meaning, they should NOT engage is sexual activity of any kind!
29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do NOT;
When the world failed to end, this edict was revised, but not rescinded, which established a hierarchy of virgins, i.e. priests and nuns. This hierarchy put the self-castrated Paul at the top of the heap. The virginal invasion of our bedrooms is on! Today, the war against women stems from the masturbation cult of Lilith.
“Masturbation and “nocturnal emissions” were considered “polluting experiences.” As someone once said: “The seed must not go into the earth, but must go into the womb, because on the Last Day Lilith would collect this spilled semen and turn it into demons.”
Hmmm! “Last Day”
Indeed the court, and therefore our system of checks and balances, is in crisis, facing historically low approval ratings. That matters because the court lives or dies on its ability to command our respect. As Alexander Hamilton noted in the Federalist Papers, judges have “no influence over either the sword or the purse.” If we lose faith in the court, it has no power to make us adhere to its decisions.
Roberts and Kagan are not alone in openly worrying about the future of the court. The last of Donald Trump’s three nominees to the Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, voiced concern that the court is viewed as a partisan government body. Of course, Barrett’s nomination and confirmation did nothing but fan the flames of this perception problem. Trump nominated Barrett on the eve of the 2020 presidential election and she was confirmed after early voting had already begun. This happened four and a half years after Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, and Sen. Mitch McConnell and his colleagues denied Garland a hearing. As a result, a Supreme Court seat stood vacant for almost a full year. At the time, McConnell said Garland would not even have a confirmation hearing because it was too close to the presidential election
Obama nominated Garland in March 2016, eight months before the 2016 election. Trump nominated Barrett in late September 2020, five weeks before the 2020 election.
As many of us suspected, Roberts tried desperately to find a middle ground to prevent the Supreme Court from overturning Roe v. Wade, the case which explicitly held that the right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution. He failed. Kagan spoke at a judicial conference and delivered the message that judges must act like judges, not politicians. Both are acts of justices trying to keep the Supreme Court from sinking. Roberts is looking for gum to plug the holes, while Kagan is searching for buckets to throw the oncoming water overboard.
CNN’s Joan Biskupic wrote that Roberts tried and failed to garner the votes for a middle-ground approach that would have upheld Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortions, but also leave the right to obtain an abortion as protected by the Constitution untouched. Roberts’ efforts died when the draft opinion of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe was leaked to the press. Roberts almost certainly wanted to torpedo Roe. But, unlike his conservative colleagues, he didn’t want to sink the Supreme Court in the process, and therefore likely preferred to wait a few more years before erasing abortion protections from the Constitution.
Roberts is looking for gum to plug the holes, while Kagan is searching for buckets to throw the oncoming water overboard.
As Roberts said in 2006, “If it is not necessary to decide more to a case, then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case.” He wants to get to the same place as the other five conservative members of the court; he just wants to get there more slowly so that the court looks like it is deciding cases as opposed to pushing personal views.
Roberts knows it’s a bad look for the court to create major changes in the law because its membership has changed. But the law on abortion rights did change because the composition of the court changed. The court overturned Roe because it had the votes to do so after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and Trump filled her seat with Barrett. If Biden had filled Ginsburg’s seat, Roe would almost certainly still be the law of the land. Justice Sonia Sotomayor hammered on this point during oral arguments in the Dobbs case back in December 2021, when it became clear the court was poised to overturn Roe. “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible,” Sotomayor said.
Loaded: 0.00%Play
Ad – Up Next “Jim Obergefell on the future of same-sex marriage: ‘The fact that it’s the law of the land today does not mean it will be tomorrow.'”SDUnmute
0
Jim Obergefell on the future of same-sex marriage: ‘The fact that it’s the law of the land today does not mean it will be tomorrow.’
And this brings us straight to Kagan’s urgent warning about the legitimacy of the court. Maintaining that legitimacy does not mean agreeing with public sentiment all of the time. It is a feature, not a bug, that the judiciary will sometimes make decisions that are unpopular. We want them to do this. Really, we do. It is the court’s job to make sure that our politician branches are not trampling on individual rights and/or the rights of unpopular minorities. But, as Kagan explicitly stated in her remarks, neither can the court become entirely unmoored from public sentiment.
Kagan didn’t just speak in platitudes or wax poetic about the importance of maintaining public confidence in the court. She gave us, and her colleagues, a roadmap for how to do that.
First, the court must, whenever possible, adhere to its prior decisions. This is known as respect for the doctrine of stare decisis. If the court respects its prior decisions, the court appears to be, well, acting like a court, instead of a group of people who are trying to ram their political or partisan preferences down our throats. Second, justices must pick a methodology and stick to it, regardless of whether that justice personally likes the outcome of a decision. Kagan’s point here is that you can wake up and be a textualist on Tuesday and then an originalist on Wednesday because that allows you to get to your desired outcomes. Third, the court should remember that slow and steady wins the race. The court must decide only the issues before it, no less, and certainly no more. These cases may allow justices to get to their preferred conclusions more quickly, but it also makes the justices look like political actors eager for a win, as opposed to judges deciding cases.
The waves are getting higher. The ship is getting leakier. And we are damn near out of life vests. We are no longer nearing a crisis in confidence regarding the Supreme Court — we are already there. Our government depends on three functioning branches of government. The court should follow Kagan’s, and
Stop Following Paul ‘The Demon’
Posted on July 2, 2021 by Royal Rosamond Press
In the most autobiographical of his writings, Paul speaks to the Galatians,”
You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. Gal 1:13 (NRSV)
In neither instance, does Paul offer a clue as to what he did, exactly, or why he did it.
This is why Paul sent the letter….He knew many would NOT BUY IT, and they would PROTEST calling Paul ‘The Evil Liar of Satan’. Saul-Paul would have those protestors MURDERED! This tactic – became the Christian religion. Paul had successfully SEIZED the world wide web, got everyone’s attention. Luke is INSERTING his Pet Demon – IN THE TORAH! Paul needs to be put on trial by top rate scholars – and defended by his followers – in a televised trial! How many young people know about this SERIAL-KILLER who says he got written permission from the high priest of the Jews to go INTO FOREIGN LANDS and arrest people. This is – A BIG LIE!
“I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished” (Acts 22:4-5).
Paul has got hold of letters that were sent to followers in Damascus, or, sent from them. Did he intercept a carrier, or, threaten to throw their children in boiling oil unless they produce these cherished, historic, letters? Paul invented anti-Semitism. Converts had to wonder if THE GOD OF THE JEWS wanted Saul-Paul to be a Jewish Demon, and thus, Jesus had to become GOD.
Jesus did not blind Paul on the road to Damascus in a demonic ritual that anoints him the head of GOD’S NEW RELIGION! How can anyone believe God, or, Jesus, would favor a murderer of members of the FIRST CHURCH – the head of that church! Are you – MAD?
He then tells worshippers of THE GODDESS they are going to burn in hell if they do not FOLLOW THE CHARLIE MANSON of his day!
“Do not follow Diana the Demon! Follow me, THE REFORMED SERIAL KILLER of women, who tortured them in order to get them to “denounce their Lord!”
Timothy has a mad man attack the disciples of John in Ephesus which is a Trumpian tactic to get all his followers to hurt NON-BELIEVERS! Tiny Timmy – the slimy sadist! These two are Satan’s Usurpers. John was born with the Holy Spirit, and gifted it to everyone he Baptized. Followers, and Priestesses of the Goddess – saw right through these Satanic Liars. The Catholic church will conduct a WAR ON WOMEN for two thousand years – that is still going on!
I do not believe Paul traveled anywhere! He wrote his lies in his Roman palace. He was paid to destroy many religions. Rome would have had him arrested as a trouble maker defiling the temple to Artemes with a cock&bull deviation of the Judaic religion.
Jesus will not return – until the real Anti-Christ is exposed and deposed! Wake up!
John ‘The Nazarite’
“During Paul’s third missionary journey, he encountered some men who are described as “disciples” who had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Luke recounts the incident: “Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ They answered, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ So Paul asked, ‘Then what baptism did you receive?’ ‘John’s baptism,’ they replied. Paul said, ‘John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.’ On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all” (Acts 19:1–7).
Why had the disciples in Ephesus not received the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1-7)? | GotQuestions.org
Paul Persecuted “The Church of God”
Posted on March 7, 2013 by Royal Rosamond Press
Paul never says he hunted down Nazarenes, or rebels from Nazareth. Why? Surely he knew what they were called because he knew everything about them as any detective on a case would. He arrested married women of men of “the Way” as he called the first church. How did he know them? Did they have real long hair and beards? Surely Paul had his spies about the land – if not all over the world!
Paul calls the first church “The Church of God”. Why would he call them that if they were just poor rebels from a town that did not exist? Paul tortured women in order to get more names of members of God’s Church. Why was he allowed to commit such a sin against a devout Jewish woman. Forget about that adulteress ditty!
Jon Presco
Copyright 2013
Saul of Tarsus hated Christians. He made it his goal to capture, then bring Christians to public trial and execution. Saul was present when the first Christian martyr (named Stephen) was killed by an angry mob.
“… they all rushed at him (Stephen), dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. . . . And Saul was there, giving approval to his death” (Acts 7.57 to 8:1).
After Stephen was martyred, Saul went door to door in Jerusalem finding people who believed that Jesus is the Messiah.
“Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison” (Acts 8:3).
After putting these people in prison, Saul learned about their Christian friends in Damascus by somehow getting letters from the prisoners.
“I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished” (Acts 22:4-5).
But something happened to Saul as he traveled to Damascus in search of Christians. According to Saul of Tarsus, God appeared to him in an unexpected way.
“About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, `Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’ ” `Who are you, Lord?’ I asked. “`I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. ” `What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked. ” `Get up,’ the Lord said, `and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me” (Acts 22:6-11).
When I wrote my historical novel about Paul the apostle (A Wretched Man), I wrestled with some thorny historical questions, including this one. Last month, I was asked to read and review Bart Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist. I once again encountered the question, and I found Ehrman’s answer to be less than convincing.
First, some background. Paul twice mentioned his role as persecutor but without any details. As with much of his writing, Paul assumed his listeners already knew the story so he didn’t elaborate. Paul wrote to the Corinthians,
For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 1 Cor 15:9 (NRSV)
In the most autobiographical of his writings, Paul speaks to the Galatians,
You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. Gal 1:13 (NRSV)
In neither instance, does Paul offer a clue as to what he did, exactly, or why he did it.
Of course, the Acts of the Apostles goes into much greater detail: Jerusalem persecution, stoning of Stephen, sent to Damascus by the High Priest to arrest the followers of Jesus, etc.
The common assumption is that Paul persecuted the early followers of Jesus because they claimed he was the long-expected messiah. Does that really make sense? Why would such a claim have been offensive to Paul or the Hebrew populace? While that may have been the reason why the Romans and their puppets, the High Priest and his crowd, feared Jesus and caused his execution, that hardly explains why Paul and the populace would have persecuted his followers after his death.
Ehrman initially agrees,
There was nothing blasphemous about calling a Jewish teacher the messiah. That happened on and off throughout the history of Judaism, and it still happens in our day. In itself, the claim that someone is the messiah is not blasphemous or, necessarily, problematic (though it may strike outsiders—and usually does—as a bit crazed).
This statement strikes me as eminently reasonable and debunks the traditional assumption that the early church was persecuted because they claimed Jesus had been the messiah. There has to be more to it.
Ehrman’s response is that the claim that Jesus was the crucified messiah is what greatly offended Paul and the others, because no strain of traditional Jewish messianic expectations suggested a crucified messiah. While that may well be true, I fail to see the offense. Here is where I part with Ehrman. If anything, such a claim would only make its proponents sound even crazier but hardly blasphemous to the point of widespread persecution and arrest.
Back to Stephen.
What did Stephen do or say that caused his arrest and execution? Why did they “stir up the people against him”? Because he spoke “blasphemous words against God and Moses,” “against this holy place and the law,” and because he said that Jesus would “destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses handed down.”
No where was there any complaint that he claimed Jesus was the messiah, crucified or not. The charges against him were that he denied the basic tenets of Hebrew religion … adherence to the law of Moses and temple sacrifice. In Stephen’s long speech to the Sanhedrin, he concluded,
“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears … You are the ones that received the law as ordained by angels, and yet you have not kept it.”
There could be no greater offense than to question circumcision and failure to keep the law. Stephen challenged the basic Hebrew self-understanding and thus their standing before God. To a devout Pharisee, zealous for the law, as Paul claimed to be, this was the crux of the matter. This would also tie in closely with Paul’s Damascus road experience, in which his life took a 180 degree turn away from zealotry for the law to his law-free gospel message. Furthermore, it also ties in with the ongoing conflict between Paul and the “mother church” back in Jerusalem over the requirements of circumcision and dietary niceties.
That’s my answer, Professor Ehrman’s opinion notwithstanding, and that was also the answer I proposed in the Wretched Man novel.
Rosamond Press 