Blogs I Follow
- May 2021
- April 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- September 2020
- June 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- August 2018
- July 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- May 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
Follow me on TwitterMy Tweets
Two sermons by a pastor from another church in Arizona, who preached on several cults, including Potter’s House. He preached on the subject because he wants to reach those within these organizations; not because he thinks he’s better than CFM.
Independent, Fundamental, KJV Bible Only, Soulwinning Baptist Preaching. Word of Truth Baptist Church in Prescott Valley, AZ. Pastor David Berzins. http://www.wordoftruthbaptist.org
Potters House Christian Church telling members to tithe or go to hell
This is the potters house Christian church who is known as a possible cult. These leaders and also the founder telling their congregation that if they do not tithe then they will go to hell
“The Potter’s House is an extremely wicked church doing the devil’s work. They are to be accursed for their false, works based salvation that they are spreading”
Behind the Door A series of newscasts concerning the Potter’s House also known as the Door.
Speaking in Tongues: a Learned behavior
Child Parotting Speaking in Tongues
The material explanation arrived at by a number of studies is that glossolalia is “learned behavior”. What is taught is the ability to produce language-like speech. This is only a partial explanation, but it is a part that has withstood much testing. It is possible to train novices to produce glossolalic speech. One experiment with 60 undergraduates found that 20% succeeded after merely listening to a 60-second sample, and 70% succeeded after training:
Our findings that glossolalia can be easily learned through direct instruction, along with demonstrations that tongue speakers can initiate and terminate glossolalia upon request and can exhibit glossolalia in the absence of any indexes of trance support the hypothesis that glossolalia utterances are goal-directed actions rather than involuntary happenings.
The admittedly fraudulent preacher Marjoe Gortner described in a 1977 interview how people learn glossolalia in a highly emotional religious setting.
“Tongues is something you learn,” he emphasized. “It is a releasing that you teach yourself. You are told by your peers, the church, and the Bible – if you accept it literally – that the Holy Ghost speaks in another tongue; you become convinced that it is the ultimate expression of the spirit flowing through you. The first time maybe you’ll just go dut-dut-dut-dut, and that’s about all that will get out. Then you’ll hear other people and next night you may go dut-dut-dut-UM-dut-DEET-dut-dut, and it gets a little better. The next thing you know, it’s ela-hando-satelay-eek-condele-mosandrey-aseya … and it’s a new language you’ve got down.”
That glossolalia can be learned is also seen in the traces left behind by teachers. An investigation by the Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn showed that the influence of a particular leader can shape a group’s glossolalia: where certain prominent glossolalists had visited, whole groups of glossolalists would speak in his style of speech.
Kavan found that most New Zealand Pentecostals and Charismatics did not experience trance except during the baptism of the spirit. However, meditators in a yoga-based purification group experienced frequent intense trances, of which glossolalia was an occasional manifestation. Kavan suggested that there are two types of glossolalia – spontaneous and context-dependent – and the former is more likely to occur in groups that are radical, experiential and charismatically led.
Pentecostals, members of the Assemblies of God churches, and some other charismatics usually place great emphasis on spiritual “gifts and manifestations, claiming that there is a special post-salvation gift/experience called the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” or “Second Blessing”, in which the Holy Spirit, in all His fullness, is poured out on the believer and that the initial evidence of this “Second Blessing” is speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
When someone is “overcome by the Spirit” they often begin speaking gibberish, wave their arms, or even fall writhing on the floor. Apparently the speaker is said to be possessed by the Holy Spirit with the person himself having no control over his own tongue, which is is usually taken as absolute proof that one has been baptized in the Spirit, a highly prized spiritual goal.
But if, as shown, tongues were a known language in the New Testament and there is absolutely no evidence to show that it was some form of ecstatic speech, and Paul instructed that everything was to be done decently and in order, where does the the unintelligible gibberish, jerking, twitching, falling on the floor etc. all come from? Is it even possible that the devil has substituted the true gift of tongues with a knock-off version? Has the allure of receiving some form of deeper spiritual experience deceived countless millions into accepting this counterfeit? –
When you realize what you’ve been taught the Bible says is not what the Bible says.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Paul is not talking about “scripture” being the Book of Catholicism aka The New Testament, IT HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN YET. He’s talking about the Tanakh (Tanach) the Hebrew Bible what the church calls “the Old Testament”, written in Herbrew, not one word of it has changed since given from Sinai 3300+ years ago. [lookup: Accuracy of Torah Text @ aish]
Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Examined the Scriptures? Bear in mind – The New Testament HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN YET. The Scriptures being examined was the Hebrew Bible, The Tanakh (Tanach)
The word “Torah” is derived from two Hebrew words:
Torah is the Hebrew word that means “instruction”.
The Lord your God is testing you
If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. Deuteronomy 13
A word from a former Pastor
“As a former church pastor and former messianic teacher, I offer to Christians a few observations and advice. First, you’ve been taught to view the world through the lens of your religion and to reject out-of-hand anything that conflicts or calls into question the Christian faith. You must find a way to undo this indoctrinated approach and seek truth for truth’s sake.
Learn the original language of the Hebrew Scriptures, at least well enough to look up words and cross-reference. Start with Genesis and work your way through giving no thought to the things you’ve been taught in the church, and without trying to “find Jesus” in the words. Before you dismiss that thought, consider this: Before the days of your book, this is how the Scriptures were studied.
Also, there are plenty of Jewish websites dedicated to answering Christianity’s teachings, and rabbis who will answer your questions (when asked respectfully, with a sincere desire for knowledge, not the desire to argue). There are videos on YouTube as well. Rabbi Tovia Singer has many videos that are presented to Christians in a spirit of love in a respectful and humble manner. There is also Rabbi Michael Skobac and Jews for Judaism. His teachings are more for Jews, so the presentation is a little different from that of Rabbi Singer’s but every bit as thorough. Both will provide you with a great starting point of learning the Hebrew Scriptures from a Jewish perspective.
I know that all seems a bit counter-intuitive given your ideology of a “great commission,” but it beats trying to tell Jews how they should interpret their Scriptures which they had for thousands of years before yours were ever conceived. If you have no interest in knowing how “the other side” thinks, then I recommend you stick to friends and groups who share your views.
I wish you well. Enjoy your learning! ~Kalev Ben Noach”
Gutman Locks answers fundamental questions about Judaism for Pastor Joel Kramer.
Rabbi Tovia Singer refuted Isaiah 9:6
“Religion is always in the control business -John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal bishop”
Jesus is Not the Jewish Messiah Part 1
Originally posted on A Jew With A View:
Let’s start by making a basic point:
Jews don’t read the ‘old testament’.
The OT is a Christian text. It was produced by the Church and it’s a reorganised, mistranslated, altered version of the Jewish Tanakh. The Tanakh represents the original Hebrew, Jewish texts. Jews follow the Tanakh and only the Tanakh.
Think about it this way: why would we, as Jews, describe our own texts as ‘old’…? There is no ‘new’ scripture for us. There is only the Tanakh.
Right, now we’ve got that out the way….!
This is a brief guide for both Jews and Gentiles, and hopefully it answers basic queries on the Jewish texts. Please feel very welcome to submit any questions.
The Jewish holy text is the Torah. This comprises the five books of Moses:
In every Synagogue across the world, the Torah appears in scroll form. For Jews, it is the direct word of G-d. Traditional Jewish belief is that G-d spoke to a huge gathering of Jews at Mount Sinai, and all present heard his voice. G-d dictated the Torah to Moses, who wrote it down.
This is the view of Orthodox Jews. Less religious Jews, members of Conservative and Reform Judaism, may not agree that the Torah comes from G-d, literally. Rather, they may argue that the Torah was compiled over a long period of time, with several authors. Some support for this idea comes from the different writing styles apparent throughout the five books.
Either way, all Jews recognise the Torah as their holy text, and all Jewish boys, and many Jewish girls, learn a portion of the Torah, in Hebrew, for their bar/bat mitzvahs.
The Torah is not something which can be taken literally, nor understood at face value. Jews believe that every single letter is full of meaning. In short, we view the Torah as a message written by G-d to us as Jews. The word ‘Torah’ means ‘instruction’. Thus the Torah is G-d’s instructions to us, for Within the Torah are the commandments and teachings of Judaism.
But the Torah is also a history book. It contains within it the earliest history of the Jews. So although we might not always take it literally, we hold that much of the Torah is essentially true.
The Oral Torah or Talmud
The actual word ‘Torah’ refers also to the Oral Torah, which was given along with the written Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai.
The Oral Torah comprises explanations of the written Torah, as well as extra bits of advice and wisdom offered by Moses.
Originally, Jews did not commit the Oral Torah to written form. Instead, it was taught by fathers to their sons, generation after generation. But eventually, the Jewish leaders realised that there was a risk of all the knowledge being lost, because Jews were being attacked and killed with increasing frequency.
So in the second century CE, the Jewish leader at that time, Judah HaNasi, wrote down a basic outline of the fundamental aspects of Oral Torah. This was then divided into six parts – known as the Mishnah (‘repetition’). This ratified the Oral tradition.
After this, over several generations, Rabbis and sages met to discuss and debate the Mishnah, to clarify its principles and to add other oral teachings that had been part of Judaism since Mount Sinai. These additions are known as the Gemara (‘completion’).
Together, the Mishnah and Gemara make up the TALMUD.
The Talmud, then, illuminates and clarifies the written Torah, the five books of Moses. The Talmud comprises a series of volumes, full of discussions and debates, rulings and proverbs, with some folklore and humour in addition. Almost every topic under the sun is covered, for the Talmud shows us how to apply Torah to life.
As one Jewish author puts it:
‘The Torah is G-d speaking to us. The Talmud is us answering!’
Frequently asked questions about Jewish texts:
Q: Is it true that there are insultings things written about Gentiles in the Talmud?
A: Sadly, this rumour appears to be a popular one. There is no truth whatsoever to it. The Talmud is primarily concerned with Jewish religious law and how to apply it. Where non Jews are mentioned, it is certainly not in a negative light at all. Judaism holds all humans as being equal. It makes no difference which faith a person follows. ‘Love thy neighbour’ is a Jewish teaching, found in the Torah thousands of years before Christianity also began using it.
Q: Is the ‘old testament’ the same thing as the Tanakh?
A: No. The ‘old testament’ is a purely Christian text. It was produced by the Church, thousands of years after the Tanakh. Some versions of the OT are very accurate and reliable. But some are not, and in these we find significant mistranslations and misinterpretations of the original Hebrew. In addition, the OT is organised differently to the Tanakh, with ‘chapter breaks’ inserted that do not appear in the original Jewish text.
Jews don’t study the OT at all. In fact, the very name ‘old’ testament illustrates it is a Christian document. Why would Judaism label its own scriptures as ‘old’?!
It is rather frustrating for Jews; our scriptures have been taken on by another faith, changed, and then, historically, used by Christianity to ‘prove’ that Jews are ‘wrong’ and that Jesus is ‘foreshadowed’ in the Jewish scriptures!
*Some* Christians argue that they understand the Jewish texts better than Jews themselves. Yet Jews study the Tanakh, for the most part, in the original Hebrew. Most (not all) Christians study the OT, which is a translation OF a translation OF the Tanakh.
But what about the Septuagint?
The Septuagint refers to the Greek version of the Tanakh. But what many people don’t realise is that only the Torah part (five books of Moses) was actually translated by Jews.
All the rest was translated by non Jews. And if we compare, for example, Isaiah in the Tanakh, with Isaiah in the Septuagint, it is clear that the Septuagint does not reflect the original Hebrew at all.
Ultimately, the entire Septuagint was revised by the Church, and ceased to have any link to Judaism.
Here is a particularly interesting comment on the Septuagint, by Rabbi Tovia Singer, from the excellent website Outreach Judaism.
“… the Septuagint in our hands is not a Jewish document, but rather a Christian one. The original Septuagint, created 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish translators, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone.
It therefore did not contain prophetic Books of the Bible such as Isaiah. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the Church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint.
Christians such as Origin and Lucian (third and fourth century C.E.) had an enormous impact on creating and shaping the Septuagint that missionaries use to advance their untenable arguments against Judaism. In essence, the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the Church throughout the centuries as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish scriptures.
The fact that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago was only of the Pentateuch and not of prophetic books of the Bible such as Isaiah is confirmed by countless sources including the ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint. The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews.1 Moreover, Jerome, a church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus’ statement regarding the authorship of the Septuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions.2 Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, “The word ‘Septuagint,’ (from Lat septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books.”
In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, the preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes:
“The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles.”
Q: What are some of the specific differences between the Christian Old Testament, and the Jewish Tanakh?
A: Below I provide a partial list. I’d like to first reiterate: some versions of the OT have been revised and are pretty accurate and reliable. Others are not. Below are some of the discrepancies which appear in some versions of the OT:
1. Zechariah 12:10 − The Hebrew Tanakh: “and they shall look upon me whom they have stabbed/ thrust through [with swords”)
The King James Version of Zechariah changes one word [stabbed] to “pierced.”
BUT John 19:37 (New Testament) misquotes Zechariah to change the entire meaning by saying, “They shall look on him (instead of ME) whom they pierced.”
2. Isaiah 7:14 − The Hebrew Tanakh says “Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman (alma) is with child, and she will bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel.”
**Take note, this was written in the present tense.
But the Greek Septuagint changed “alma,” saying “Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (Matthew 1:22-23). The church changed the entire verse from present to FUTURE tense and then went further to change the Hebrew alma, meaning a young woman to virgin.
3. Isaiah 53:10 − The Hebrew Tanakh says “And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution (acknowledge guilt) he shall see children, he shall prolong his days and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand.”
But the KJV says:: “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he had put him to grief: when thou shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand”..
4. Psalm 16:9-10 − (KJV) “Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. (10) For thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither will you suffer thine Holy One to see corruption”. Why not continue to the next verse? Christians can not because David wasn’t talking about Jesus; David was talking about himself. (Psalm 16:11) “You will show me the path of life, in your presence is fullness of joy; at your right hand there are pleasures for evermore.”
Psalm 16:9-10 in the Hebrew Tanakh says “Therefore, my heart rejoiced and my soul was glad; even my flesh shall dwell in safety. (10) For You shall not forsake my soul to the grave; You shall not allow Your pious one to see the pit.”
Where is ‘Hell’, and ‘Corruption’ as the New Testament stated? It did not exist! .
The Hebrew translation of Psalm 16:10 tells of David again talking to God, rejoicing that God will not forsake his soul to the grave. While David is alive he will dwell in safety because God will protect his flesh from injury, and G-d will show him the way. Does verse 11 relate to Jesus? If Jesus is part of the godhead, as Christians say, how can G-d show him the way?
5. Isaiah 9:5 − The Hebrew Tanakh reads: “For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us and authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty G-d” Isaiah was referring to King Hezekiah, son of Ahaz.
Again, in an attempt to insert a Jesus prophecy, the KJV changed the tense from the present to the future, making it, “A child is born, a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty G-d”. [In Hebrew Hezekiah means “the mighty G-d.”]
6. In John, the New Testament author tries to make Jesus as the perfect sacrificial lamb of God (who then supposedly takes away the sins of the world) and relate this to the Jewish Passover. [John’s writings have Jesus die on Passover, while the other Gospel authors say he died the day after.] John 19:32-36 tells of soldiers breaking the legs of the crucifixion victims to hasten their deaths, yet sparing Jesus because he was already dead. To this end the author of John supposedly quotes Hebrew Scripture saying, “For these things were done, that the Scripture should be fulfilled, a bone of him shall not be broken.” The New Testament “fulfilled prophecy” supposedly refers to Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12 and to Psalms 34:20.
Notice how conveniently John changed the entire meaning by simply changing of Exodus 12:46 by changing one word: “it” to “him.” Exodus 12:46 refers to the PASSOVER-offering, “…and you shall not break a bone in it (the animal).”
Numbers 9:12 again refer to the PASSOVER-offering, “…nor shall they break a bone of it”. Again, by changing one word, the original message is lost.
Psalms 34:20 refers to David saying no one becomes truly righteous and great without his share of mishaps,
CONTINUATION: He guards all his bones, even one of them was not broken.” Nothing ever shows that this Psalm was intended as prophetic, certainly not applying to the future fictitious character of Jesus.
(NOTE: Jesus would have been disqualified as a Passover ‘sacrifice’ because the female lamb had to be “without blemish.” Jesus was wounded, whipped and mutilated.)
7. Psalm 2: 11-12. By simply leaving off one Aramaic word, Christians altered the entire verse. The KJV reads, “Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you perish from the way”
The original Hebrew Tanakh records the verses as “Do homage in purity (nash-ku bar) lest He be angry and you perish”. The meaning of the Hebrew word “bar” is pure or clear. Yes, in Aramaic, the word “bar” does mean son, but it is used only as a combination of two words – SON OF. If in Aramaic, the author wanted to mean just the son, he would have used the phrase “ber’a with the letter alef at the end. (Psalm 2:11-12).
8. Matthew 2:23 − “And he (Jesus) came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets”
Which prophets said that?
According to scholars, rabbis and historians, the city of Nazareth did not exist during the writings of Hebrew Scriptures.
The word “Nazareth” does not appear anywhere in Hebrew Scriptures. This is even verified by the New Testament Concordance!
Therefore, Nazareth and Nazarene are Christian words, not Hebrew words. Nazareth is not mentioned in non-Christian sources until the third or fourth century.
Nazarites are not a sect. but rather it is an individual oath taken by a person to be in effect for a time period. During this time the person is not allowed to cut their hair, go near a corpse, eat grapes or drink wine. Afterward he must bring special offerings to the Beith Hamikdash and shave his hair.
9. Psalm 22:16 from the Hebrew Tanakh when correctly translated reads “They surrounded my hands and feet like a lion” (the word “ka’ari clearly means like a lion, as evident from its use in Isaiah 38:13 and other writings, even in the KJV).
David was pursued by his enemies and often referred to them as “lions” (see Psalms 7 & 17).
Yet, when read out of context the KJV dmistranslates: “They pierced my hands and feet.” The passage was altered to indicate Jesus.
10. Using Isaiah 59:20, Christians again misquote Hebrew Scripture. The New Testament in Romans 11:26, has Paul supposedly saying, “And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written. There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.”
The Tanakh recorded a different event. Isaiah:“A redeemer will come to Zion, and to those of Jacob who repent from willful sin. Is it in or out of Jerusalem? Just change “to Zion” to “out of Zion.”
11. Hosea 6:2 − The Christian Bible has the authoress of Luke (24:46-47) telling that Jesus rose on the Third Day: “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” This could have only been designed to satisfy a prophecy in Hosea 6:2. The New Testament has Paul writing in I Corinthians, “and Jesus was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” Further 1 Corinthians 15:4.says “After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up and we shall live in his sight.” Which Hebrew Scriptures are these authors talking about?
As usual, the source documents, The Hebrew Scriptures, say something entirely different:
Hosea 6:1-2 “They will say, Come let us return to God for He (God) has mangled us and He (God) will heal us; He (God) has smitten and He (God) will bandage us. He (God) will heal us after two days; on the third day He (God) will raise us up and we will live before Him. ‘We’ refers to the nation of Israel.
The last verse in Chapter 5 sets the scene and explains the situation very clearly: “I (God) will go, I will return to My place until they will acknowledge their guilt and seek My face; in their distress they will seek Me (Hosea 5:15). Hosea explains in verse 5 that God sent a clear-cut message to Israel through My prophets; you heard and refused to repent, so My offer resulted in your death sentence. How could I vindicate you after such defiance? Then Hosea explains: “Come let us return to God”!
Does this refer to Jesus?
And a few more…
Psalm 2:11-12. This passage is cited often by Christians seeking to prove the Trinity. In the King James Bible, it reads:
“Serve the L-rd with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”
But the verse is mistranslated. The word rendered “the Son” is “bar”. In Hebrew, the word means “pure” and is correctly translated in Psalm 24 (“clean hands and a pure heart”). The Hebrew word for “son” is “ben”.
Confusion results from the fact that the word does mean “son” in Aramaic; but there is no Aramaic in any of the Psalms. In fact, verse 2:7, just a few verses before this passage, reads, “I will declare the decree: the L-rd hath said unto me, Thou art my Son [beni]; this day have I begotten thee”, proving that the word “ben” was known and used by the composer of Psalm 2. Verses 11 and 12 should read, “Serve the L-rd with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Desire what is pure, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”
This rendering makes it clear that the pronouns in verse 12 all refer to the L-rd, with no hint of a Trinity.
Even if we assume that “bar” means “son” here, that still doesn’t give us a Trinity. G-d has many sons. Israel is G-d’s firstborn son (Exodus 4:22; see also Hosea 11:1). The sons of G-d took wives from among the daughters of men (Genesis 6:1-2). The sons of G-d appeared before His throne, and Satan was among them (Job 1:6; 2:1).
Even Jesus says, “Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of G-d” (Matthew 5:9). There is nothing in Psalm 2 which makes the “bar” any more G-d’s son than the sons mentioned above.
Isaiah 53:8 in the Christian bible reads “…for the transgression of my people he was stricken.”
Is this the correct translation from the Hebrew bible?
No. The correct translation of Isaiah 53:8 (from the Hebrew bible) is: “as a result of the transgression of my people, they were afflicted.”
The correct translation is THEY, not He! This Hebrew word for “they” appears over 40 times in the Hebrew bible – always translated as “they”!
As all of my fellow Jews will no doubt agree, if there is one part of the Tanakh that many Christians use to ‘prove’ to us that Jesus is mentioned/referenced, it is this!
The problem is, they are not only mistranslating but also misinterpreting it.
Isaiah 53 actually starts with Chapter 52:13. In Hebrew, the scripture portions are divided by “stumas.” A space of several letters can be found at the closing of a passage before the next passage begins.
This can ***only*** be found in a Hebrew Bible. A Torah scribe has to strictly follow these rules. By reading the passage in its entirety, you learn that God is speaking to his servant and that the servant shall prosper and be exalted and be very high (Isaiah 52:13).
And who is the ‘suffering servant’?
Christianity claims it is Jesus.
But in fact, it is Israel, as clearly shown in Isaiah 41:8 & 44:1-2 & 45:4. These verses continue to describe the amazement of the world when they see the Jewish people redeemed. In particular, they are written in an exclamatory fashion to describe how the nations “despised” the Jewish people and gave “no regard” for them. The reason it is written in the singular is because the Jews are regarded as one body, called “Israel.” There are many instances of the Jewish people being referred to with a singular pronoun throughout the Torah.
It’s also interesting to compare what is said in the Christian bible, *about* the Tanakh, to what is actually written in the Tanakh.
We find things that contradict the Tanakh:
Matthew 1:2-15 – His list of generations does not agree with Torah l Chronicles Ch. 1-3
Matthew 1:16 – he forgot Jewish law. The Jewish Scriptures state that a person’s genealogy and tribal membership is transmitted exclusively through the **biological** father (Numbers 1:18 Jeremiah 33:17)
Matthew 5:43 – Jesus says: “thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy which You have heard that it hath been said”.
But in the Tanakh, Leviticus 19:18 does not mention any ‘enemy’.
Matthew 1511 – ‘Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.’ Contradicted by all the dietary laws in the Tanakh.
Matthew on Isaiah:
Matt 1:23 – Mistakenly uses the Septuagint word for virgin instead of Hebrew “Almah” (young woman)
Matthew 1:23 – Misquotes Isaiah 7:14, “they” will call Jesus Immanuel, whereas Isaiah wrote “his mother” would call him Immanuel – not “they”.
Matthew 3:3 – Misinterprets and alters Isaiah 40:3 – “Prepare the way of the Lord”. Not so.
Matt 4:15 – Added “Galilee of the Gentiles” to Isaiah 9:1-2. Not in the Hebrew Tanakh.
Matt 8:17 – Took Isaiah 53:4 out of context – Isaiah was relating to a leper (nagua).
Matt 12:17-21 – Taking Isaiah 42:1-4 out of context – the Servant was Israel 4 times
Matt. 13.14-15 – Took out of context Isaiah 6:9-10 of people being “blind”
Matthew also misinterprets the Jewish Prophets:
Matthew 2:5-6 – Misinterprets Micah 5:2 – the Messiah coming from Bethlehem. It was David a Bethlemite, born in Bethlehem and from his seed would come the messiah.
Matthew 2:15 –Taking Hosea 11:1 out of context, Jesus being called out of Egypt
Matthew 2:17-18 – Distorts meaning of Jeremiah 31:1-17 of Rachel weeping.
Matthew 11.10: By changing the pronoun in Malachi 3.1 “before me” or “before you”?
Matthew 13:35 – The Christ will speak in parables – distorting Psalm 78:2
Matthew 21:1-7 – Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time – ???????? – (Zechariah 9:9)
Matthew 22:43-44 – Capitalizes the second lord – altering the meaning of Psalm 110:1
Matthew 23:35 Mistakenly gave Zechariah’ father the wrong son. Zechariah was the son of Jehoiada, not Barachiah. II Chronicles 24:20–21
Matthew 27:9 – Quoted the wrong prophet – was not Jeremiah but Zechariah
Matthew 27:9 – Book of Zechariah was never about any “potter’s field”
Are the ‘covenant’ and the ‘testament’ synonymous? Remember that Jeremiah wrote in Hebrew. So when Greeks–not fully understanding the correct Hebrew definition of the word “Bereeth–interpreted the Hebrew word “Bereeth”, they interpreted it as Covenant and also Testament,” They failed to realize that “Bereeth” also means a “promise.”
The Hebrew word “BEREETH” or covenant signifies a promise between God and the Jewish people. It may be made official by any number of symbolic acts such as circumcision (bris), offerings (sacrifice), etc. Bereeth binds living persons to certain behaviour. In the case of the ‘new’ Contract (Covenant), the parties involved were God, Israel, and Judah. The New Covenant is to be made with both Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31).
‘Bereeth’ is a promise from God that he will never abandon the Jews as is revealed over and over again in His Torah and Tanakh.
Christianity statesJeremiah says that God replaced the old covenant with a new one. “Behold the days are coming says the Lord when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the House of Judah”.(Jer 31:30-31 quoted in Heb 8:8-12, 10:16).
Christians claim this clearly proves that the old covenant will be abolished for the new one of Jesus. Well, maybe, if you stop right there with verse 32. But continue: The very next verse 33 says,
“I will put my Torah within them.”
It does not say new Torah – instead, it is the same Torah which will become a permanent part and will not be forgotten as in the past. Verse 32 in the Jewish Bible says;
“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will put My Torah in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
The game is rigged by a cabal of powerful elites to ensure the winner of our election was their preferred winner. And that is not my opinion, its the claim by TIME Magazine
THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE SHADOW CAMPAIGN THAT SAVED THE 2020 ELECTION
BY MOLLY BALL
FEBRUARY 4, 2021
A weird thing happened right after the Nov. 3 election: nothing.
The nation was braced for chaos. Liberal groups had vowed to take to the streets, planning hundreds of protests across the country. Right-wing militias were girding for battle. In a poll before Election Day, 75% of Americans voiced concern about violence.
Instead, an eerie quiet descended. As President Trump refused to concede, the response was not mass action but crickets. When media organizations called the race for Joe Biden on Nov. 7, jubilation broke out instead, as people thronged cities across the U.S. to celebrate the democratic process that resulted in Trump’s ouster.
A second odd thing happened amid Trump’s attempts to reverse the result: corporate America turned on him. Hundreds of major business leaders, many of whom had backed Trump’s candidacy and supported his policies, called on him to concede.[FALSE] To the President, something felt amiss. “It was all very, very strange,” Trump said on Dec. 2. “Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted.”
In a way, Trump was right.
There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.
The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.
Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program.
For Trump and his allies were running their own campaign to spoil the election. The President spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.” His henchmen at the state level sought to block their use, while his lawyers brought dozens of spurious suits to make it more difficult to vote–an intensification of the GOP’s legacy of suppressive tactics. Before the election, Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count. And he spent the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.
The democracy campaigners watched with alarm. “Every week, we felt like we were in a struggle to try to pull off this election without the country going through a real dangerous moment of unraveling,” says former GOP Representative Zach Wamp, a Trump supporter who helped coordinate a bipartisan election-protection council. “We can look back and say this thing went pretty well, but it was not at all clear in September and October that that was going to be the case.”
This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”
That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.
Sometime in the fall of 2019, Mike Podhorzer became convinced the election was headed for disaster–and determined to protect it.
This was not his usual purview. For nearly a quarter-century, Podhorzer, senior adviser to the president of the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest union federation, has marshaled the latest tactics and data to help its favored candidates win elections. Unassuming and professorial, he isn’t the sort of hair-gelled “political strategist” who shows up on cable news. Among Democratic insiders, he’s known as the wizard behind some of the biggest advances in political technology in recent decades. A group of liberal strategists he brought together in the early 2000s led to the creation of the Analyst Institute, a secretive firm that applies scientific methods to political campaigns. He was also involved in the founding of Catalist, the flagship progressive data company.
The endless chatter in Washington about “political strategy,” Podhorzer believes, has little to do with how change really gets made. “My basic take on politics is that it’s all pretty obvious if you don’t overthink it or swallow the prevailing frameworks whole,” he once wrote. “After that, just relentlessly identify your assumptions and challenge them.” Podhorzer applies that approach to everything: when he coached his now adult son’s Little League team in the D.C. suburbs, he trained the boys not to swing at most pitches–a tactic that infuriated both their and their opponents’ parents, but won the team a series of championships.
Trump’s election in 2016–credited in part to his unusual strength among the sort of blue collar white voters who once dominated the AFL-CIO–prompted Podhorzer to question his assumptions about voter behavior. He began circulating weekly number-crunching memos to a small circle of allies and hosting strategy sessions in D.C. But when he began to worry about the election itself, he didn’t want to seem paranoid. It was only after months of research that he introduced his concerns in his newsletter in October 2019. The usual tools of data, analytics and polling would not be sufficient in a situation where the President himself was trying to disrupt the election, he wrote. “Most of our planning takes us through Election Day,” he noted. “But, we are not prepared for the two most likely outcomes”–Trump losing and refusing to concede, and Trump winning the Electoral College (despite losing the popular vote) by corrupting the voting process in key states. “We desperately need to systematically ‘red-team’ this election so that we can anticipate and plan for the worst we know will be coming our way.”
It turned out Podhorzer wasn’t the only one thinking in these terms. He began to hear from others eager to join forces. The Fight Back Table, a coalition of “resistance” organizations, had begun scenario-planning around the potential for a contested election, gathering liberal activists at the local and national level into what they called the Democracy Defense Coalition. Voting-rights and civil rights organizations were raising alarms. A group of former elected officials was researching emergency powers they feared Trump might exploit. Protect Democracy was assembling a bipartisan election-crisis task force. “It turned out that once you said it out loud, people agreed,” Podhorzer says, “and it started building momentum.”
He spent months pondering scenarios and talking to experts. It wasn’t hard to find liberals who saw Trump as a dangerous dictator, but Podhorzer was careful to steer clear of hysteria. What he wanted to know was not how American democracy was dying but how it might be kept alive. The chief difference between the U.S. and countries that lost their grip on democracy, he concluded, was that America’s decentralized election system couldn’t be rigged in one fell swoop. That presented an opportunity to shore it up.
On March 3, Podhorzer drafted a three-page confidential memo titled “Threats to the 2020 Election.” “Trump has made it clear that this will not be a fair election, and that he will reject anything but his own re-election as ‘fake’ and rigged,” he wrote. “On Nov. 3, should the media report otherwise, he will use the right-wing information system to establish his narrative and incite his supporters to protest.” The memo laid out four categories of challenges: attacks on voters, attacks on election administration, attacks on Trump’s political opponents and “efforts to reverse the results of the election.”
Then COVID-19 erupted at the height of the primary-election season. Normal methods of voting were no longer safe for voters or the mostly elderly volunteers who normally staff polling places. But political disagreements, intensified by Trump’s crusade against mail voting, prevented some states from making it easier to vote absentee and for jurisdictions to count those votes in a timely manner. Chaos ensued. Ohio shut down in-person voting for its primary, leading to minuscule turnout. A poll-worker shortage in Milwaukee–where Wisconsin’s heavily Democratic Black population is concentrated–left just five open polling places, down from 182. In New York, vote counting took more than a month.
Suddenly, the potential for a November meltdown was obvious. In his apartment in the D.C. suburbs, Podhorzer began working from his laptop at his kitchen table, holding back-to-back Zoom meetings for hours a day with his network of contacts across the progressive universe: the labor movement; the institutional left, like Planned Parenthood and Greenpeace; resistance groups like Indivisible and MoveOn; progressive data geeks and strategists, representatives of donors and foundations, state-level grassroots organizers, racial-justice activists and others.
In April, Podhorzer began hosting a weekly 2½-hour Zoom. It was structured around a series of rapid-fire five-minute presentations on everything from which ads were working to messaging to legal strategy. The invitation-only gatherings soon attracted hundreds, creating a rare shared base of knowledge for the fractious progressive movement. “At the risk of talking trash about the left, there’s not a lot of good information sharing,” says Anat Shenker-Osorio, a close Podhorzer friend whose poll-tested messaging guidance shaped the group’s approach. “There’s a lot of not-invented-here syndrome, where people won’t consider a good idea if they didn’t come up with it.”
The meetings became the galactic center for a constellation of operatives across the left who shared overlapping goals but didn’t usually work in concert. The group had no name, no leaders and no hierarchy, but it kept the disparate actors in sync. “Pod played a critical behind-the-scenes role in keeping different pieces of the movement infrastructure in communication and aligned,” says Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party. “You have the litigation space, the organizing space, the political people just focused on the W, and their strategies aren’t always aligned. He allowed this ecosystem to work together.”
Protecting the election would require an effort of unprecedented scale. As 2020 progressed, it stretched to Congress, Silicon Valley and the nation’s statehouses. It drew energy from the summer’s racial-justice protests, many of whose leaders were a key part of the liberal alliance. And eventually it reached across the aisle, into the world of Trump-skeptical Republicans appalled by his attacks on democracy.
SECURING THE VOTE
The first task was overhauling America’s balky election infrastructure–in the middle of a pandemic. For the thousands of local, mostly nonpartisan officials who administer elections, the most urgent need was money. They needed protective equipment like masks, gloves and hand sanitizer. They needed to pay for postcards letting people know they could vote absentee–or, in some states, to mail ballots to every voter. They needed additional staff and scanners to process ballots.
In March, activists appealed to Congress to steer COVID relief money to election administration. Led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, more than 150 organizations signed a letter to every member of Congress seeking $2 billion in election funding. It was somewhat successful: the CARES Act, passed later that month, contained $400 million in grants to state election administrators. But the next tranche of relief funding didn’t add to that number. It wasn’t going to be enough.
Private philanthropy stepped into the breach. An assortment of foundations contributed tens of millions in election-administration funding. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative chipped in $300 million. “It was a failure at the federal level that 2,500 local election officials were forced to apply for philanthropic grants to fill their needs,” says Amber McReynolds, a former Denver election official who heads the nonpartisan National Vote at Home Institute.
McReynolds’ two-year-old organization became a clearinghouse for a nation struggling to adapt. The institute gave secretaries of state from both parties technical advice on everything from which vendors to use to how to locate drop boxes. Local officials are the most trusted sources of election information, but few can afford a press secretary, so the institute distributed communications tool kits. In a presentation to Podhorzer’s group, McReynolds detailed the importance of absentee ballots for shortening lines at polling places and preventing an election crisis.
The institute’s work helped 37 states and D.C. bolster mail voting. But it wouldn’t be worth much if people didn’t take advantage. Part of the challenge was logistical: each state has different rules for when and how ballots should be requested and returned. The Voter Participation Center, which in a normal year would have deployed canvassers door-to-door to get out the vote, instead conducted focus groups in April and May to find out what would get people to vote by mail. In August and September, it sent ballot applications to 15 million people in key states, 4.6 million of whom returned them. In mailings and digital ads, the group urged people not to wait for Election Day. “All the work we have done for 17 years was built for this moment of bringing democracy to people’s doorsteps,” says Tom Lopach, the center’s CEO.
The effort had to overcome heightened skepticism in some communities. Many Black voters preferred to exercise their franchise in person or didn’t trust the mail. National civil rights groups worked with local organizations to get the word out that this was the best way to ensure one’s vote was counted. In Philadelphia, for example, advocates distributed “voting safety kits” containing masks, hand sanitizer and informational brochures. “We had to get the message out that this is safe, reliable, and you can trust it,” says Hannah Fried of All Voting Is Local.
At the same time, Democratic lawyers battled a historic tide of pre-election litigation. The pandemic intensified the parties’ usual tangling in the courts. But the lawyers noticed something else as well. “The litigation brought by the Trump campaign, of a piece with the broader campaign to sow doubt about mail voting, was making novel claims and using theories no court has ever accepted,” says Wendy Weiser, a voting-rights expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU. “They read more like lawsuits designed to send a message rather than achieve a legal outcome.”
In the end, nearly half the electorate cast ballots by mail in 2020, practically a revolution in how people vote. About a quarter voted early in person. Only a quarter of voters cast their ballots the traditional way: in person on Election Day.
THE DISINFORMATION DEFENSE
Bad actors spreading false information is nothing new. For decades, campaigns have grappled with everything from anonymous calls claiming the election has been rescheduled to fliers spreading nasty smears about candidates’ families. But Trump’s lies and conspiracy theories, the viral force of social media and the involvement of foreign meddlers made disinformation a broader, deeper threat to the 2020 vote.
Laura Quinn, a veteran progressive operative who co-founded Catalist, began studying this problem a few years ago. She piloted a nameless, secret project, which she has never before publicly discussed, that tracked disinformation online and tried to figure out how to combat it. One component was tracking dangerous lies that might otherwise spread unnoticed. Researchers then provided information to campaigners or the media to track down the sources and expose them.
The most important takeaway from Quinn’s research, however, was that engaging with toxic content only made it worse. “When you get attacked, the instinct is to push back, call it out, say, ‘This isn’t true,’” Quinn says. “But the more engagement something gets, the more the platforms boost it. The algorithm reads that as, ‘Oh, this is popular; people want more of it.’”
The solution, she concluded, was to pressure platforms to enforce their rules, both by removing content or accounts that spread disinformation and by more aggressively policing it in the first place. “The platforms have policies against certain types of malign behavior, but they haven’t been enforcing them,” she says.
Quinn’s research gave ammunition to advocates pushing social media platforms to take a harder line. In November 2019, Mark Zuckerberg invited nine civil rights leaders to dinner at his home, where they warned him about the danger of the election-related falsehoods that were already spreading unchecked. “It took pushing, urging, conversations, brainstorming, all of that to get to a place where we ended up with more rigorous rules and enforcement,” says Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, who attended the dinner and also met with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and others. (Gupta has been nominated for Associate Attorney General by President Biden.) “It was a struggle, but we got to the point where they understood the problem. Was it enough? Probably not. Was it later than we wanted? Yes. But it was really important, given the level of official disinformation, that they had those rules in place and were tagging things and taking them down.”
SPREADING THE WORD
Beyond battling bad information, there was a need to explain a rapidly changing election process. It was crucial for voters to understand that despite what Trump was saying, mail-in votes weren’t susceptible to fraud and that it would be normal if some states weren’t finished counting votes on election night.
Dick Gephardt, the Democratic former House leader turned high-powered lobbyist, spearheaded one coalition. “We wanted to get a really bipartisan group of former elected officials, Cabinet secretaries, military leaders and so on, aimed mainly at messaging to the public but also speaking to local officials–the secretaries of state, attorneys general, governors who would be in the eye of the storm–to let them know we wanted to help,” says Gephardt, who worked his contacts in the private sector to put $20 million behind the effort.
Wamp, the former GOP Congressman, worked through the nonpartisan reform group Issue One to rally Republicans. “We thought we should bring some bipartisan element of unity around what constitutes a free and fair election,” Wamp says. The 22 Democrats and 22 Republicans on the National Council on Election Integrity met on Zoom at least once a week. They ran ads in six states, made statements, wrote articles and alerted local officials to potential problems. “We had rabid Trump supporters who agreed to serve on the council based on the idea that this is honest,” Wamp says. This is going to be just as important, he told them, to convince the liberals when Trump wins. “Whichever way it cuts, we’re going to stick together.”
The Voting Rights Lab and IntoAction created state-specific memes and graphics, spread by email, text, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, urging that every vote be counted. Together, they were viewed more than 1 billion times. Protect Democracy’s election task force issued reports and held media briefings with high-profile experts across the political spectrum, resulting in widespread coverage of potential election issues and fact-checking of Trump’s false claims. The organization’s tracking polls found the message was being heard: the percentage of the public that didn’t expect to know the winner on election night gradually rose until by late October, it was over 70%. A majority also believed that a prolonged count wasn’t a sign of problems. “We knew exactly what Trump was going to do: he was going to try to use the fact that Democrats voted by mail and Republicans voted in person to make it look like he was ahead, claim victory, say the mail-in votes were fraudulent and try to get them thrown out,” says Protect Democracy’s Bassin. Setting public expectations ahead of time helped undercut those lies.
The alliance took a common set of themes from the research Shenker-Osorio presented at Podhorzer’s Zooms. Studies have shown that when people don’t think their vote will count or fear casting it will be a hassle, they’re far less likely to participate. Throughout election season, members of Podhorzer’s group minimized incidents of voter intimidation and tamped down rising liberal hysteria about Trump’s expected refusal to concede. They didn’t want to amplify false claims by engaging them, or put people off voting by suggesting a rigged game. “When you say, ‘These claims of fraud are spurious,’ what people hear is ‘fraud,’” Shenker-Osorio says. “What we saw in our pre-election research was that anything that reaffirmed Trump’s power or cast him as an authoritarian diminished people’s desire to vote.”
Podhorzer, meanwhile, was warning everyone he knew that polls were underestimating Trump’s support. The data he shared with media organizations who would be calling the election was “tremendously useful” to understand what was happening as the votes rolled in, according to a member of a major network’s political unit who spoke with Podhorzer before Election Day. Most analysts had recognized there would be a “blue shift” in key battlegrounds– the surge of votes breaking toward Democrats, driven by tallies of mail-in ballots– but they hadn’t comprehended how much better Trump was likely to do on Election Day. “Being able to document how big the absentee wave would be and the variance by state was essential,” the analyst says.
The racial-justice uprising sparked by George Floyd’s killing in May was not primarily a political movement. The organizers who helped lead it wanted to harness its momentum for the election without allowing it to be co-opted by politicians. Many of those organizers were part of Podhorzer’s network, from the activists in battleground states who partnered with the Democracy Defense Coalition to organizations with leading roles in the Movement for Black Lives.
The best way to ensure people’s voices were heard, they decided, was to protect their ability to vote. “We started thinking about a program that would complement the traditional election-protection area but also didn’t rely on calling the police,” says Nelini Stamp, the Working Families Party’s national organizing director. They created a force of “election defenders” who, unlike traditional poll watchers, were trained in de-escalation techniques. During early voting and on Election Day, they surrounded lines of voters in urban areas with a “joy to the polls” effort that turned the act of casting a ballot into a street party. Black organizers also recruited thousands of poll workers to ensure polling places would stay open in their communities.
The summer uprising had shown that people power could have a massive impact. Activists began preparing to reprise the demonstrations if Trump tried to steal the election. “Americans plan widespread protests if Trump interferes with election,” Reuters reported in October, one of many such stories. More than 150 liberal groups, from the Women’s March to the Sierra Club to Color of Change, from Democrats.com to the Democratic Socialists of America, joined the “Protect the Results” coalition. The group’s now defunct website had a map listing 400 planned postelection demonstrations, to be activated via text message as soon as Nov. 4. To stop the coup they feared, the left was ready to flood the streets.
About a week before Election Day, Podhorzer received an unexpected message: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wanted to talk.
The AFL-CIO and the Chamber have a long history of antagonism. Though neither organization is explicitly partisan, the influential business lobby has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Republican campaigns, just as the nation’s unions funnel hundreds of millions to Democrats. On one side is labor, on the other management, locked in an eternal struggle for power and resources.
But behind the scenes, the business community was engaged in its own anxious discussions about how the election and its aftermath might unfold. The summer’s racial-justice protests had sent a signal to business owners too: the potential for economy-disrupting civil disorder. “With tensions running high, there was a lot of concern about unrest around the election, or a breakdown in our normal way we handle contentious elections,” says Neil Bradley, the Chamber’s executive vice president and chief policy officer. These worries had led the Chamber to release a pre-election statement with the Business Roundtable, a Washington-based CEOs’ group, as well as associations of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, calling for patience and confidence as votes were counted.
But Bradley wanted to send a broader, more bipartisan message. He reached out to Podhorzer, through an intermediary both men declined to name. Agreeing that their unlikely alliance would be powerful, they began to discuss a joint statement pledging their organizations’ shared commitment to a fair and peaceful election. They chose their words carefully and scheduled the statement’s release for maximum impact. As it was being finalized, Christian leaders signaled their interest in joining, further broadening its reach.
The statement was released on Election Day, under the names of Chamber CEO Thomas Donohue, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, and the heads of the National Association of Evangelicals and the National African American Clergy Network. “It is imperative that election officials be given the space and time to count every vote in accordance with applicable laws,” it stated. “We call on the media, the candidates and the American people to exercise patience with the process and trust in our system, even if it requires more time than usual.” The groups added, “Although we may not always agree on desired outcomes up and down the ballot, we are united in our call for the American democratic process to proceed without violence, intimidation or any other tactic that makes us weaker as a nation.”
SHOWING UP, STANDING DOWN
Election night began with many Democrats despairing. Trump was running ahead of pre-election polling, winning Florida, Ohio and Texas easily and keeping Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania too close to call. But Podhorzer was unperturbed when I spoke to him that night: the returns were exactly in line with his modeling. He had been warning for weeks that Trump voters’ turnout was surging. As the numbers dribbled out, he could tell that as long as all the votes were counted, Trump would lose.
The liberal alliance gathered for an 11 p.m. Zoom call. Hundreds joined; many were freaking out. “It was really important for me and the team in that moment to help ground people in what we had already known was true,” says Angela Peoples, director for the Democracy Defense Coalition. Podhorzer presented data to show the group that victory was in hand.
While he was talking, Fox News surprised everyone by calling Arizona for Biden. The public-awareness campaign had worked: TV anchors were bending over backward to counsel caution and frame the vote count accurately. The question then became what to do next.
The conversation that followed was a difficult one, led by the activists charged with the protest strategy. “We wanted to be mindful of when was the right time to call for moving masses of people into the street,” Peoples says. As much as they were eager to mount a show of strength, mobilizing immediately could backfire and put people at risk. Protests that devolved into violent clashes would give Trump a pretext to send in federal agents or troops as he had over the summer. And rather than elevate Trump’s complaints by continuing to fight him, the alliance wanted to send the message that the people had spoken.
So the word went out: stand down. Protect the Results announced that it would “not be activating the entire national mobilization network today, but remains ready to activate if necessary.” On Twitter, outraged progressives wondered what was going on. Why wasn’t anyone trying to stop Trump’s coup? Where were all the protests?
Podhorzer credits the activists for their restraint. “They had spent so much time getting ready to hit the streets on Wednesday. But they did it,” he says. “Wednesday through Friday, there was not a single Antifa vs. Proud Boys incident like everyone was expecting. And when that didn’t materialize, I don’t think the Trump campaign had a backup plan.”
Activists reoriented the Protect the Results protests toward a weekend of celebration. “Counter their disinfo with our confidence & get ready to celebrate,” read the messaging guidance Shenker-Osorio presented to the liberal alliance on Friday, Nov. 6. “Declare and fortify our win. Vibe: confident, forward-looking, unified–NOT passive, anxious.” The voters, not the candidates, would be the protagonists of the story.
The planned day of celebration happened to coincide with the election being called on Nov. 7. Activists dancing in the streets of Philadelphia blasted Beyoncé over an attempted Trump campaign press conference; the Trumpers’ next confab was scheduled for Four Seasons Total Landscaping outside the city center, which activists believe was not a coincidence. “The people of Philadelphia owned the streets of Philadelphia,” crows the Working Families Party’s Mitchell. “We made them look ridiculous by contrasting our joyous celebration of democracy with their clown show.”
The votes had been counted. Trump had lost. But the battle wasn’t over.
THE FIVE STEPS TO VICTORY
In Podhorzer’s presentations, winning the vote was only the first step to winning the election. After that came winning the count, winning the certification, winning the Electoral College and winning the transition–steps that are normally formalities but that he knew Trump would see as opportunities for disruption. Nowhere would that be more evident than in Michigan, where Trump’s pressure on local Republicans came perilously close to working–and where liberal and conservative pro-democracy forces joined to counter it.
It was around 10 p.m. on election night in Detroit when a flurry of texts lit up the phone of Art Reyes III. A busload of Republican election observers had arrived at the TCF Center, where votes were being tallied. They were crowding the vote-counting tables, refusing to wear masks, heckling the mostly Black workers. Reyes, a Flint native who leads We the People Michigan, was expecting this. For months, conservative groups had been sowing suspicion about urban vote fraud. “The language was, ‘They’re going to steal the election; there will be fraud in Detroit,’ long before any vote was cast,” Reyes says.
He made his way to the arena and sent word to his network. Within 45 minutes, dozens of reinforcements had arrived. As they entered the arena to provide a counterweight to the GOP observers inside, Reyes took down their cell-phone numbers and added them to a massive text chain. Racial-justice activists from Detroit Will Breathe worked alongside suburban women from Fems for Dems and local elected officials. Reyes left at 3 a.m., handing the text chain over to a disability activist.
As they mapped out the steps in the election-certification process, activists settled on a strategy of foregrounding the people’s right to decide, demanding their voices be heard and calling attention to the racial implications of disenfranchising Black Detroiters. They flooded the Wayne County canvassing board’s Nov. 17 certification meeting with on-message testimony; despite a Trump tweet, the Republican board members certified Detroit’s votes.
Election boards were one pressure point; another was GOP-controlled legislatures, who Trump believed could declare the election void and appoint their own electors. And so the President invited the GOP leaders of the Michigan legislature, House Speaker Lee Chatfield and Senate majority leader Mike Shirkey, to Washington on Nov. 20.
It was a perilous moment. If Chatfield and Shirkey agreed to do Trump’s bidding, Republicans in other states might be similarly bullied. “I was concerned things were going to get weird,” says Jeff Timmer, a former Michigan GOP executive director turned anti-Trump activist. Norm Eisen describes it as “the scariest moment” of the entire election.
The democracy defenders launched a full-court press. Protect Democracy’s local contacts researched the lawmakers’ personal and political motives. Issue One ran television ads in Lansing. The Chamber’s Bradley kept close tabs on the process. Wamp, the former Republican Congressman, called his former colleague Mike Rogers, who wrote an op-ed for the Detroit newspapers urging officials to honor the will of the voters. Three former Michigan governors–Republicans John Engler and Rick Snyder and Democrat Jennifer Granholm–jointly called for Michigan’s electoral votes to be cast free of pressure from the White House. Engler, a former head of the Business Roundtable, made phone calls to influential donors and fellow GOP elder statesmen who could press the lawmakers privately.
The pro-democracy forces were up against a Trumpified Michigan GOP controlled by allies of Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chair, and Betsy DeVos, the former Education Secretary and a member of a billionaire family of GOP donors. On a call with his team on Nov. 18, Bassin vented that his side’s pressure was no match for what Trump could offer. “Of course he’s going to try to offer them something,” Bassin recalls thinking. “Head of the Space Force! Ambassador to wherever! We can’t compete with that by offering carrots. We need a stick.”
If Trump were to offer something in exchange for a personal favor, that would likely constitute bribery, Bassin reasoned. He phoned Richard Primus, a law professor at the University of Michigan, to see if Primus agreed and would make the argument publicly. Primus said he thought the meeting itself was inappropriate, and got to work on an op-ed for Politico warning that the state attorney general–a Democrat–would have no choice but to investigate. When the piece posted on Nov. 19, the attorney general’s communications director tweeted it. Protect Democracy soon got word that the lawmakers planned to bring lawyers to the meeting with Trump the next day.
Reyes’ activists scanned flight schedules and flocked to the airports on both ends of Shirkey’s journey to D.C., to underscore that the lawmakers were being scrutinized. After the meeting, the pair announced they’d pressed the President to deliver COVID relief for their constituents and informed him they saw no role in the election process. Then they went for a drink at the Trump hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue. A street artist projected their images onto the outside of the building along with the words THE WORLD IS WATCHING.
That left one last step: the state canvassing board, made up of two Democrats and two Republicans. One Republican, a Trumper employed by the DeVos family’s political nonprofit, was not expected to vote for certification. The other Republican on the board was a little-known lawyer named Aaron Van Langevelde. He sent no signals about what he planned to do, leaving everyone on edge.
When the meeting began, Reyes’s activists flooded the livestream and filled Twitter with their hashtag, #alleyesonmi. A board accustomed to attendance in the single digits suddenly faced an audience of thousands. In hours of testimony, the activists emphasized their message of respecting voters’ wishes and affirming democracy rather than scolding the officials. Van Langevelde quickly signaled he would follow precedent. The vote was 3-0 to certify; the other Republican abstained.
After that, the dominoes fell. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the rest of the states certified their electors. Republican officials in Arizona and Georgia stood up to Trump’s bullying. And the Electoral College voted on schedule on Dec. 14.
HOW CLOSE WE CAME
There was one last milestone on Podhorzer’s mind: Jan. 6. On the day Congress would meet to tally the electoral count, Trump summoned his supporters to D.C. for a rally.
Much to their surprise, the thousands who answered his call were met by virtually no counterdemonstrators. To preserve safety and ensure they couldn’t be blamed for any mayhem, the activist left was “strenuously discouraging counter activity,” Podhorzer texted me the morning of Jan. 6, with a crossed-fingers emoji.
Trump addressed the crowd that afternoon, peddling the lie that lawmakers or Vice President Mike Pence could reject states’ electoral votes. He told them to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell.” Then he returned to the White House as they sacked the building. As lawmakers fled for their lives and his own supporters were shot and trampled, Trump praised the rioters as “very special.”
It was his final attack on democracy, and once again, it failed. By standing down, the democracy campaigners outfoxed their foes. “We won by the skin of our teeth, honestly, and that’s an important point for folks to sit with,” says the Democracy Defense Coalition’s Peoples. “There’s an impulse for some to say voters decided and democracy won. But it’s a mistake to think that this election cycle was a show of strength for democracy. It shows how vulnerable democracy is.”
The members of the alliance to protect the election have gone their separate ways. The Democracy Defense Coalition has been disbanded, though the Fight Back Table lives on. Protect Democracy and the good-government advocates have turned their attention to pressing reforms in Congress. Left-wing activists are pressuring the newly empowered Democrats to remember the voters who put them there, while civil rights groups are on guard against further attacks on voting. Business leaders denounced the Jan. 6 attack, and some say they will no longer donate to lawmakers who refused to certify Biden’s victory. Podhorzer and his allies are still holding their Zoom strategy sessions, gauging voters’ views and developing new messages. And Trump is in Florida, facing his second impeachment, deprived of the Twitter and Facebook accounts he used to push the nation to its breaking point.
As I was reporting this article in November and December, I heard different claims about who should get the credit for thwarting Trump’s plot. Liberals argued the role of bottom-up people power shouldn’t be overlooked, particularly the contributions of people of color and local grassroots activists. Others stressed the heroism of GOP officials like Van Langevelde and Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger, who stood up to Trump at considerable cost. The truth is that neither likely could have succeeded without the other. “It’s astounding how close we came, how fragile all this really is,” says Timmer, the former Michigan GOP executive director. “It’s like when Wile E. Coyote runs off the cliff–if you don’t look down, you don’t fall. Our democracy only survives if we all believe and don’t look down.”
Democracy won in the end. The will of the people prevailed. But it’s crazy, in retrospect, that this is what it took to put on an election in the United States of America.
–With reporting by LESLIE DICKSTEIN, MARIAH ESPADA and SIMMONE SHAH
Correction appended, Feb. 5: The original version of this story misstated the name of Norm Eisen’s organization. It is the Voter Protection Program, not the Voter Protection Project. The original version of this story also misstated Jeff Timmer’s former position with the Michigan Republican Party. He was the executive director, not the chairman.
This appears in the February 15, 2021 issue of TIME.
TIME MAGAZINE APPLAUDS THE CABAL THAT “FORTIFIED” THE 2020 ELECTION… HONK HONK!
President Trump’s Jan. 6th Full Speech:
President Trump gave the following address at the March to Save America at the on January 6 about noon.
Media will not show the magnitude of this crowd, even I when I turned on today, I looked and I saw thousands of people here.
But you don’t see hundreds of thousands of people behind you because they don’t want to show that we have hundreds of thousands of people here. And I just want them to be recognized by the fake news media.
Turn your cameras, please, and show what’s really happening out here, because these people are not going to take it any longer. They’re not going to take it any longer.
Go ahead. Turn your cameras, please. Would you show they came from all over the world, actually, but they came from all over the country. I just really want to see what they do.
I just want to see how they cover it. I’ve never seen anything like it, but, it would be really great if we could be covered fairly by the media, the media is the biggest problem we have as far as I’m concerned, single biggest problem, the fake news and the big tech, big tech is now coming into their own. We beat them four years ago. We surprised them. We took them by surprise and this year they rigged it election. They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. And by the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either, if you notice. I’m honest and I just again, I want to thank you. It’s just a great honor to have this kind of crowd and to be before you and hundreds of thousands of American patriots who are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing and stolen by the fake news media.
That’s what they’ve done and what they’re doing. We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen.
You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.
Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that’s what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will ‘stop the steel.’ Today, I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election. You know, I say sometimes jokingly, but there’s no joke about it. I’ve been in two elections. I won them both. And the second one, I won much bigger than the first. OK. Almost seventy five million people voted for our campaign, the most of any incumbent president by far in the history of our country, 12 million more people than four years ago.
And I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters, they know that we were going to do well and we were going to win.
Well. I was told if I went from sixty three million, which we had four years ago, to sixty six million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to sixty six, we went to seventy five million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose.
And by the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? does anybody believe that?
He had 80 million computer votes. It’s a disgrace. There’s never been anything like that. You could take Third World countries, just take a look, take third world countries. Their elections are more honest than what we’ve been going through in this country.
It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace.
Even when you look at last night, they’re all running around like chickens with their heads cut off with boxes and nobody knows what the hell is going on.
There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen, not going to let it happen.
And I’d love to have if those tens of thousands of people would be allowed — the military, the Secret Service that we want to thank you and the police, law enforcement, great, you’re doing a great job — but I’d love it if they could be allowed to come up here with us.
Is that possible? Can you just let them come up, please?
And Rudy, you did a great job.
He’s got guts, you know what, he’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican Party. He’s got guts, he fights, he fights.
And I’ll tell you. Thank you very much, John. Fantastic job. I watched… that’s a tough act to follow those two.
John is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country, and he looked at this and he said, ‘What an absolute disgrace that this can be happening to our Constitution.’ And he looked at Mike Pence, and I hope Mike is going to do the right thing.
I hope so. I hope so, because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is from the number one or certainly one of the top constitutional lawyers in our country, he has the absolute right to do it — we’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution and protect our Constitution — states want to revoke, the state’s got defrauded, they were given false information, they voted on it.
Now they want to recertify, they want it back.
All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president, and you are the happiest people. And I actually I just spoke to Mike, I said, Mike, that doesn’t take courage.
What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage.
And then we’re stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot and we have to live with that for four more years.
We’re just not going to let that happen. Many of you have traveled from all across the nation to be here.
And I want to thank you for the extraordinary love — that’s what it is, there’s never been a movement like this ever, ever — for the extraordinary love for this amazing country and this amazing movement. Thank you.
By the way, this goes all the way back past the Washington Monument, you believe this? Look at this.
Unfortunately, they gave the press the prime seats, I can’t stand. But you look at that behind, I wish they’d flip those cameras and look behind you.
That is the most amazing sight. When they make a mistake, you get to see it on television. Amazing. Amazing. All the way back.
And don’t worry, we will not take the name off the Washington Monument. We will not cancel culture. You know, they wanted to get rid of the Jefferson Memorial, either take it down or just put somebody else in there. I don’t think that’s going to happen. It damn well better not.
Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen. They’ll knock out Lincoln, too, by the way, they’ve been taking his statue down. But then we signed a little law. You hurt our monuments, you hurt our heroes. You go to jail for 10 years and everything stopped. You notice that it stopped.
It all stopped.
And they could use Rudy back in New York City. Rudy, they could use you. Your city is going to hell. They want Rudy Giuliani back in New York. We’ll get a little younger version of Rudy. Is that OK, Rudy?
We gathered together in the heart of our nation’s capital for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy.
You know, most candidates on election evening and of course, this thing goes on so long, they still don’t have any idea what the votes are.
We still have congressional seats under review. They have no idea. They’ve totally lost control. They’ve used the pandemic as a way of defrauding the people in a proper election.
But, you know, you know, when you see this and when you see what’s happening, number one, they all say, sir, we will never let it happen again.
I said, that’s good, but what about eight weeks ago? You know, they try and get you to go.
They say, sir, in four years, you’re guaranteed. I said, I’m not interested right now. Do me a favor. Go back eight weeks. I want to go back eight weeks. Let’s go back eight weeks.
We want to go back and we want to get this right because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed and we’re not going to stand for that.
For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans, and that’s what they are. There’s so many weak Republicans and we have great ones – Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they’re out there fighting, the House guys are fighting. But it’s incredible. Many of the Republicans I helped them get in. I helped them get elected. I helped Mitch get elected.
I helped… I could name twenty four of them, let’s say. I won’t bore you with it. And then all of a sudden you have something like this and it’s like, oh, gee, maybe I’ll talk to the president sometime later.
No, it’s amazing, they’re weak Republicans, they’re pathetic Republicans. And that’s what happens.
If this happened to the Democrats, there’d be hell all over the country going on.
There’d be hell all over the country. But just remember this: you’re stronger, you’re smarter, you’ve got more going than anybody. And they try and demean everybody having to do with us. And you’re the real people. You’re the people that built this nation.
You’re not the people that tore down our nation.
The weak Republicans, and that’s it, I really believe it, I think I’m going to use the term the weak Republicans, you got a lot of them and you got a lot of great ones, but you’ve got a lot of weak ones. They’ve turned a blind eye even as Democrats enacted policies that chipped away our jobs, weakened our military, threw open our borders and put America last. Did you see the other day where Joe Biden said, ‘I want to get rid of the America first policy?’ What’s that all about? Get rid of? How do you say I want to get rid of America first?
Even if you’re going to do it, don’t talk about it. Right?
Unbelievable what we have to go through.
What we have to go through and you have to get your people to fight, and if they don’t fight, we have to ‘primary’ the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them.
We’re going to, we’re going to let you know who they are.
I can already tell you, frankly. But this year, using the pretext of the China virus and the scam of mail-in ballots, Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft — and there’s never been anything like this — so, pure theft in American history. Everybody knows it, that election, our election was over at 10 o’clock in the evening. We’re leading Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia by hundreds of thousands of votes. And then late in the evening or early in the morning, boom, these explosions of bullshit.
And all of a sudden, all of a sudden, it started to happen.
Don’t forget when Romney got beat, Romney, hey, did you see his I wonder if he enjoyed his flight in last night, but when Romney got beaten, you know, he stands up like, you’re more typical, ‘well, I’d like to congratulate the victor.’ The victor? Who is the victor, Mitt? I’d like to congratulate… They don’t go and look at the facts. Now, I don’t know. He got he got slaughtered. Probably, maybe, it was OK. Maybe it was…that’s what happened. But we look at the facts and our election was so corrupt that in the history of this country, we’ve never seen anything like it.
You can go all the way back. You know, America is blessed with elections. All over the world, they talk about our elections. You know what the world says about us now. They said we don’t have free and fair elections. And you know what else? We don’t have a free and fair press.
Our media is not free. It’s not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech. And it’s become the enemy of the people. It’s become the enemy of the people. It’s the biggest problem we have in this country.
No third world countries would even attempt to do what we caught them doing. And you’ll hear about that in just a few minutes. Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people.
And we’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesn’t, that will be a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our Constitution.
Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy.
And after this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down anyone you want. But I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol.
And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen-and-women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.
We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today, we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four year period. We’ve set it on a much straighter course, a much…and I thought, you know, four more years. I thought it would be easy. We created the greatest economy in history. We rebuilt our military. We get you the biggest tax cuts in history, right? We got you the biggest regulation cuts.
There’s no president, whether it’s four years, eight years or in one case, more, got anywhere near the regulation cuts. [It] used to take 20 years to get a highway approved. Now we’re down to two. I want to get it down to one, but we’re down to two.
And it may get rejected for environmental or safety reasons, but we got it down to safety. We created Space Force. Look at what we did.
Our military has been totally rebuilt. So we create Space Force, which by and of itself is a major achievement for an administration. And with us, it’s one of so many different things. Right to try everybody know about, right to try. We did things that nobody ever thought possible. We took care of our vets, our vets. The VA now has the highest rating, ninety one percent, the highest rating that it’s had from the beginning.
Ninety one percent approval rating. Always you watch the VA, it was on television every night, people living in a horrible, horrible manner. We got that done. We got accountability done. We got it so that now in the VA, you don’t have to wait for four weeks, six weeks, eight weeks, four months to see a doctor. If you can’t get a doctor, you go outside. You get the doctor, you have them taken care of, and we pay the doctor. And we’ve not only made life wonderful for so many people, we’ve saved tremendous amounts of money, far secondarily, but we’ve saved a lot of money and now we have the right to fire bad people in the VA. We had 9000 people that treated our veterans horribly. In primetime, they would not have treated our veterans badly, but they treated our veterans horribly and we have what’s called the VA Accountability Act. And the accountability says, if we see somebody in there that doesn’t treat our vets well or they steal, they rob, they do things badly, we say, Joe, you’re fired. Get out of here. Before you couldn’t do that. You couldn’t do that before. So we’ve taken care of things. We’ve done things like nobody’s ever thought possible.
And that’s part of the reason that many people don’t like us because we’ve done too much, but we’ve done it quickly. And we were going to sit home and watch a big victory and everybody had us down for a victory. It was going to be great. And now we’re out here fighting. I said to somebody I was going to take a few days and relax after our big electoral victory. Ten o’clock it was over. But I was going to take a few days, and I can say this: Since our election, I believe — which was such a catastrophe when I watch and even these guys knew what happened, they know what happened. They’re saying, wow, Pennsylvania is insurmountable. Wow. Wisconsin, look at the big leads we had, right — even though the press said we could lose Wisconsin by 17 points, even though the press said Ohio’s going to be close, we set a record.
Florida is going to be close. We set a record. Texas is going to be close.
Texas is going to be close, we set a record and we set our record with Hispanic, with the black community, we set a record with everybody. Today we see a very important event, though, because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place and I’m going to be watching because history is going to be made. We’re going to see whether or not we have great and courageous leaders or whether or not we have leaders that should be ashamed of themselves throughout history, throughout eternity. They’ll be ashamed. And you know what? If they do the wrong thing, we should never, ever forget that they did, never forget.
We should never, ever forget.
With only three of the seven states in question, we win the presidency of the United States. And by the way, it’s much more important today than it was twenty four hours ago because, and don’t…I spoke to David Perdue, what a great person, and Kelly Loeffler, two great people. But it was a setup and, you know, I said, we have no backline anymore. The only backline, the only line of demarcation, the only line that we have is the veto of the President of the United States.
So this is now what we’re doing, a far more important election than it was two days ago.
I want to thank the more than one hundred and forty members of the House – those are warriors, they’re over there working like you’ve never seen before. Studying, talking. Actually going all the way back, studying the roots of the Constitution because they know we have the right to send the bad vote that was illegally gotten, they gave these people bad things to vote for and they voted because what did they know? And then when they found out a few weeks later, again, it took them four years to devise this screed. And the only unhappy person in the United States, single most unhappy is Hillary Clinton, because she said, why didn’t you do this for me four years ago?
Why didn’t you do this for me four years ago? Change the votes, 10000 in Michigan.
You could have changed the whole thing, but she’s not too happy, you notice you don’t see her anymore. What happened? Where’s Hillary? Where is she?
But I want to thank all of those congressmen-and-women. I also want to thank our 13 most courageous members of the US Senate, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Josh Hawley, Kelly Loeffler and Kelly Loeffler, I’ll tell you, she has been, she’s been so great, she’s worked so hard, so let’s give her and David a little special hand because it was rigged against him. Let’s give her and David, Kelly Loeffler, David Perdue.
They fought a good race. They never had a shot. That equipment should never have been allowed to be used.
And I was telling these people, don’t let them use this stuff. Marsha Blackburn, terrific person, Mike Braun, Indiana, Steve Daines, great guy, Bill Hagerty, John Kennedy, James Lankford, Cynthia Lummis, Tommy Tuberville, to the coach, and Roger Marshall, we want to thank them, Senators who have stepped up. We want to thank them.
I actually think, though, it takes, again, more courage not to step up, and I think a lot of those people are going to find that out and you better start looking at your leadership because your leadership has led you down the tubes.
You know, [they said] ‘we don’t want to give two thousand dollars to people.’
We want to give them six hundred dollars.’ Oh, great. How does that play politically? Pretty good? and this has nothing to do with politics.
But how does it play politically? China destroyed these people, we didn’t destroy. China destroyed them, totally destroyed them. ‘We want to give them six hundred dollars.’ And they just wouldn’t change. I said give them two thousand dollars, we’ll pay it back, will pay it back fast. You already owe twenty six trillion. Give them a couple of bucks, let them live.
But I just say, look, you got to let people live. And how does that play, though? OK, number one, it’s the right thing to do, but how does that play politically?
I think it’s the primary reason, one of the primary reasons, the other was just pure cheating, that was the primary, super primary, reason. But you can’t do that. Got use your head.
As you know, the media has constantly asserted the outrageous lie that there was no evidence of widespread fraud. You ever see these people? ‘While there is no evidence of fraud’… Oh, really. I’m going to read you pages. I hope you don’t get bored listening to it. Promise? Don’t get bored listening to it. All those hundreds of thousands of people back there. Move them up, please. All these people, don’t get bored, don’t get angry at me because you’re going to get bored because it’s so much, the American people do not believe the corrupt fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But, you know, it used to be that they’d argue with me, I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight, I’d fight, they’d fight, bop, bop. You’d believe me, you’d believe them, somebody comes out, you know, they had their point of view. I had my point of view. But you’d have an argument. Now, what they do is they go silent. It’s called suppression, and that’s what happens in a communist country. That’s what they do, they suppress. You don’t fight with them anymore unless it’s a bad story. They have a little bad story about me. They make it ten times worse and it’s a major headline. But Hunter Biden, they don’t talk about him. What happened to Hunter? Where is Hunter? Where is Hunter? They don’t talk about him.
Now watch, all the sets will go off. Well, they can’t do that because they get good ratings. The ratings are too good. Now, where’s Hunter? You know, and how come Joe is allowed to give a billion dollars of money to get rid of the prosecutor in Ukraine? How does that happen? I’d ask you that question. How does that happen? Can you imagine if I said that? If I said that it would be a whole different ball game? And how come Hunter gets three and a half million dollars from the mayor of Moscow’s wife? And gets, hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit on an energy board, even though he admits he has no knowledge of energy. And millions of dollars up front and how come they go into China and they leave with billions of dollars to manage? ‘Have you managed money before?’ ‘No, I haven’t.’ ‘Oh, that’s good. Here’s about three billion.’ No, they don’t talk about that. No, we have a corrupt media, they’ve gone silent, they’ve gone dead. I now realize how good it was if you go back 10 years, I realize how good, even though I didn’t necessarily love them, I realized how good it was, it was like a cleansing motion, right? But we don’t have that anymore. We don’t have a fair media anymore. It’s suppression. And you have to be very careful with that. And they’ve lost all credibility in this country.
We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we’ve been forced to believe. Over the past several weeks we’ve amassed overwhelming evidence about a fake election. This is the presidential election. Last night was a little bit better because of the fact that we had a lot of eyes watching one specific state, but they cheated like hell anyway. You have one of the dumbest governors in the United States. And, you know, when I endorsed him — I didn’t know this guy— at the request of David Perdue, he said, he’s a friend of mine is running for governor. ‘What’s his name?’ And you know, the rest. He was in fourth place. Fifth place, I don’t know. He was way [down], he was doing poorly. I endorsed him. He went like a rocket ship and he won.
And then I had to beat Stacey Abrams with this guy, Brian Kemp. I had to beat Stacey Abrams and I had to beat Oprah. Used to be a friend of mine. You know, I was on her last show her last week. She picked the five outstanding people. I don’t think she thinks that anymore. Once I ran for president, I didn’t notice there were too many calls coming in from Oprah. Believe it or not, she used to like me, but I was one of the five outstanding people. And I had a campaign against Michelle Obama and Barack Hussein Obama against Stacy and I had Brian Kemp — he weighs one hundred and thirty pounds — he said he played offensive line and football. I’m trying to figure that out. I’m still trying to figure that out. He said the other night ‘I was an offensive lineman.’ I’m saying really, that must have been a very small team. But I look at that and I look at what’s happened, and he turned out to be a disaster.
This stuff happens, you know. Look, I’m not happy with the Supreme Court. They love to rule against me. I picked three people.
I fought like hell for them, one in particular, I fought. They all said, sir, cut him loose, he’s killing the senators, you know, very loyal senators. They’re very loyal people. Sir, cut him loose. He’s killing us, Sir. Cut him loose, Sir. I must have gotten half of the senators.
I said, no, I can’t do that. It’s unfair to him and it’s unfair to the family. He didn’t do anything wrong. They made up stories, they’re all made up stories, he didn’t do anything wrong. Cut him loose, Sir. I said, no, I won’t do that. We got him through. And you know what, they couldn’t give a damn, they couldn’t give a damn. Let him rule the right way. But it almost seems that they’re all going out of their way to hurt all of us and to hurt our country, to hurt our country.
You know, I read a story in one of the newspapers recently how I control the three Supreme Court justices.
I control them. They’re puppets. I read it about Bill Barr that he’s my personal attorney, that he’ll do anything for me. And I said, you know, it really is genius because what they do is that…and it makes it really impossible for them to ever give you a victory because all of a sudden, Bill Barr changed, if you hadn’t noticed. I like Bill Barr, but he changed because he didn’t want to be considered my personal attorney. And the Supreme Court, they rule against me so much. You know why? Because the story is — I haven’t spoken to any of them, any since virtually they got in — but the story is that they’re my puppet, right?
That they’re puppets. And now the only way they can get out of that, because they hate that it’s not good on the social circuit, that the only way they get out is to rule against Trump.
So let’s rule against Trump and they do that. So I want to congratulate them. But it shows you the media’s genius. In fact, probably if I was the media, I’d do it the same way. I hate to say it, but we got to get them straightened out. Today for the sake of our democracy, for the sake of our Constitution and for the sake of our children, we lay out the case for the entire world to hear.
Do you want to hear it? In every single swing state, local officials, state officials, almost all Democrats made illegal and unconstitutional changes to election procedures without the mandated approvals by the state legislatures. That these changes pave the way for fraud on a scale never seen before, and I think we can go a long way outside of our country when I say that.
So just in a nutshell, you can’t make a change on voting for a federal election unless the state legislature approves it. No judge can do it. Nobody can do it. Only a legislature. So as an example, in Pennsylvania or whatever, you have a Republican legislature, you have a Democrat mayor, and you have a lot of Democrats all over the place. They go to the legislature. The legislature laughs at them, says we’re not going to do that. They say thank you very much. And they go and make the changes themselves. They do it anyway. And that’s totally illegal. That’s totally illegal. You can’t do that.
In Pennsylvania, the Democrat secretary of state and the Democrat state Supreme Court justices illegally abolished the signature verification requirements just 11 days prior to the election. So think of what they did. No longer is there signature verification. Oh, that’s OK. We want voter ID, by the way, but no longer is there signature verification. 11 days before the election, they say we don’t want it. You know why they don’t want it? Because they want to cheat. That’s the only reason. Who would even think of that? We don’t want to verify a signature? There were over two hundred and five thousand more ballots counted in Pennsylvania. Now, think of this. You had two hundred and five thousand more ballots, then you had voters. That means you had two…where did they come from? You know, where they came from, somebody’s imagination, whatever they needed. So in Pennsylvania, you had two hundred and five thousand more votes than you had voters. And the number is actually much greater than that now. That was as of a week ago and this is a mathematical impossibility unless you want to say it’s a total fraud. So Pennsylvania was defrauded. Over 8000 ballots in Pennsylvania were cast by people whose names and dates of birth match individuals who died in 2020 and prior to the election. Think of that. Dead people. Lots of dead people, thousands and some dead people actually requested an application. That bothers me even more. Not only are they voting, they want an application to vote. One of them was twenty nine years ago died. It’s incredible. Over 14000 ballots were cast by out-of-state voters, so these are voters that don’t live in the state. And by the way, these numbers are what they call outcome determinative, meaning these numbers far surpass, I lost by a little bit. These numbers are massive, massive. More than 10000 votes in Pennsylvania were illegally counted even though they were received after Election Day.
In other words, they were received after Election Day. Let’s count them anyway. And what they did in many cases is they did fraud. They took the date and they moved it back so that it no longer is after Election Day.
And more than 60000 ballots in Pennsylvania were reported received back. They got back before they were ever supposedly mailed out. In other words, you got the ballot back before you mailed it.
Which is also logically and logistically impossible, right? Think of that one.
You got the ballot back. Let’s send the ballots so they’ve already been so. But we got the ballot back before they were sent. I don’t think that’s too good, right. Twenty five thousand ballots in Pennsylvania were requested by nursing home residents, all in a single giant batch, not legal, indicating an enormous illegal ballot harvesting operation. You’re allowed to do. It’s against the law. The day before the election, the state of Pennsylvania reported the number of absentee ballots that had been set out. Yet this number was suddenly and drastically increased by four hundred thousand people.
It was increased. Nobody knows where it came from by four hundred thousand ballots, one day after the election. It remains totally unexplained. They said, well, we can’t figure that. Now, that’s many, many times what it would take to overthrow the state. Just that what element.
Four hundred thousand ballots appeared from nowhere right after the election. By the way, Pennsylvania has now seen all of this. They didn’t know because it was so quick.
They had a vote. They voted, but now they see all this stuff. It’s all come to light. Doesn’t happen that fast.
And they want to recertify their votes. They want to recertify. But the only way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back.
Mike Pence has to agree to send it back.
And many people in Congress want to send it back. And think of what you’re doing. Let’s say you don’t do it, somebody says, well, we have to obey the Constitution and you are because you’re protecting our country and you’re protecting the Constitution. So you are. But think of what happens. Let’s say they’re stiffs and they’re stupid people and they say, well, we really have no choice.
Even though Pennsylvania and other states want to redo their votes, they want to see the numbers, they already have the numbers, go very quickly and they want to redo. Their legislature, because many of these votes were taken, as I said, because it wasn’t approved by the legislature, you know. That in itself is like…and then you have the scam and that’s all of the things that we’re talking about. But think of this. If you don’t do that, that means you will have a president of the United States for four years with his wonderful son. You will have a president who lost all of these states or you will have a president, to put it another way, who was voted on by a bunch of stupid people who lost all of these states. You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have, and we can’t let that happen.
These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about it. In fact, when I started talking about that, I guarantee you a lot of the television sets and a lot of those cameras went off and that’s a lot of cameras back there, but a lot of them went off. But these are the things you don’t hear about. You don’t hear what you just heard. I’m going to go over a few more states, but you don’t hear it by the people who want to deceive you and demoralize you and control you — big tech media — just like the suppression polls that said we’re going to lose Wisconsin by 17 points.
Well, we won Wisconsin. They don’t have it that way because I lost by just a little sliver. But they had me down the day before — Washington Post ABC poll — down 17 points. I called up a real pollster. I said, what is that? Sir, that’s called a suppression poll. I think you’re going to win Wisconsin, Sir. I said, but what are they? Make it four or five points because then people vote. But when you’re down 17, they say, hey, I’m not going to waste my time. I love the president, but there’s no way.
Despite that, despite that, we won Wisconsin. You’ll see. But that’s called suppression, because a lot of people, when they see that, it’s very interesting. This pollster said, Sir, if you’re down three, four or five people vote. When you go down 17, they say, let’s save, let’s go and have dinner and let’s watch the presidential defeat tonight on television, darling. And just like the radical left tries to blacklist you on social media, every time I put out a tweet, even if it’s totally correct, totally correct, I get a flag. I get a flag and they also don’t let you get out. You know, on Twitter, it’s very hard to come on to my account. It’s very hard to get out a message. They don’t let the message get out nearly like they should. But I’ve had many people say, I can’t get on your Twitter. I don’t care about Twitter. Twitter’s bad news. They’re all bad news. But you know what? If you want to get out a message and if you want to go through a big tech social media, they are really, if you’re a conservative, if you’re a Republican, if you have a big voice, I guess they call it a shadowban, right? Shadowban, they shadowban you.
And it should be illegal. I’ve been telling these Republicans, get rid of Section 230. And for some reason, Mitch and the group, they don’t want to put it in there and they don’t realize that that’s going to be the end of the Republican Party as we know it, but it’s never going to be the end of us, never. Let them get out.
Let the weak ones get out. This is a time for strength. They also want to indoctrinate your children in school by teaching them things that aren’t so, they want to indoctrinate your children. It’s all part of the comprehensive assault on our democracy. And the American people are finally standing up and saying, no. This crowd is again a testament to it. I did no advertising. I did nothing. You do have some groups that are big supporters. I want to thank that, Amy and everybody. We have some incredible supporters. Incredible. But we didn’t do anything. This just happened. Two months ago, we had a massive crowd come down to Washington. I said, what are they there for? Sir, they’re there for you. We have nothing to do with it. These groups they’re forming all over the United States. And we got to remember, in a year from now, you’re going to start working on Congress and we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren’t any good, the Liz Cheney’s of the world. We got to get rid of them.
We got to get rid.
You know, she never wants a soldier brought home. Twenty, I brought a lot of our soldiers home, I don’t know, somewhat like it. They’re in countries that nobody even knows the name. Nobody knows where they are. They’re dying. They’re great, but they’re dying. They’re losing their arms, their legs, their face. I brought them back home, largely back home. Afghanistan, Iraq. Remember I used to say in the old days, don’t go in Iraq, but if you go in, keep the oil. We didn’t keep the oil. So stupid, so stupid. These people. And Iraq has billions and billions of dollars now in the bank.
And what did we do? We got nothing. We never get…but we do actually. We kept the oil here. We did good. We got rid of the ISIS caliphate. We got rid of plenty of different things that everybody knows and the rebuilding of our military in three years.
People said it couldn’t be done and it was all made in the USA, all made in the USA. Best equipment in the world. In Wisconsin, corrupt Democrat-run cities deployed more than five hundred illegal, unmanned, unsecured drop boxes, which collected a minimum of ninety one thousand unlawful votes, it was razor-thin the loss. One thing alone is much more than we would need. But there are many things.
They have these lock boxes and you know, that pick them up and they disappear for two days. People would say, where’s that box that disappeared? Nobody even knew where the hell it was. In addition, over one hundred and seventy thousand absentee votes were counted in Wisconsin without a valid absentee ballot application. So they had a vote, but they had no application. And that’s illegal in Wisconsin, meaning those votes were blatantly done in opposition to state law. And they came one hundred percent from Democrat areas such as Milwaukee, and Madison, one hundred percent. In Madison, seventeen thousand votes were deposited in so-called human drop boxes, you know what that is, right, where operatives stuffed thousands of unsecured ballots into duffel bags on park benches across the city in complete defiance of cease and desist letters from state legislature.
Your state legislature said, don’t do it. They’re the only ones that can approve it.
They gave tens of thousands of votes. They came in and duffel bags. Where the hell did they come from? According to eyewitness testimony, Postal Service workers in Wisconsin were also instructed to illegally backdate approximately 100000 ballots. The margin of difference in Wisconsin was less than 20 thousand votes, each one of these things alone wins us the state, great state. We love the state. We won the state. In Georgia, your secretary of state, who I can’t believe this guy is a Republican, he loves recording telephone conversations, you know, that was a…I thought it was a great conversation personally, so did a lot of others, people loved that conversation because it says what’s going on. These people are crooked. They’re one hundred percent, in my opinion, one of the most corrupt, between your governor and your secretary of state, and now you have it again last night. Just take a look at what happened. What a mess. And the Democrat Party operatives entered into an illegal and unconstitutional settlement agreement that drastically weakened signature verification and other election security procedures.
Stacey Abrams. She took them to lunch. And I beat her two years ago with a bad candidate, Brian Kemp. But they took…the Democrats, took the Republicans to lunch because the secretary of state had no clue what the hell was happening, unless he did have a clue.
That’s interesting. Maybe he was with the other side, but we’ve been trying to get verifications of signatures in Fulton County.
They won’t let us do it. The only reason they won’t is because we’ll find things in the hundreds of thousands. Why wouldn’t they let us verify signatures in Fulton County, which is known for being very corrupt? They won’t do it. They go to some other county where you would live. I said that’s not the problem. The problem is Fulton County, home of Stacey Abrams.
She did a good job. I congratulate her. But it was done in such a way that we can’t let this stuff happen. We won’t have a country if it happens.
As a result, Georgia’s absentee ballot rejection rate was more than 10 times lower than previous levels because the criteria was so off. Forty eight counties in Georgia with thousands and thousands of votes, rejected zero ballots. There wasn’t one ballot. In other words, in a year in which more mail-in ballots were sent than ever before and more people were voting by mail for the first time, the rejection rate was drastically lower than it had ever been before. The only way this can be explained is if tens of thousands of illegitimate votes were added to the tally.
That’s the only way you could explain it. By the way, you’re talking about tens of thousands.
If Georgia had merely rejected the same number of unlawful ballots as in other years, they should have been approximately forty five thousand ballots rejected, far more than what we needed to win just over 11000.
They should find those votes. They should absolutely find that. Just over 11000 votes, that’s all we need. They defrauded us out of a win in Georgia and we’re not going to forget it.
There’s only one reason the Democrats could possibly want to eliminate signature matching oppose voter I.D. and stop citizenship confirmation. Are you a citizen? You’re not allowed to ask that question. Because they want to steal the election. The radical left knows exactly what they’re doing, they’re ruthless, and it’s time that somebody did something about it.
And Mike Pence, I hope you’re going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you’re not, I’m going to be very disappointed in you, I will tell you right now, I’m not hearing good stories.
In Fulton County, Republican poll watchers rejected, in some cases physically, from the room under the false pretense of a pipe burst — water main burst, everybody leave — which we now know was a total lie. Then election officials pulled boxes, Democrats and suitcases of ballots out from under a table — you all saw it on television, totally fraudulent — and illegally scanned them for nearly two hours, totally unsupervised, tens of thousands of votes. This act coincided with a mysterious vote dump of up to one hundred thousand votes for Joe Biden, almost none for Trump. Oh, that sounds fair. That was at 1:34 a.m. The Georgia secretary of state and pathetic governor of Georgia average…although he says I’m a great president, you know, I sort of maybe have to change, he said the other day. Yes, I do. I disagree with the president, but he’s been a great president. Oh, good, thanks, thank you very much. Because of him and others, yeah, Brian, can’t vote him the hell out of office, please. Well, his rates are so low, you know, his approval rating now, I think it just reached a record low. They’ve rejected five separate appeals for an independent and comprehensive audit of signatures in Fulton County. Even without an audit, the number of fraudulent ballots that we’ve identified across the state is staggering. Over ten thousand three hundred ballots in Georgia were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth matched Georgia residents who died in 2020 and prior to the election. More than two thousand five hundred ballots were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match incarcerated felons in Georgia prison, people who are not allowed to vote. More than four thousand five hundred illegal ballots were cast by individuals who do not appear on the state’s own voter rolls. Over eighteen thousand illegal ballots were cast by individuals who registered to vote using an address listed as vacant, according to the Postal Service. At least eighty eight thousand ballots in Georgia were cast by people whose registrations were illegally backdated. Sixty six thousand votes, each one of these is far more than we need.
Sixty six thousand votes in Georgia were cast by individuals under the legal voting age, and at least 15000 thousand ballots were cast by individuals who moved out of the state prior to the November 3rd election. They say they moved right back. They move right back. Oh, they moved out. They moved right back. OK, they missed Georgia’s that much. I do. I love Georgia, but it’s a corrupt system.
Despite all of this, the margin in Georgia is only eleven thousand seven hundred and seventy nine votes. Each and every one of these issues is enough to give us a victory in Georgia, a big, beautiful victory. Make no mistake, this election was stolen from you, from me and from the country, and not a single swing state has conducted a comprehensive audit to remove the illegal ballots. This should absolutely occur in every single contested state before the election is certified. In the state of Arizona, over thirty six thousand ballots were illegally cast by non-citizens. 2000 ballots were returned with no address. More than twenty two thousand ballots were returned before they were ever supposedly mailed out. They returned, but we haven’t mailed them yet. Eleven thousand six hundred more ballots and votes were counted more than there were actual voters. You see that? So you have more votes again than you have voters. One hundred and fifty thousand people registered in Maricopa County after the registration deadline. One hundred and three thousand ballots in the county were sent for electronic adjudication with no Republican observers. In Clark County, Nevada, the accuracy settings on signature verification machines were purposely lowered before they were used to count over one hundred and thirty thousand ballots. If you sign your name as Santa Claus, it would go through.
There were also more than forty two thousand double votes in Nevada, over one hundred and fifty thousand people were hurt so badly by what took place, and fifteen hundred ballots were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match Nevada residents who died in 2020 prior to the November 3rd election. More than a thousand votes were cast by individuals who had no address and probably didn’t live there. The margin in Nevada is down at a very low number. Any of these things would have taken care of the situation. We would have won Nevada also. Every one of these were going over. We win. In Michigan quickly, the secretary of state, a real great one, flooded the state with unsolicited mail-in ballot applications sent to every person on the rolls in direct violation of state law. More than seventeen thousand Michigan ballots were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match people who were deceased.
In Wayne County, that’s a great one, that’s Detroit, one hundred and seventy four thousand ballots were counted without being tied to an actual registered voter. Nobody knows where they came from. Also in Wayne County, poll watchers observed canvassers re-scanning batches of ballots over and over again, up to three or four or five times. In Detroit, turnout was 139 percent of registered voters. Think of that. So you had 139 percent of the people in Detroit voting. This is in Michigan. Detroit, Michigan. A career employee of the Detroit, city of Detroit, testified under penalty of perjury that she witnessed city workers coaching voters to vote straight Democrat while accompanying them to watch who they voted for. When a Republican came in, they wouldn’t talk to them. The same worker was instructed not to ask for any voter I.D. and not to attempt to validate any signatures if they were Democrats. She also [was] told to illegally and was told [to] backdate ballots received after the deadline and reports that thousands and thousands of ballots were improperly backdated. That’s Michigan. Four witnesses have testified under penalty of perjury that after officials in Detroit announced the last votes had been counted, tens of thousands of additional ballots arrived without required envelopes. Every single one was for a Democrat. I got no votes. At 6:31 a.m. in the early morning hours after voting had ended, Michigan suddenly reported one hundred and forty seven thousand votes. An astounding 94 percent went to Joe Biden, who campaigned brilliantly from his basement. Only a couple of percentage points went to Trump. Such gigantic and one-sided vote dumps were only observed in a few swing states and they were observed in the states where it was necessary. You know, it’s interesting, President Obama beat Biden in every state other than the swing states where Biden killed them, but the swing states were the ones that mattered. They’re always just enough to push Joe Biden barely into the lead. We were ahead by a lot and within a number of hours we were losing by a little.
In addition, there is the highly troubling matter of Dominion voting systems. In one Michigan county alone, 6000 votes were switched from Trump to Biden, and the same systems are used in the majority of states in our country. Senator William Ligon, a great gentleman, chairman of Georgia’s Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, Senator Ligon, highly respected on elections, has written a letter describing his concerns with Dominion in Georgia. He wrote, and I quote, ‘The Dominion voting machines employed in Fulton County had an astronomical and astounding 93.67 percent error rate’ — it’s only wrong 93 percent of the time — ‘in the scanning of ballots requiring a review panel to adjudicate or determine the voter’s interest in over one hundred and six thousand ballots out of a total of one hundred and thirty thousand.’ Think of it: you go in and you vote and then they tell people who you’re supposed to be voting for, they make up whatever they want. Nobody’s ever even heard. They adjudicate your vote. They say, well, we don’t think Trump wants to vote for Trump. We think he wants to vote for Biden. Put it down for Biden. The national average for such an error rate is far less than one percent, and yet you’re at 93 percent. ‘The source of this astronomical error rate must be identified to determine if these machines were set up or destroyed to allow for a third party to disregard the actual ballot cast by the registered voter.’ The letter continues:
‘There is clear evidence that tens of thousands of votes were switched from President Trump to former Vice President Biden in several counties in Georgia. For example, in Bibb County, President Trump was reported to have twenty nine thousand three hundred ninety one votes at 9:11 p.m. Eastern Time, while simultaneously Vice President Joe Biden was reported to have seventeen thousand two thirteen. Minutes later’ — just minutes — ‘at the next update, these vote numbers switched with President Trump going way down to seventeen thousand and Biden going way up to twenty nine thousand three ninety one.’ — and that was very quick — ‘a twelve thousand vote switch, all in Mr Biden’s favor.’
So, I mean, I could go on and on about this fraud that took place in every state. And all of these legislatures want this back.
I don’t want to do it to you because I love you and it’s freezing out here. But I could just go on forever. I can tell you this. So when you hear, when you hear, while there is no evidence to prove any wrongdoing, this is the most fraudulent thing anybody said. This is a criminal enterprise. This is a criminal enterprise, and the press will say, and I’m sure they won’t put any of that on that because that’s not good. And, did you ever see, ‘while there is no evidence to back President Trump’s assertion’ – I could go on for another hour reading this stuff to you and telling you about it. There’s never been anything like it. Think about it. Detroit had more votes than it had voters. Pennsylvania had two hundred and five thousand more votes than it had more. But you don’t have to go any…between that, I think that’s almost better than dead people, if you think, right? More votes than they had voters, and many other states also. It’s a disgrace that the United States of America, tens of millions of people, are allowed to go vote without so much as even showing identification. In no state is there any question or effort made to verify the identity, citizenship, residency or eligibility of the votes cast.
The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican Party if you don’t get tougher.
They want to play so straight. They want to play so ‘Sir, yes, the United States the Constitution doesn’t allow me to send them back to the States.’ Well, I say yes, it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our Constitution and you can’t vote on fraud.
And fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it?
When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do, and I hope he does listen to the rhinos and the stupid people that he’s listening to. It is also widely understood that the voter rolls are crammed full of non-citizens, felons and people who have moved out of state and individuals who are otherwise ineligible to vote. Yet Democrats oppose every effort to clean up their voter rolls. They don’t want to clean them up. They’re loaded. And how many people here know other people that when the hundreds of thousands and then millions of ballots got sent out, got three, four, five, six, and I heard one who got seven ballots? And then they say, ‘you didn’t quite make it, Sir.’
Ah, we won in a landslide. This was a landslide.
They said it’s not American to challenge the election. This is the most corrupt election in the history maybe of the world. You know, you could go third world countries, but I don’t think they had hundreds of thousands of votes, and they don’t have voters for them, I mean, no matter where you go, nobody would think this, in fact it’s so egregious, it’s so bad that a lot of people don’t even believe it. It’s so crazy that people don’t even believe it. ‘It can’t be true.’ So they don’t believe it. This is not just a matter of domestic politics. This is a matter of national security. So today, in addition to challenging the certification of the election, I’m calling on Congress and the state legislatures to quickly pass sweeping election reforms and you better do it before we have no country left.
Today is not the end. It’s just the beginning. With your help over the last four years, we built the greatest political movement in the history of our country and nobody even challenges that. I say that over and over. And I never get challenged by the fake news, and they challenge almost everything we say. But our fight against the big donors, big media, big tech and others is just getting started. This is the greatest in history. There’s never been a movement like that. You look back there all the way to the Washington Monument, it’s hard to believe. We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again. But we’re going forward. We’ll take care of going forward. We got to take care of going back. Don’t let them talk, ‘OK, well, we promise.’ I’ve had a lot of people, ‘Sir, you’re at 96 percent for four years.’
I said I’m not interested right now. I’m interested in right there. With your help, we will finally pass powerful requirements for voter ID. You need an ID to cash a check. You need an ID to go to a bank, to buy alcohol, to drive a car. Every person should need to show an ID in order to cast your most important thing, a vote.
We will also require proof of American citizenship in order to vote in American elections.
We just had a good victory in court on that one, actually. We will ban ballot harvesting and prohibit the use of unsecured drop boxes to commit rampant fraud. These drop boxes are fraudulent. They disappear and then all of a sudden they show up, it’s fraudulent. We will stop the practice of universal unsolicited mail-in balloting. We will clean up the voter rolls that ensure that every single person who cast a vote is a citizen of our country, a resident of the state in which they vote and their vote is cast in a lawful and honest manner. We will restore the vital civic tradition of in-person voting on Election Day so that voters can be fully informed when they make their choice.
We will finally hold big tech accountable. And if these people had courage and guts, they would get rid of Section 230, something that no other company, no other person in America, in the world, has.
All of these tech monopolies are going to abuse their power and interfere in our elections, and it has to be stopped and the Republicans have to get a lot tougher and so should the Democrats. They should be regulated, investigated, and brought to justice under the fullest extent of the law.
They’re totally breaking the law.
Together, we will drain the Washington swamp and we will clean up the corruption in our nation’s capital. We have done a big job on it. But you think it’s easy. It’s a dirty business. It’s a dirty business. You have a lot of bad people out there. Despite everything we’ve been through looking out all over this country and seeing fantastic crowds, although this I think is our all-time record, I think you have two hundred and fifty thousand people, two hundred and fifty thousand, looking out at all the amazing patriots here today, I have never been more confident in our nation’s future.
Well, I have to say, we have to be a little bit careful, that’s a nice statement, but we have to be a little careful with that statement.
If we allow this group of people to illegally take over our country, because it’s illegal when the votes are illegal, when the way they got there is illegal, when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information.
We are the greatest country on earth, and we are headed and we’re headed in the right direction, you know, the wall is built, we’re doing record numbers at the wall now, they want to take down the wall, ‘let’s let everyone flow in. Let’s let everybody flow in.’
We did a great job in the wall. Remember the wall? They said it could never be done, one of the largest infrastructure projects we’ve ever had in this country. And it’s had a tremendous impact. We’ve got rid of catch and release. We got rid of all of the stuff that we had to live with.
But now the caravan’s — they think Biden’s getting in — the caravans of forming again. They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen. As this enormous crowd shows, we have truth and justice on our side. We have a deep and enduring love for America in our hearts. We love our country. We have overwhelming pride in this great country and we have a deep in our souls. Together, we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still await. I think one of our great achievements will be election security, because nobody until I came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were.
And again, most people would stand there at nine o’clock in the evening and say, I want to thank you very much. And they go off to some other life.
But I said something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened. And we fight. We fight like hell.
And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun.
My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children and for our beloved country, and I say this despite all that’s happened, the best is yet to come.
So we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give — the Democrats are hopeless, they’re never voting for anything. Not even one vote — but we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all.
God bless you. And God bless America. Thank you all for being here. This is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.
“And God said, let there be… And there was… and God saw that it was good.”
Thus unfolds the most revolutionary as well as the most influential account of creation in the history of the human spirit.
In Rashi’s commentary, he quotes Rabbi Isaac who questioned why the Torah should start with the story of creation at all. Given that it is a book of law – the commandments that bind the children of Israel as a nation – it should have started with the first law given to the Israelites, which does not appear until the twelfth chapter of Exodus.
Rabbi Isaac’s own answer was that the Torah opens with the birth of the universe to justify the gift of the Land of Israel to the People of Israel. The Creator of the world is ipso facto owner and ruler of the world. His gift confers title. The claim of the Jewish people to the land is unlike that of any other nation. It does not flow from arbitrary facts of settlement, historical association, conquest or international agreement (though in the case of the present state of Israel, all four apply). It follows from something more profound: the word of God Himself – the God acknowledged, as it happens, by all three monotheisms: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is a political reading of the chapter. Let me suggest another (not incompatible, but additional) interpretation.
One of the most striking propositions of the Torah is that we are called on, as God’s image, to imitate God. “Be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy” (Leviticus 19:2):
The sages taught: “Just as God is called gracious, so you be gracious. Just as He is called merciful, so you be merciful. Just as He is called holy, so you be holy.” So too the prophets described the Almighty by all the various a tributes: long-suffering, abounding in kindness, righteous, upright, perfect, mighty and powerful and so on – to teach us that these qualities are good and right and that a human being should cultivate them, and thus imitate God as far as we can.
Implicit in the first chapter of Genesis is thus a momentous challenge: Just as God is creative, so you be creative. In making man, God endowed one creature – the only one thus far known to science – with the capacity not merely to adapt to his environment, but to adapt his environment to him; to shape the world; to be active, not merely passive, in relation to the influences and circumstances that surround him:
The brute’s existence is an undignified one because it is a helpless existence. Human existence is a dignified one because it is a glorious, majestic, powerful existence…Man of old who could not fight disease and succumbed in multitudes to yellow fever or any other plague with degrading helplessness could not lay claim to dignity. Only the man who builds hospitals, discovers therapeutic techniques, and saves lives is blessed with dignity…Civilised man has gained limited control of nature and has become, in certain respects, her master, and with his mastery he has attained dignity as well. His mastery has made it possible for him to act in accordance with his responsibility.
The first chapter of Genesis therefore contains a teaching. It tells us how to be creative – namely in three stages. The first is the stage of saying “Let there be.” The second is the stage of “and there was.” The third is the stage of seeing “that it is good.”
Even a cursory look at this model of creativity teaches us something profound and counter-intuitive: What is truly creative is not science or technology per se, but the word. That is what forms all being.
Indeed, what singles out Homo sapiens among other animals is the ability to speak. Targum Onkelos translates the last phrase of Genesis 2:7, “God formed man out of dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living creature,” as “and man became ruaĥ memallelah, a speaking spirit.” Because we can speak, we can think, and therefore imagine a world different from the one that currently exists.
Creation begins with the creative word, the idea, the vision, the dream. Language – and with it the ability to remember a distant past and conceptualise a distant future – lies at the heart of our uniqueness as the image of God. Just as God makes the natural world by words (“And God said…and there was”) so we make the human world by words, which is why Judaism takes words so seriously: “Life and death are in the power of the tongue,” says the book of Proverbs (18:21). Already at the opening of the Torah, at the very beginning of creation, is foreshadowed the Jewish doctrine of revelation: that God reveals Himself to humanity not in the sun, the stars, the wind or the storm but in and through words – sacred words that make us co-partners with God in the work of redemption.
“And God said, let there be…and there was” – is, the second stage of creation, is for us the most difficult. It is one thing to conceive an idea, another to execute it. “Between the imagination and the act falls the shadow.” Between the intention and the fact, the dream and the reality, lies struggle, opposition, and the fallibility of the human will. It is all too easy, having tried and failed, to conclude that nothing ultimately can be achieved, that the world is as it is, and that all human endeavour is destined to end in failure.
This, however, is a Greek idea, not a Jewish one: that hubris ends in nemesis, that fate is inexorable and we must resign ourselves to it. Judaism holds the opposite, that though creation is difficult, laborious and fraught with setbacks, we are summoned to it as our essential human vocation: “It is not for you to complete the work,” said Rabbi Tarfon, “but neither are you free to desist from it.” There is a lovely rabbinic phrase: maĥashva tova HaKadosh barukh Hu meztarfah lema’aseh.
This is usually translated as “God considers a good intention as if it were the deed.” I translate it differently: “When a human being has a good intention, God joins in helping it become a deed,” meaning – He gives us the strength, if not now, then eventually, to turn it into achievement.
If the first stage in creation is imagination, the second is will. The sanctity of the human will is one of the most distinctive features of the Torah. There have been many philosophies – the generic name for them is determinisms – that maintain that the human will is an illusion. We are determined by other factors – genetically encoded instinct, economic or social forces, conditioned reflexes – and the idea that we are what we choose to be is a myth. Judaism is a protest in the name of human freedom and responsibility against determinism. We are not pre-programmed machines; we are persons, endowed with will. Just as God is free, so we are free, and the entire Torah is a call to humanity to exercise responsible freedom in creating a social world which honours the freedom of others. Will is the bridge from “Let there be” to “and there was.”
What, though, of the third stage: “And God saw that it was good”? This is the hardest of the three stages to understand. What does it mean to say that “God saw that it was good”? Surely, this is redundant. What does God make that is not good? Judaism is not Gnosticism, nor is it an Eastern mysticism. We do not believe that this created world of the senses is evil. To the contrary, we believe that it is the arena of blessing and good.
Perhaps this is what the phrase comes to teach us: that the religious life is not to be sought in retreat from the world and its conflicts into mystic rapture or nirvana. God wants us to be part of the world, fighting its battles, tasting its joy, celebrating its splendour. But there is more.
In the course of my work, I have visited prisons and centres for young offenders. Many of the people I met there were potentially good. They, like you and me, had dreams, hopes, ambitions, aspirations. They did not want to become criminals. Their tragedy was that often they came from dysfunctional families in difficult conditions. No one took the time to care for them, support them, teach them how to negotiate the world, how to achieve what they wanted through hard work and persuasion rather than violence and lawbreaking. They lacked a basic self-respect, a sense of their own worth. No one ever told them that they were good.
To see that someone is good and to say so is a creative act – one of the great creative acts. ere may be some few individuals who are inescapably evil, but they are few. Within almost all of us is something positive and unique, but which is all too easily injured, and which only grows when exposed to the sunlight of someone else’s recognition and praise. To see the good in others and let them see themselves in the mirror of our regard is to help someone grow to become the best they can be. “Greater,” says the Talmud, “is one who causes others to do good than one who does good himself.” To help others become what they can be is to give birth to creativity in someone else’s soul. This is done not by criticism or negativity but by searching out the good in others, and helping them see it, recognise it, own it, and live it.
“And God saw that it was good” – this too is part of the work of creation, the subtlest and most beautiful of all. When we recognise the goodness in someone, we do more than create it, we help it to become creative. This is what God does for us, and what He calls us to do for others.
 Rashi 1:1
 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot De’ot 1:6.
 Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Lonely Man of Faith (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 16–17.
 T.S. Eliot, “The Hollow Men”, in T.S. Eliot, Collected Poems 1909–1962 (London: Faber and Faber, 1963), p92.
 Mishna, Avot 2:16.
 Tosefta, Pe’ah 1:4.
 Bava Batra 9a
SOURCE: The Three Stages of Creation (Bereishit 5779): http://eepurl.com/dJkzbL
It looks like sharing biblical blogs are going against big-techs Standards so I am reposting some of my old blog posts here on wordpress to see if they are shareable. Censorship2020
9/4/20 Update Reposting: RE: You can’t share this link natzrim. blogspot. com Your post couldn’t be shared, because this link goes against our Community Standards
Holy Hair (Holy Magic Hair Doctrine) sound problems? use a 3.5mm mini audio plug or ear buds.
“A woman’s long hair symbolizes that she submits to God’s plan and to the family leadership of her husband. It is her glory. It is a sign to the angels of her commitment to God and her power with God. It is a covering so that she can pray and prophesy publicly without being ashamed. Similarly, a man’s short hair symbolizes that he submits to God’s plan and accepts the family leadership position. For both married and unmarried, this symbol indicates obedience to God’s will.”~ David K. Bernard’s symposium paper regarding hair doctrine
Note: Christian churches are filled with passionate men and women of all ages who love God with all their being, and have a deeply genuine love for other people. Many “Bible believing Christians” believe many unbiblical heresies. The wide acceptance of the beliefs within Christendom does not make it biblical.
“Well, again historically speaking, if you study Judaism you will find that it is part of their belief that a man fails his wife if he does not provide her with jewelry and cosmetics to make herself look attractive for her husband.”
Question: Hair Length and Religion (Pagans View)
A reader asks, “I recently explored the option of joining a local Wiccan coven, and was floored when the High Priestess told me that if I became part of her group, I’d have to let my hair grow long. Because of my job, I have to keep my hair fairly short – it’s a safety issue – but she said that it was a tenet of “our religion” to let our hair grow long. She went on to tell me it was a way that Wiccans pay tribute to the goddess and embrace the sacred feminine. Is this true? Will I never be able to join a coven unless I grow my hair long? Help!”
Answer:…”The notion of hair as tied to religious belief is actually a pretty complex one. In some belief systems, hair is associated with magical power. Why is this? Well, it may be purely psychological. Take, for instance, a woman with long hair who wears it up in a neat bun, pulled back from her face, while she is at work. Her hair is kept tidily out of her way while she does her job, tends to her family, and so forth. And yet once this woman steps into a magical setting, she removes the pins and combs, setting her hair free – it’s a liberating feeling, to literally let your hair down. It brings a primitive sense of wildness and raw sexuality to the moment, and that in itself can be very powerful indeed.” From: Does hair length impact our religious practice?
Holy Magic Hair – UPCI Stamp of Approval
Holy Magic Hair
As an introduction, we encourage you to listen to the following videos of a June 29, 2008 sermon by an evangelist named, Lee Stoneking, who teaches this doctrine.
(Update June 22nd 2013 see video above if this one is deleted)
Power of angels?
God compelled to pour out his gift of the Holy Spirit because of uncut hair?
Receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost through the laying of hair?
A distinct anointing?
No results in prayer? Losing authority in prayer?
The devil knows we carry the glory of God in our hair?
A woman can gain power with God by having her hair grow long?
|This picture was taken at the Alabama’s Ladies retreat. Sis Patty Twyman took down her hair to summon the power of the angels over the prayer requests. Many prayers were answered.|
One of the endearing points of HMH advocates is that the idea that there is power in uncut hair can be verified in the wicca religion where the witches believe there is power in uncut hair.
Such proof can be seen in the message that is pro-HMH that I posted under the HMH post….
Another HMH advocate posted in her blog:
Did you know that witches won’t cut their hair because they try to tap into the power promised to us in 1Cor 11? Do you know why Indians used to scalp their enemies? Do you know why Nuns and Buddhist monks shave their hair? What does tar and feathering mean? Do you know who it was that first starting the hair cutting trend? What date was that? What about the hippie movement?
What significance is there when hair is found at the scene of a crime?
Daniel Alicea, the man who operates holymagichair.com, found in his research that…
“Most wiccan witches agree that there is no added or extra power in uncut hair while recognizing it is used in ritual magic…but so is eye newt, toe of frog…wool of bat and tongue of dog.”
He even quotes one wiccan saying “Hair does not give you extra power and you don’t lose power if it’s cut.”
Keeping in mind, believers on both sides are united against this magic hair heresy.
Some prevailing doctrines in certain circles that I believe have led to the extreme, present-day HMH doctrine can be traced to the teachings of men like of S.G. Norris and Murray Burr.
As early as the PAJC days in 1945, S.G. Norris, former president of Apostolic Bible Institute, General Presbyter and author, proposed elements now found in modern-day HMH doctrine.
On pages 3 and 12 of The Pentecostal Outlook, Volume 14, Number 9, September 1945, S.G Norris suggests that uncut hair results in a “special blessing” and power with God because of the angels. He also proposes that women have always been the leaders in prayer and power with God.
Here are a couple of the quotes from SG Norris’ Back to Holiness article :
Then Paul tells why a woman can either gain power with God by having her hair grow long or why she loses power with God if she cuts or bobs it (Verse 7 of this same chapter 1 Corinth. 11) (pg.3)But, you women say,why should I leave my hair grow when most all other women are having theirs cut? My answer to you is a wonderful promise of God found in this same chapter we are considering today. First Corinthians chapter 11 and verse 10. Don’t forget that God never asked any of us to pay a price of holiness without offering some grand reward for our obedience, Listen …“For this cause, or because of this allowing your hair to grow and using your hair as your covering when praying or worshipping at the house of God, then for this cause ought the woman to have power because of the angels.” Now maybe you never just considered this verse before, but God has angels on this earth not visible to the naked eye, but present just the same, around and near those who far the Lord … the angels encamp around them that fear Him.So there is a special blessing –a grand reward of power with God and the presence of holy angels around about a godly woman that does NOT cut her hair.Here is a promise that I wish every woman listening in today would remember. First of all Christ needs you! … the womanhood of any generation that knew God have always been the leaders in prayer and power with God … So women, here is a promise to every godly woman, that you will have power with God because of the presence of angels, providing you use your hair for a covering and not cut it or bob it off.
Burr, in a October 1954 Pentecostal Herald article entitled “The Hair Question” asserts the following views:
1. Cutting hair is a salvational matter.
“This a matter of life or of death, eternal salvation or eternal condemnation”.
2. Short hair affects spirituality.
“Mark these words, you will never find a really spiritual woman with short hair”
3. Cutting affects God’s favor over one’s life
” It is a shame for a woman to pray with short hair. You may not need God now; but one day you will need him more than anything else in this world. Perhaps in sickness, your baby, your husband, yourself. In death, in distress, how will you be able to kneel before him in sincerity with your short hair, a very banner of rebellion, mocking Him even as you try to lay hold of him in prayer’
David K. Bernard, the recently elected General Superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International, has seemingly put his stamp of approval on the increasingly popular practice of laying hair among Apostolic circles, in a recent 2009 UGST symposium paper.
Bernard’s symposium paper regarding hair doctrine is available for download here:
While condemning the practice under certain conditions, the following quote is being termed as a “free pass” legitimizing HMH doctrine :
There have been reports of women letting down their long hair as part of making a specific, urgent prayer request. If the idea was to obligate God to answer prayer or to create a new method of praying, then this action was misguided. If instead it was a spontaneous act to confirm their consecration, then it could have been a legitimate means of expressing and focusing faith.
Oneness theologian, Daniel Segraves, responded to Bernard’s paper with his own. It can be found here:
Segraves, who wrote what is deemed as the first official response by a UPCI theologian denouncing this dangerous heresy in an November 2009, Pentecostal Herald, is adamant in his disapproval of this liturgical or prayer practice.
In Segrave’s 2009 UGST symposium paper, in response to Bernard and those who have taken license to teach this heresy, he writes :
I Corinthians 11:10 is interpreted by some to mean that if women have long hair it gives them some kind of power or authority in the spiritual realm. It has even been suggested that women should let down their long hair, laying it on the altar, on another person, or shaking it in the wind in order to evoke this power. Support for this view is found in anecdotal evidence and reference works related to witchcraft and occultism. To interpret Scripture by anecdotal evidence is dangerous; our final authority is Scripture, not experience. To interpret Scripture by reference to witchcraft and occultism is even more dangerous. Scripture warns us to avoid the influence of these ideas; we are to be simple concerning evil and wise concerning what is good. (See Romans 16:19.)Concerning the meaning of I Corinthians 11:10, we can say with certainty that it says nothing about evil spirits, it says nothing about how a woman’s hair is arranged, and the word “hair” does not appear in the verse. I will forego further discussion here in view of the fact that my article “Another Look at I Corinthians 11:10: A Plea for Caution” appeared in the November 2009 issue of the Pentecostal Herald just before this symposium. The article addresses this subject in detail, and I commend it to those who are interested in this text and/or concerned about this novel interpretation.In response to the idea that there is a “magic formula in prayer that enables us to obtain whatever we want when we want it,” David Bernard writes,Some women have let down their hair as part of making a specific, urgent prayer request. If the idea is to obligate God to answer prayer, then this action is misguided. If the purpose is to confirm their consecration, then it could be a legitimate means of expressing and focusing faith. We can draw an analogy to the positioning of the sick so that Peter’s shadow would fall on them . . . and the use of handkerchiefs to pray for the sick . . . . Such practices were not mandatory and probably not even typical, but they were legitimate expressions of faith in the apostolic church.I completely agree that we cannot obligate God to answer prayer and that there is no “magic formula” enabling us to obtain whatever we want when we want it. I can also appreciate the desire to acknowledge the genuineness of any act of faith, no matter how bizarre it may seem or whether or not there is any biblical warrant for it. But my concern is that the teaching that is currently circulating among us does not see the letting down of a woman’s long has as a simple confirmation of consecration. Rather, it is being presented as a technique guaranteeing all kinds of miraculous results from the salvation of lost loved ones to the healing of diseases to the protection of children from any harmful effects of immunization to the ability to win back lost romantic affections. This is in addition to the idea of power over evil spirits. It seems there is no end to this; in one meeting the speaker suggested that God only knows what would happen if all of the Pentecostal women in the world would let down their hair and allow it to blow in the wind.As my wife and I discussed this teaching, she reminded me of an episode in our life when our daughter was very young and contracted some kind of respiratory ailment. As we rushed to the hospital with our daughter gasping for breath (and with the brakes of our car going out on the way), my wife screamed at God, “You’ve got to heal our daughter! We’ve always paid our tithes!”We have biblical precedent for the use of prayer cloths, even though we probably don’t use them in the same way that the handkerchiefs and aprons taken from Paul’s body were used. We even have biblical precedent for the possibility that someone could be healed as the shadow of a person of faith passes over them. We have no biblical precedent for a woman letting down her hair as a confirmation of consecration or to express and focus her faith. I do believe that there are such things as “special miracles” (Acts 19:11), and I don’t think the biblical record exhausts the ways miracles may occur. If it were not for the current abuse of I Corinthians 11:10, I might agree to the legitimacy of a woman letting down her hair to confirm her consecration, although God certainly knows of her consecration no matter how her hair is arranged.But the current climate on this issue is so troubling, so divisive, and so potentially harmful that I do not wish to suggest any degree of legitimacy to a practice that is based on misinterpreting a text, that draws on the claims of the occult, and that promises the ability to control outcomes. Instead, I would rather point people to simple faith in God that requires no props and that avoids any appeal to non-biblical sources for insight. I am concerned that some women, thinking they have found new depth of meaning in Scripture, will be tempted to look further into the realm of the occult for new insights on spirituality.
This has drawn the attention, criticism and ire of those who believe this free pass may threaten Bernard’s vision of a return to “Apostolic Identity”.
Is it worth losing the Power of Angels?
“You cannot AFFORD to cut your hair. Is it worth losing the power of angels? Is it worth losing authority in prayer? Is it worth losing your identity as an apostolic woman? We are known for uncut hair because it is what the bible teaches. My sister in love Courtney told me a story about a lady in her church,A blogger, by the name of Kendra, has joined the ranks of deceived believers who have fallen prey to a heretical doctrine that attributes power of angels and anointing to one act of obedience … in a plea initially addressed to herself, she states extra-biblical reasons taught by several in recent years, for why she NOT should commit this act. In the following post she also shares a “miracle” in which God is compelled to pour out His Spirit through the reminder of personal consecration and the laying of hair:
Her son was trying so hard Sunday after Sunday to get the Holy Ghost. For some reason he could not pray through. Finally one Sunday she took her hair and laid it on her son. She began to remind God of the power that she had because her hair was uncut, and you know what happened almost instantly? Her son received the Holy Ghost!!!
Does God come on the scene immediately for you? Whenever you want him to? Just let down your hair?
I know personally of apostolic women who gave in and cut their hair. As a result, they were miserable, depressed and regreted ever going it. You undergo a major spiritual catastrophe by cutting your hair. You will not receive the same results in prayer. You will not have the same anointing you once possessed. Uncut hair is serious business. OH GOD give us revelation and understanding!
Sister, DO NOT cut your hair, I repeat PLEASE don’t do it! [sic]
Sister, DO NOT cut your hair, I repeat PLEASE don’t do it! [sic]
Consider this: why is it that when a woman backslides, the first thing she does is cut her hair?? The devil knows that we carry the glory of God upon our uncut hair. The devil knows that there is POWER in our hair. We have a distinct anointing when we have uncut hair. I remember the first time I walked into a Pentecostal church where the ladies had uncut hair, you could FEEL the difference in anointing on the women! There was something about them that was so beautiful, holy and radiant. They almost looked like angels to me (that is no exaggeration). ”
Power of angels?
God compelled to pour out his gift of the Holy Spirit because of uncut hair?
Receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost through the laying of hair?
A distinct anointing?
No results in prayer? Losing authority in prayer?
The devil knows we carry the glory of God in our hair?
They almost looked like angels?
The post encapsulates what effect the teachings of men, like Lee Stoneking, are having on some within the Oneness Apostolic movement. A woman by name of Harvelia testifies on Kendra’s site that it was Stoneking’s influenced her towards similar views:
“Just recently I attended a conference where Bro. Lee Stoneking was speaking. His message was coming from 1 Cor. 11:5 and he was speaking about how the woman’s uncut hair being their glory – I was not raised in Pentecost/Apostolic; however, about three years ago the Lord led me to leave my former church which was is a prodominately [sic][ black apostolic church which I was a part of for over fifteen years. I had never receive such teaching – and it just left me wondering why the black apostolic churches are not teaching this. I had to call my sister because she’s been apostolic/pentecost longer than I have – but she’s never receive the teaching. I currently wear my hair naturally and have done so off and on for years. I felt bad when Bro. Stoneking was teaching because I recall cutting my hair – but this was never taught in my former church.Then it also leaving me wondering why it is not being taught in the african/black churches? ” (http://kendrathaler-hair.blogspot.com/p/hair-testimonies.html)
Error begets error. The pat answer given by some who tell the Body of Christ that these forms of consecrations and personal convictions are not salvific … may need to reexamine what is really being taught in their ranks. [sic]
THE HAIR ISSUE.
Excerpt from ‘Refute to Other Holiness Standards’ by Ricky Guthrie
UPCI teaches that it is sin for a woman to cut their hair, trim it or in any way break it. They take this teaching from the 11th chapter of I Corinthians.
If we look at this scripture we find that at the beginning of this chapter the Apostle Paul was dealing with a literal hair covering or veil. Later on in the chapter he mentions that long hair on a woman is considered part of her covering and that there is power in that long hair. Yet, if we look at this scripture we cannot find anywhere that Paul declared how long a woman’s hair was to be.
We know historically that in Corinth the temple prostitutes wore their hair as short as the men did. Some even shaved their heads, which some of the Jewish tribes considered shameful. This is why Paul kept speaking of if a woman did not wear a head covering then she should have her head shaved. He did declare that it was shameful for a woman to have all of her hair cut off, but no where did he say she could not cut her hair. Matter of fact, it declares that a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign of authority because of the angels.
UPCI says this covering on her head is her hair and yes, Paul said long hair was given to her as a covering, but it would not make sense that this whole chapter is dedicated to long hair because he said if she refused to wear a head covering then let her shave her head. [Also See Article The Issue Of Head Covering ]
Long hair on a woman has always been dictated by society. We don’t know what length a woman’s hair was in those days. Also let us look at something else.
It is obvious that in Paul’s day it was considered shameful for a woman to shave her head but that had not always been in Israel. We read in the law that God told Moses that if they conquered a country and captured women and a Israelite man found one of the women attractive and wanted to marry her that she was to shave her head and pare her nails. (Deuteronomy 21:12.)
Also in studying Jewish history, we find where in some of the tribes it was a custom that when a woman became betrothed to her fiance she would shave her hair and wear a wig until the day her hair grew out after she was married. The reasoning for this was that hair was considered part of what attracted men to women and these women did not want to be attractive to any man than her husband to be. If any other man tried to seduce her, she would remove her wig and show him her shaved head which repulsed him and let him know she was betrothed.
If a woman cutting her hair was sinful, why did God allow these heathen women to shave their heads before marrying an Israelite husband?
It is not the cutting of the hair that is sinful. It is when men and women want to emulate one another and look like one another until you cannot distinguish man from woman. God hates unisex.
If we study the lifestyles of the people during the life of Paul and the Apostles, we find that the prostitutes of the temple cut their hair as short as the Greek and Roman men but the male temple prostitutes wore their hair long. It is obvious that Paul, in dealing with the Christians in Corinth, was using his surroundings for his message. If what he said was fully true about men, then his own people would be sinning for the men never trimmed the sides of their hair and wore it long, as under the law.
We must understand that God wants men and women to be separate in appearance. Women not to cut their hair so short they look like men and men not to wear their hair so long they look like women.
THE HAIR ISSUE. II
Double Standards and Eisegesis’ By Stephen Mann
1. OVERVIEW OF THE TEACHING OF HAIR LENGTH
The doctrine of uncut hair is thought of by many in the United Pentecostal Church International as being ‘revealed’ to them by God and is seen as one of the pillars for identifying people as the ‘true Apostolics’ or ‘Pentecostals’. In following this teaching many extra-Biblical rules and guidelines have been developed which are as complex as any of the many ‘hand-washing’ ordinances invented by zealous Jewish believers of Christ’s day. These modern extra-Biblical rules regarding 1 Corinthians 11 I will address in depth.
This teaching, followed to an extreme, results in a heavy burden of guilt to ladies under it especially since some even teach that a lady not ever trimming or cutting her hair prevents evil, deception and rebellion from entering her home or father and mother’s home and so if adultery and sin enters a home some will blame the lady for cutting her hair. It can also be used as the reason any tragedy, sickness or calamity has come on individuals.
2. EXEGESIS OR EISEGESIS OF 1 CORINTHIANS 11
The reality is that this so-called ‘exegesis’ (bringing out the meaning) of 1 Corinthians 11, as meaning ‘no cutting’, is really ‘eisegesis’ (reading a meaning into the text). The ‘no cutting’ doctrine just isn’t there. That’s why, instead of studying, many are merely encouraged to pray for a revelation of this teaching and stay within the organizational ‘fences’. This illustrates what happens (mostly through ignorance) once one starts departing from and adding to the Scriptures even in what may be considered good ways. [See Section Reading and Understanding Your Bible ]
Over a period of several years as a licensed minister with the UPC, I looked more deeply at the no trimming teaching comparing it with the Bible passage. It became more and more obvious to me that the UPC teaching was very complex in its ‘interpretation’ of what is cultural (not for us today) and what is universal (for all people everywhere) in that passage. It wasn’t until after I was led by God to leave however, that I was able to clearly see how ‘no cutting’ ignores the real teaching of the passage (Paul teaching wearing a physical veil, saying that if the woman isn’t covered she may as well shear her hair, and comparing long hair on men and long hair on women to encourage veiling). This is more than likely because while in the UPC it is very difficult to look without bias at the passage and just be open to what the Bible teaches. It is so clear now to me that anything beyond the Bible’s clear commands, by implication, must be omitted by God for a reason. If He wanted to make uncut hair important (as He did with many other issues) He would have made it clear in the Bible. I personally have no problem with any lady choosing freely to not cut her hair or any organization making it their distinctive but I believe it is Pharisaical and legalistic to put the traditions and desires of men on the same level of authority as the teaching and Word of God.
3. DOUBLE STANDARDS IN TEACHING FROM 1 CORINTHIANS 11
This non-Biblical teaching of ‘no cutting’ has developed a lot more than splitting hairs (pardon the pun) and has led to more and more complex rules and double standards to try to cover up the glaring omission of ‘no cutting’ from the text (basically teaching it is hidden inside the passage). Here are some of the double standards that I now see in their view of 1Corinthians 11 that I ignored for years thinking there was some other explanation for them:
If the word ‘long’ in 1 Corinthians 11 really means hair without any cutting at all (to let grow),
It follows that…
If a woman has hair to her waist but trims her ends, her head is uncovered and her hair is not long. BUT if a man has hair to his waist but trims his ends his hair is long!
Many teachers of this doctrine would consider men like the men in Megadeath, or even the Beatles, as having long hair, and if converted to their church, would teach them from the same passage in 1 Corinthians 11 that they should cut their hair ‘short’ (measured to above the collar) out of the same verse saying it’s a shame to have long hair. (I wonder how it is that Samson’s long hair pleased God?)
In other words, for these teachers, trimmed is not long enough for women but it’s too long for men. This is clearly a double standard.
4. NON-LITERAL AND LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE
The two different meanings and applications are taught from the one same word in the Bible, and in context clearly refer to the one thing…long hair. If this were another Greek word such as is used for baptism (baptiso) the same teachers would be acting very differently. Such teachers, on topics such as baptism, often make it very clear that to them there is only one way to translate, interpret and apply Scripture (literally) yet here they overlook the omission of clear apostolic teaching on the matter and overlook historical Biblical practice. They have a double standard and so must take the word in both a literal and a non-literal double meaning.
If the same Greek word ‘komao’ (only used in these two verses of the whole Greek New Testament) can be translated into two vastly different meanings (as hair ‘let grow-ness’ for women and in the same passage as hair ‘shortness’ for men) without anything in the passage to justify or confirm it, then it’s little wonder that ‘no braids’ is interpreted to not really mean no braids but ‘no jewelry’ in the same Bible passage is interpreted to really mean no jewelry! (1 Timothy 2:9-19; 1 Peter 3:3)
It’s also little wonder that when the Bible clearly says we are saved ‘not by works of righteousness’ this kind of adding to the Bible is used to say that it really doesn’t mean ‘not by works’…in their Bible eisegesis it is explained to mean not JUST by works, because if you don’t have works then you will be lost.
What’s even more amazing to me is the teaching not only implies Biblical good works are salvational, but also that extra-Biblical works such as not trimming dead ends, not wearing pants, and not wearing jewelry at all, are ‘good works’ and without which show one doesn’t have faith (unless one is a new believer -then it’s mysteriously overlooked)! This sounds like the Pharisees with their extra rules and exemptions for washing hands, Sabbath prohibitions and ‘separation’ from sinners and Samaritans!
With this complexity and confusion (continually reinforced by three to four services per week, books, cassettes, videos and conferences), these kind of teachers keep souls from grasping the simplicity that is really in Jesus: Salvation is a gift and not a result of our keeping standards (even Biblical ones which we are, by the way, encouraged to keep and which we will grow to do as a result of being saved and filled with God and not the means by which to be saved or earn more of God).
The Pharisees of Jesus’ day were double standards experts and had filled books with complex rules, commentary, etc. on what was allowed and what wasn’t, what the passage really means and what it doesn’t.
5. NON-ABSOLUTE ABSOLUTES?
These modern teachers explain the word ‘long’ in 1 Corinthians 11 to mean that any woman who ever trims her hair even once by definition doesn’t have long hair since it is not ‘let to grow’ and she has an uncovered head. This is absolutely and clearly what the word ‘long’ in the Bible means to them.
These absolutes are further ‘explained’ to mean that ladies and girls can never trim dead ends since that is not letting the hair grow as ‘taught in the Bible’.
Yet the interesting double take and complexity fog index is applied when these teachers supersede their previous absolute interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 and allow cut hair to be considered ‘long’ (since the majority of women today have cut their hair) and mysteriously recognise what was once an uncovered head as having been transformed mystically through their faith somehow into a covered head (where there is no Scripture indicating any thing of that nature or any loop-holes in the previous absolutes).
They do this through many complex maneuvers where the Bible passages supposedly clear teaching of ‘long’ as always meaning ‘to let their hair grow’ is superseded in certain circumstances.
(In other words they turn a blind eye to this absolute ‘no cutting’ rule sometimes.)
6. CONTRADICTIONS AND DISPENSATIONS
Dispensation for a woman NOT having ‘long’ cut hair (or an uncovered covered head) is granted only in the following MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
• a) hair cutting before conversion
• b) hair cutting in preparation for surgery
• c) hair cutting in an emergency rescue or life threatening situation
• d) hair cutting if another attacked the person and perpetrated it
• e) hair cutting if you were backslidden but have since repented (although one cannot cut and repent too often or too frequently or when one’s hair is too tangled since that is an unforgivable sin)
• f) having an uncovered head if you were accused of adultery in the Old Covenant (Numbers 5:18)
• g) hair shaving if you were a captured enemy female about to marry an Israelite (God commanded it in Deuteronomy 21:12)
• h) hair cutting, shaving and plucking if it’s hair that’s on your legs, eyebrows or under your arms
• i) if you were a female and took the Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:18)
So in summary; to the double standard teachers, ‘long’ means ‘to let grow’, EXCEPT if one is unconverted, backslidden, sick, attacked, in the OLD TESTAMENT as a captive wife-to-be or in mortal danger and can only be saved by cutting the hair.
Only in these certain cases is the non-‘long’ cut hair ‘long’.
BUT THEN DOUBLING BACK AGAIN SAY
However ‘long’ can NOT be interpreted to mean it’s allowable to trim it from an inability to care for it (example: disability etc.), or when elderly and unable to maintain it, or to ever make the hair healthy and get rid of split ends since that is clearly not in the Bible and the Church has clearly ruled that it is sinful, rebellious, worldly and virtually unforgivable.
7. CHURCH LEADERS LEGISLATING ON EQUAL AUTHORITY WITH SCRIPTURE
The church leaders take on an authority to rule in their member’s lives beyond that which the Bible gives them. The hair cuttee ONLY receives the ‘imprimatur’ by the Church in said circumstances which have been ruled on. Mysteriously in those circumstances the non-‘long’ hair is transubstantiated into ‘long’ hair and the head deemed ‘covered’ by the powers-that-be.
To the modern (double) standards teachers, such cases mysteriously don’t mean the Church has equal authority with the Bible or that they apply the Bible one way for one person/situation/time and another way for another person/situation/time. In their view they are simply ‘rightly dividing the Word’.
In fact many teachers teach both contrary teachings of ‘long’ and think that both contradicting positions are taught at the same time in the same passage without ever seeing the contradiction. The Organisation brainwashes members to think that it’s the other teachers (who to some are not even considered Christian) that are soft and have itching ears and don’t understand the truth that the UPC has (known as ‘the revelation’). These Organisational leaders, as kinds of vicars for Christ on earth, have an infallibility and unquestionable authority equal with Scripture and alone can interpret such mysterious contradictions of literal and non-literal interpretations of the same passage.
Saying people need to believe it while it seems contradictory and arbitrary, solely because the church leaders say it is Biblical and is not contradictory, reminds me of the White Queen saying to Alice in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland — “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things
8. THE SIN OF PRIDE Many tend to think, like I did, that since they are (supposedly) the only ones who really understand, teach and obey God’s revelation in the Bible, that they must therefore be spiritually superior to other Christians who don’t understand or obey it, or even the only ‘true Christians’. Although humility is emphasized, many proudly believe that because ‘their ladies’ are more ‘feminine’ and more ‘modest’, that it is proof very few outside of the denomination will be saved and also is proof that they alone are God’s elite whom God will use to lead other Christians to the truth they have.
Jesus compared the prayers of the proud Pharisee who relied on his works and left in his sins with those of the humble sinner who humbly relied on God’s mercy and left justified. Friend what importance do you think God really places on their hair length? If the one crying for mercy were a female with cut hair would God have refused to justify her because she cut her hair? I think not. How would the story go if the Pharisee of Jesus day were a modern UPC woman praying, “I thank you for the revelation of 1 Corinthians 11. I thank You that I have never cut my hair, not like this other sinful lady”?
For about ten years I proudly believed that I taught (what I thought was) Biblical doctrine in Australia and overseas; that 1 Corinthians 11 teaches ladies not to ever cut or trim their hair. I now see I was wrong and apologise to any of you that have carried, or still carry this extra-Biblical yoke through my teaching or influence. I am sorry for misrepresenting the Word and character of God and I humbly thank Him for His grace to help me see my pride and errors. Please study and pray about this teaching.
I appeal to you my brother and sister, even if at this point you still disagree with me on what 1 Corinthians 11 teaches, that you agree with me that it is by no means related to the gift of Salvation, and that you agree God can and does and will forgive His prodigals whatever their hair length.
He accepts us all unconditionally as His children through our believing that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was substitutional and that His blood paid in FULL our sins, not in ANY way through our works of ‘obedience’, and especially not through any ‘obedience’ to something not clearly taught in the Bible or practiced in Jewish or Christian history.
Your brother in His Kingdom,
THE PANTS ISSUE!
Scriptures Prohibiting the Wearing of Pants by Women? By Stephen Mann
A) Verses Teaching No Pants
I have cut and pasted all five verses prohibiting women wearing pants from my KJV. Please study the five verses below with an open mind and you will see what the Bible actually says about women not wearing pants….
(That’s right, friend, there are absolutely no verses at all that prohibit pants on women!)
B) Deuteronomy 22:5
Ah, but you say what about this verse…
• The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
Well quite simply, there are four reasons why I have difficulty with the no-pants interpretation from this passage…
• 1. The passage doesn’t clearly prohibit pants on women but there are very clear prohibitions for eating pork, not keeping Friday/Saturday (Sabbath) holy, not wearing mixed apparel of linen and wool etc., so even if there was (which there isn’t), it still wouldn’t mean it is for us today if it isn’t taught to Gentiles in the new covenant.
• 2. If Deuteronomy 22:5 is to be seen as a law to be obeyed today, then a consistent interpretation would mean the prohibited mixed threads, Kosher foods and other laws in the same chapter should also be followed. Why are anti-pants teachers overlooking these others?
• 3. If the Deuteronomy 22 passage is to be used as a principle, it should also be applicable to prohibit other male garments on women such as t-shirts, boots, underwear, scarves, gloves, sneakers, etc. Why is this principle not followed to its natural implications?
• 4. Lastly, if the Deuteronomy 22 passage is to be used as a principle for today (and the previous three points are overlooked), then it remains to be proved that pants are men’s clothing. Culturally they were on women in China long before the Western men left off wearing tights (which by the same principle should be called men’s apparel!) and hence fail on historical grounds as well.
C) Hebrew for the word translated ‘garment’
Let’s look at the Hebrew word that ‘garment’ is translated from: 8071 simlah (sim-law’); Strong says: “perhaps by permutation for the feminine of 5566 (through the idea of a cover assuming the shape of the object beneath); a dress.”
Some would focus in on the word Strong uses above (dress), saying that the word in this passage teaches that the dress is female attire. They overlook the fact that Strong goes on to say…
• “especially a mantle: apparel, cloth (-es, -ing), garment, raiment. comp. 8008.”
Strong says the majority of times it is translated raiment, clothes and garment (as it is here in Deuteronomy 22:5 in the KJV). Not once is it translated into the English word ‘dress’. Rather similar to when we say men and women’s dress sense, we are not talking about only female attire. The word means clothes, not dresses!
Some commentators teach the passage is specifically prohibiting women wearing men’s armour, but whether it’s apparel or armour there is no teaching here that pants are for men only.
While Deuteronomy 22 verse 5 is often quoted, verse 30 is often overlooked…
• “a man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt” Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV
If ladies wanted to legislate doctrine for men, here’s a good place they could have started!
Did men wear skirts back then?
Is it Biblical?
Here in verse 30 you have it straight from the KJV Bible that all you women wearing skirts are cross dressers! This is really men’s apparel. Consider this verse…
• Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul’s robe privily 1 Sam 24:4
There are many more Bible verses for men wearing skirts than women wearing them! The Bible speaks of men’s skirts twelve times: (Dt 22:30, Dt 27:20, Ru 3:9, 1 Sa 15:27, 1 Sa 24:4, 1 Sa 24:5, 1 Sa 24:11, 1 Sa 24:11, Eze 16:8, Hag 2:12, Hag 2:12, and Zec 8:23).
If you’re really going to follow the Bible literally and get back to Biblical men’s and women’s garments, then get those sewing machines buzzing, men, and stop those women from wearing your skirts!! (Yes I am joking.)
In ancient Egypt their normal clothing was a loincloth wrapped around the hips and girdled at the waist. A cape was worn on the shoulders and later a long garment called a kalasiris was introduced. Men wore this as a skirt around their waist; women wore it over their upper body, or as a full-length garment that sometimes had sleeves.
The Hebrews, Assyrians, and Babylonians all wore a long, sleeved garment similar to a nightshirt, with cloaks or kalasiris-like overgarments. These clothes appear to be stiff, with fringed and tasselled borders and square or rounded corners.
For thousands of years in history we don’t find pants and it is a relatively modern and culturally brief period of history where there was a distinction of pants only on men and dresses only on women.
Even today in the Pacific and other areas of the world, many continue to wear a sarong or robe on males and females with only a small distinction between them.
There is no verse in the Scriptures prohibiting women wearing pants or saying that a dress was all a female could wear. Instead we find, in the Bible and in history, men wearing similar garments to women (what we would call dresses today).
There is also no Biblical precedent or teaching regarding males alone wearing pants. Although there may be some cultural norms in some countries today, there is no prohibition by God and it is never referred to (as many falsely preach today) as an abomination to God. This is a sad example of denominational ignorance and eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) instead of exegesis (reading the text’s meaning).
STANDARDS FOR MEN
Excerpt from ‘Refute to Other Holiness Standards ‘ by Ricky Guthrie
The UPCI teaches standards for men when there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that deals with dress codes for men except a man should not wear a woman’s clothing.
Many of the hardliners say men have to wear long sleeved shirts or they are being immodest. Where they get that teaching I have not the slightest idea.
In their manual they say that their young men cannot suit out for gym because it is immoral or immodest. They say that men cannot bare their legs in public, like wearing shorts, because it is immodest.
Again let us look at history.
There were ancient pictures found in a Babylonian ruin of a Hebrew man working in the fields. This was after the law was given on Sinai. This man was wearing only a long tunic that went from his waist to his knees. Another showed a man wearing a tunic below the knees. Both men were bare-chested and bare-footed. They were working in the fields.
It has been proven that in ancient Egypt, because of the extreme heat, the Egyptian men wore no shirt. Slaves were only given tunics to wear as they worked. We know that Joseph was sold into slavery. Do we contend that he was given special privileges? I don’t think so. Does this mean Joseph sinned against God?
What about all the Israelite men in slavery in Egypt? Did those who died in slavery lose their souls?
What about the fact that King Saul danced so much in the spirit that he danced his clothing off? The people saw this but none said he was immodest. The same thing with David. We know he did the same when bringing the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem. UPCI contends he sinned and that is why Michal rebuked him, but notice it was not because he had sinned it was because Michal thought the King of Israel should be above such displays of emotion.
Then we have the story of Peter. After Christ rose again, Peter decided to go fishing. The KJV said he was naked. Other translations say he was stripped for work, which tells us he was bare-chested. Historically speaking, we find that Israelite men in the heat of the day when fishing, stripped down to their tunics. This is what Peter did. It was old habit and acceptable. UPCI begs to differ because they say he was embarrassed because when Jesus called, he put on his coat and jumped into the water.
What they don’t understand that at the time the waters were still cold and even then a fisherman’s coat was expensive and a very valuable part of their wardrobe. It kept them warm in the winter when they had to survive. No fisherman would leave their coat in the boat.
If this was due to the fact that Peter was backslid and sinning, why did not John write and tell us that Jesus rebuked Peter for being immodest? He did not because that was not considered immodest or sin.
There just are absolutely no standards in the Bible for men except the fact that a man is never to reveal his private parts in public. This is why God had the priest put on linen breeches when going up to the altar. Israel came out of slavery in Egypt and when the Egyptians wore robes they wore no under clothing, so if they climbed something you could look up their robes and see their private parts.
Are there rules and regulations in the Bible for us to live by? Absolutely! These are well documented in the gospels and epistles. We are told that we are not to lie, steal, cheat, gossip, tell tales. We are not to abuse one another, be deceitful. We are not to live in anger and bitterness. We are not to curse or cuss or use profanity. We are not to tell dirty jokes. We are not to commit adultery, fornication or homosexuality. Men are to be masculine and women effeminate. We are to be obedient to man’s laws as long as they do not try to force us to sin against God. We are to love one another as Christ loved us and to forgive each other immediately of any wrongdoing.
We are to live in peace and to owe no man anything. (Which means to pay our bills) We are not to slander one another. Be obedient to parents. Wives are to submit to their husbands as the head of the house, but men are to honor their wives, not abuse them or misuse them. Women are to dress modestly. These are just some of the rules of the Christian life.
Excerpt from ‘Refute to Other Holiness Standards ‘
by Ricky Guthrie
The only true argument they can use is the same old stale argument that prostitutes used make-up to seduce men and Jezebel wore it the day she tried to seduce Jehu.
Well, again historically speaking, if you study Judaism you will find that it is part of their belief that a man fails his wife if he does not provide her with jewelry and cosmetics to make herself look attractive for her husband. Also many of the women in the tribes wore heavy make-up when working in the fields because it protected their faces from the harsh sun.
Nowhere in the Bible do we find where the wearing of make-up is prohibited. This again lies with the fact that the ministry of the UPCI wants women to be subservient to men in all aspects, and as in a lot of their teachings, this comes back to human sexuality.
This constant fear of sexual sins. Nearly everything they teach basically comes down to what they think is immodest or what will lead their members to commit sexual sins.
They feel if they allow their women to wear make-up they will attract other men, so if they keep them looking like plain janes they will not commit sexual sins. It does not matter how many times someone in their movement falls into sexual sin, they don’t change their stand.
The Scripture mostly used to support the teaching that one is not to wear make-up is:
• 2 Kings 9:30: And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window.
Proponents of this teaching will say that we really don’t want to be a part of anything that has to do with Jezebel.
According to Thayer’s & Smith’s, ‘tired’ here is the Hebrew word ‘yatab’ which means, in short, ‘to be good, be pleasing, be well, be glad’. In other words, she combed her hair.
I can’t say it enough. If because Jezebel put on make-up, then make-up is a sin, then combing you hair is, too. This an just one more example of the lack of Bible scholarship in the UPC. I was always taught that Jezebel was trying to seduce her enemy here. But a basic reading of the text reveals that Jezebel knew she was going to die and was simply mocking her soon to be captor by fixing herself up for her death. She wasn’t putting on make-up to seduce anyone and neither do 85% of the women in the world!
Here is another good one:
• Jer 4:30 “‘And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do ? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.'”
Three things are cast in a negative light here (supposedly): 1) Jewelry 2) Make-up 3) The color red. Now the UPC condemns two of these things and they use this scripture to back themselves up, but they, like with braiding, choose to ignore part of the scripture. So, tell me, is it now a sin to wear red too?
I read where someone stated that “looking at a pattern of things in the Word of God, we can safely say that a Godly woman should not wear make-up. If Paul wrote to not wear gold, pearls, or costly array, do you think that make-up would be pleasing to God?”
Oh, so women should not braid their hair, either. I noticed they left that part out. The UPC’ers always say that ‘plaiting’ meant weaving gold into your hair. That might have applied at times, but most often women simply braided their hair without anything in it and I’ve yet to find anywhere that says it means anything other than braiding in general.
An adherent of the no make-up rule might state that the main point in this is actually not the make-up, but the spirit or attitude that would make a woman want to wear make-up that’s a sin.
If an 80 year old, happily married grandmother put on little lipstick, which of her motivations are comparable to Jezebel or prostitution? Are you actually suggesting that she is trying to incite lust? Give me a break! But you just about have it – it is the ‘spirit or attitude’ that makes something a sin, not the make-up itself! If a woman puts on make-up to attract men, she is in sin, but if she puts it on simply to look nice, like when she combs her hair, where is the sin?
Often a proponent of these standards teachings will bring up an extreme during a conversation, saying something to the effect that homosexuality will soon be socially accepted and that just because something becomes socially accepted, it is not a reason to do such things as wear make-up or for women to wear pants.
One big difference here. The Bible specifically condemns homosexuality , it does not condemn cut hair, pants or make-up on women.
Refuttation of the UPCI Teaching on Jewelry by Ricky Guthrie
According to the UPCI the Bible frequently associates jewelry with a proud attitude, an immoral lifestyle, or pagan worship. They take this stand based on the story of Jacob and the story of the golden calf. This is one of the reasons they say the wearing of jewelry is sinful.
In Genesis we find that Abraham sent his servant, Eliezer, to find his son Isaac a wife. Abraham sent him to some of his kinfolk. Eliezer met a young girl named Rebecca. When she told him whose family she was with, he gave her a gold nose ring and two gold bracelets. Later on we read where he gave her more jewelry, etc.
We all know that Abraham was called the friend of God. It is obvious that he did not think the wearing of jewelry was sinful or he would not have sent Eliezer with jewelry for the young future bride of his son, Isaac.
We also know that Rebecca was the mother of Jacob. The same Jacob the UPCI claims did away with the wearing of jewelry.
Jacob left his home because he took his brother’s birthright and went to his mother’s brother’s home. Here he married two sisters, Leah and Rachel. We have to understand that Laban did not worship Jehovah but worshipped household gods as we find in Genesis when Rachel stole her dad’s household gods.
It was in worship of these gods that the women wore certain types of jewelry. They wore amulets and charms also to ward off evil spirits. Jacob, who served Jehovah, knew in God’s sight these article of jewelry were wicked so he had them buried. This in no way tells us that the wearing of jewelry is sinful. The wearing of jewelry worn to ward off demonic spirits or worn in worship to false gods is wrong.
• 1 Peter 3:3, 5 – “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel…For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:”
Above, Peter instructs women to adorn themselves as the holy women of the ‘old time’ did, right? How about Rebecca? She was unquestionably a holy woman of the old time. Was she not one of the most prominent female figures of the Old Testament? Of course. So then, let’s look at some passages about Rebecca:
• Genesis 24:47, 53 – “And I asked her, and said, Whose daughter art thou? And she said, The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor’s son, whom Milcah bare unto him: and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands….And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebecca: he gave also to her brother and to her mother precious things. “(KJV)
What? One of the women of old wore jewelry? Is the Bible contradicting itself? I hardly think so. So then Peter is not forbidding jewelry outright, he is forbidding excessive use of it and telling us not to let our outward appearance be what we are known by, but instead to be known by our meek and humble spirit.
In the passage below, God himself is putting jewelry on His people and referring to Israel’s beauty as ‘perfect through my comeliness.’ In fact, this passage even seems to suggest that God was glorified to the heathen as a result of Israel’s beauty.
• Ezekiel 16:9-14 – “Then washed I thee with water; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers’ skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.” (KJV) .
Later on when Joseph, Jacob’s son, was sold into slavery and became the second man in command in Egypt, we read where Pharaoh put a ring on his finger and a gold chain around his neck. We know that Joseph did not commit adultery with Potiphar’s wife for it was considered sin. If Jacob his father considered the wearing of jewelry sin, why did Joseph accept these articles of jewelry from Pharaoh? The reason is clear as a bell. His father did not think the wearing of all jewelry as sinful.
If Jacob had taken this stand, then he would have stood against his Grandfather and his own mother. We know his Grandfather gave his servant jewelry to give to Rebekah and she wore it.
When God spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, he told Moses to have the Israelites borrow jewelry from the Egyptians and for them to wear it. In his omniscience, God knew the Israelites would take this jewelry and wear it and later would take the jewelry and have Aaron melt it down and the golden calf would be formed and they would worship this calf as their god. Did this stop God from telling Moses to borrow the jewelry? NO!
Even though, after they had committed this grave sin, God did tell them to remove their jewelry it was not permanent.
We know that King Saul wore gold bracelets for this was told to us at the time of his death and again at the time when David composed his most famous song about Saul and Jonathan, he spoke of Saul who adorned the people with jewelry.
The Song of Solomon tells us that King Solomon wore gold chains. Also Daniel was given a gold chain by the King of Babylon.
We also read in the Book of Jeremiah where God said “Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.” (Jeremiah 2:32.) Also in the Isaiah 61, God spoke of a bridegroom wearing his ornaments.
The UPCI speaks of the time that God accused Israel of committing adultery against him in the same book of Isaiah as other proof that the wearing of jewelry is sin. Here in Isaiah 3 we read where God spoke of Israel as if she were a literal woman committing harlotry against him.
He speaks of all the jewelry she was wearing and said he would take away all of it from Israel. God also spoke of head-bands, cloaks, undergarments, bonnets, scarves, mantles, hoods, and veils. All this he was going to take away from Israel. Yet when you read UPCI’s stand on outward adornment and jewelry they say it is sin to wear jewelry but okay to wear headbands, undergarments, veils, scarves, etc. Doesn’t make sense does it?
When we turn over to Ezekiel the 16th chapter, when God again likened Israel to a real woman, he said he had clothed her in fine clothing and put rings on her fingers and rings in her ears and in her nose, and bracelets and gold chains and a gold crown.
This was Jehovah who said he had adorned Israel this way, and even though later in the same chapter we read where this same Israel used this jewelry to attract other lovers, God still said he would adorn her with all this jewelry.
If throughout the Old Testament we find that God told Israel to wear jewelry, why does UPCI teach something blatantly different?
Both Peter and Paul wrote that women should not put so much emphasis on outward appearance, so they both mentioned the wearing of gold or pearls. If you read their writings in the original language, you come to the understanding that they were not forbidding jewelry from being worn but were saying things such as a meek and mild spirit etc. was better adornment. They both were speaking of moderation. If we took what Peter said in the light of how the UPCI interprets what he said in I Peter the third chapter, we would come to the conclusion that Peter was telling the women not to wear clothing.
UPCI tends to have this attitude that if something has ever been used for evil then it becomes strictly evil. People have used jewelry for sexual purposes or for prideful purposes so they say it is a sin to wear it. If God felt that way about everything that has been used to sin with, he would have destroyed the world a long time ago.
One good example of this is the act of sex. It is one of the greatest sins committed daily in life (adultery and rape etc.) but God has not forbidden the use of this act in marriage just because mankind has used the act to sin with.
The wearing of jewelry is not sinful, neither for men nor for women. Also, for those who take a stand against this trend of men wearing earrings or women wearing nose rings, the people of Israel wore both.
“It is a rule in the UPCI that no licensed Minister may publicly contend for any view that may bring disunity to the organization, the mouths of Prophets within this group are gagged and the pens of scribes are forbidden to write. With this form of ecclesiastical censorship lording over the rank and file of this organization, there will never be a public questioning of Dr. Segraves’s beliefs which he publishes to be true when they are false. Since there can be no publicized dissent of his opinions and theories from within the ranks of the UPCI, someone outside of this organization must take up the responsibility to call his prophetic beliefs false.” – Pastor Rev. Reckart
The roots of Oneness Pentecostalism can be traced in the North American Pentecostal movement during the early 1900s. During a camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, California in the late 1913 or early 1914 conducted by the Assemblies of God (AG), one minister by the name of John G. Scheppe revealed that during his night of meditation it was revealed to him that baptism must be done “in the name of Jesus only” and not “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Several AG ministers including R.E McAlister, Frank J. Ewart, Glenn A. Cook, and Garfield T. Haywood, began teaching this “new issue.”
While this “baptismal formula” began as a friendly debate it developed into a fierce controversy over the nature of Godhead. This “new issue” made a rift between the AG movement that prompted J. Roswell Flower to oppose Oneness theology and baptismal formula in their Third General Council in 1915. In their Fourth General Council in 1916, the AG ministers adopted a “Statement of Fundamental Truths” that forcefully maintained the Trinity doctrine, that banned the 156 of the 585 AG ministers.
The Nature of the Trinity is Essential Nicene Christian Doctrine.
The June 1997 issue of Charisma features an article by executive editor J. Lee Grady entitled, “The Other Pentecostals,” reporting on the estimated 17 million Oneness Pentecostals worldwide with 2.1 million in the United States.
Grady calls Pentecostalism a “house divided.” While Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostals alike trace their roots back to the Azusa Street Revival of l906, Oneness Pentecostals have been “separated from their brethren by a nasty doctrinal feud that split families and churches.” Today younger leaders in the Oneness movement hope to end the feud and lead their movement into the mainstream church. “It is disturbing enough to read that 17 million Oneness believers are following a theology that rejects the biblical doctrine of the trinity. Even more troubling is the article’s suggestion that among many evangelicals this Oneness error is not terribly significant!” [sic]
Witchcraft (also called witchery), in historical, anthropological, religious, and mythological contexts, is the use of alleged supernatural or magical powers or spells.
Please Note: Direct Relationship:
You can enter into a deep, joyful and fulfilling relationship with the One Creator of heaven and earth without having anyone else involved in that relationship aside from the two of you: God and yourself.
Don’t let anyone tell you that your Creator is “unapproachable”. You don’t need anyone to stand between you and Him. He is close to all who call upon Him in truth (Psalm 145:18). – Rabbi Eli Cohen
Don’t let anyone tell you that your Creator is “unapproachable”. You don’t need anyone to stand between you and Him. He is close to all who call upon Him in truth (Psalm 145:18). – Rabbi Eli Cohen
A KNOCK-OUT PUNCH:THE “LAST AND FINAL SACRIFICE” TAKES THE TEN-COUNT
A reposting of Uri Yosef’s THE “LAST AND FINAL SACRIFICE” TAKES THE TEN-COUNT after a Christian apologist made this comment recently. May it be a light to anyone seeking the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
“The reason Jews as a whole haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as Messiah is partly because of hard hearts, and partly because Jesus came to die for our sins. It was foreseen by God the Father that He would be rejected, per Isaiah 53 – which Jews have NEVER been able to “explain” – which then paved the way for His once-for-all sacrifice for sin.”
A KNOCK-OUT PUNCH:THE “LAST AND FINAL SACRIFICE” TAKES THE TEN-COUNT
Professor Uri Yosef
Christian missionaries claim that those who do not accept Jesus as their lord and
savior, which includes the Jewish people, are doomed to burn in “hell” because
they cannot have their sins forgiven by God. This claim is rationalized with the
allegation that, in Biblical times, the only way to bring about the remission of sins
was via the blood of a certain animal. This animal had to be brought to the priest
to be slaughtered at the altar in the Sanctuary, first while in the portable
Sanctuary and later in the Temple, as a sacrificial offering. According to this
claim, since there has been no Temple standing in Jerusalem since the year 70
C.E., valid sacrificial offerings can no longer be made and, therefore, the only
way for Jews to have their sins forgiven is through the blood shed by Jesus in his
“sacrificial” death on the cross. In other words, the claim is that the blood of
Jesus, who was allegedly sacrificed by God (the “Father”) as a demonstration of
his great love for mankind,
has once and for all removed the stain of “Original
Sin” from those who follow Jesus (the “Son”). This act of love by God allegedly
made Jesus the “last and final sacrifice” forever.
There are two main aspects to the claim that Jesus was “the last and final
sacrifice”. The first concerns the suitability of Jesus and his death as a sacrificial
offering for the remission of sins. The second aspect, which was investigated in
another essay, concerns the need for blood in the atonement process.
This essay examines the suitability of Jesus and the manner in which he died as
a sacrificial offering for the remission of sins.
II. THE CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE VERSUS THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
The process for testing this claim by Christian missionaries consists of
contrasting the requirements concerning sacrificial offerings, as specified in the
Hebrew Bible, against the accounts in the New Testament that describe the
death of Jesus on the cross as a sacrificial offering. As part of this analysis, it is
important to bear in mind the following two conditions that existed during the life
of Jesus, at the time of his death, and for several decades following his death:
The Second Temple was still standing in Jerusalem
The Hebrew Bible was the Scripture in force
The salient issue to be addressed, and answered, is:
According to the requirements set forth in the Hebrew Bible, was Jesus a valid sacrificial
offering, and was his death by crucifixion an acceptable process, for remission of sins?
The analytical phase of the testing process identifies ten elements for which the
respective accounts in the New Testament are compared with the specifications
provided in the Hebrew Bible, primarily in the Torah.
According to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was crucified by
John 19:18,23(KJV) – (18) Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either
side one, and Jesus in the midst.
(23) Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made
four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam,
woven from the top throughout. [See also Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:33.]
According to the Levitical Law of Sacrifice in the Torah, the animal brought as
a sin sacrifice had to be slaughtered by the person who offered it:
Leviticus 4:27-29 – (27) And if any one person from among the common people sins
unwittingly, by performing one of the commandments of the Lord which may not be
done, and incurs guilt; (28) Or if his sin, which he has committed, is made known to
him, then he shall bring his sacrifice, an unblemished female goat, for his sin which he
has sinned. (29) And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and he
shall slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
According to the Levitical Law of Sacrifice in the Torah, some of the blood of
the (sin) sacrifice had to be rubbed by the priest with his finger on the horns of
the altar in the Temple, and the rest had to be poured out at the base of the
sacrificial altar. The fat of the sacrifice had to be removed and burnt:
Leviticus 4:30-31 – (30) And the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, and
put [it] upon the horns of the altar [used] for the burnt offering; and [then] he shall
pour out all of [the rest of] its blood at the base of the altar. (31) And he shall remove
all of its fat, as was removed the fat from the sacrificial peace offerings; and the priest
shall burn it upon the altar for a pleasant fragrance to the Lord; and [thus] shall the
priest make an atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.
The New Testament is silent on what was done with the blood of Jesus and
with the fat of his body.
According to the accounts in the New Testament, Jesus was beaten,
whipped, and dragged on the ground before being crucified:
Matthew 26:67(KJV) – Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others
smote him with the palms of their hands, [See also Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63; John 18:22.]
Matthew 27:26,30-31(KJV) – (26)Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he
had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
(30) And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. (31) And
after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own
raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. [See also Mark 15:15-20; John 19:1-3.]
According to the Torah, a sacrificial animal had to be without any physical
defects or blemishes:
Deuteronomy 17:1 – You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep that
has in it a blemish or any bad thing, for that is an abomination to the Lord, your God.
Sidebar Note: As a born Jew, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day following
his birth, a ritual that leaves a scar (Genesis 17:10-13; the “sign of the covenant”).
The circumcision of Jesus is mentioned in the New Testament (Luke 2:21), yet Paul
refers to circumcision as being tantamount to mutilation (Galatians 5:11-12;
According to the New Testament, Jesus was “the Lamb of God” whose bones
may not be broken [a reference to the Paschal Lamb of Exodus 12:46 and
John 1:29(KJV) – The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 19:36(KJV) – For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A
bone of him shall not be broken.
According to the Torah, the Paschal Lamb was not offered for the removal of
sins. Rather, it was a festive, or commemorative, offering. Yom Kippur (the
Day of Atonement) would have been a more appropriate time for a sin
Numbers 29:11 – One young male goat for a sin offering, beside the sin offering of
atonement, and the continual burnt offering, and its meal offering, and their drink
offerings. [Yom Kippur – Individual sin offering]
Leviticus 16:15 – He shall then slaughter the he goat of the people’s sin offering and
bring its blood inside the dividing curtain, and he shall do with its blood as he did with
the blood of the bull and sprinkle it upon the cover of the ark, and before the cover of
the ark. [Yom Kippur – Communal sin offering]
According to the Torah, the Paschal Lamb had to be slaughtered and its
blood used to place markings on the side-posts and lintels of the entrances to
the dwelling. Moreover, the meat had to be roasted and eaten, and whatever
was not consumed by the time the Israelites were to leave their homes, had
to be burnt and destroyed:
Exodus 12:6-10 – (6) And you shall keep it under watch until the fourteenth day of this
month; and the entire congregation of the community of Israel shall slaughter it at
dusk. (7) And they shall take [some] of its blood, and place it on the two doorposts and
on the lintel, on the houses in which they will eat it. (8) And they shall eat the meat in
that night, roasted over fire, and [with] unleavened bread; with bitter herbs they shall
eat it. (9) You shall not eat from it raw, nor boiled in water; but roasted over fire, its
head with its legs, and with its inner parts. (10) And you shall not leave any of it until
morning; and that which left over until the morning you shall burn in the fire.
According to the accounts in the New Testament this was not done with
Jesus after his death. In fact, Jesus was buried.
Matthew 27:57-60(KJV) – (57) When the even was come, there came a rich man of
Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: (58) He went to
Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be
delivered. (59) And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen
cloth, (60) And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he
rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. [See also Mark 15:42-46;
Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38-42.]
According to the New Testament, the death of Jesus was a sacrificial offering
that expiated the sins of mankind for all times:
Hebrews 10:10,18(KJV) – (10) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering
of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
(18) Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. [See also
Romans 6:10; Hebrews 9:12.]
According to the Torah, the Passover (sin) sacrifice, a male-goat, had to be
offered on an individual (per household) basis, not as a communal offering:
Numbers 28:22 – And one young male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for
According to the New Testament, the death and blood of Jesus took care of
(almost) all sins:
Hebrews 9:22(KJV) – And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and
without shedding of blood is no remission.
According to the Levitical Law of Sacrifice in the Torah, the sacrificial sin
offering brought atonement only for unintentional sins, except as noted in
Leviticus 5:1-6, 20-26[Leviticus 5:1-6, 6:1-7 in Christian Bibles]:
Numbers 15:27-31 – (27) And if a person sins inadvertently, then he shall offer a female
goat in its first year as a sin offering. (28) And the priest shall atone for the erring
person who sinned inadvertently before the Lord in order to make atonement on his
behalf; and it shall be forgiven him. (29) For the native born of the children of Israel
and the stranger who resides among them, one law shall apply to him who sins
inadvertently. (30) And the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is a
native born or a stranger, that person blasphemes the Lord; and that person shall be
cut off from among his people. (31) Because he has scorned the word of the Lord, and
has violated his commandment; that person shall surely be cut off, for his iniquity is
According to the New Testament, the death of Jesus brought about the
remission of sins yet uncommitted, and of sins of those yet to be born:
Hebrews 10:18(KJV) – Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for
According to the Levitical Law of Sacrifice in the Torah, sacrifices could bring
atonement only for sins committed prior to the offering of the sacrifice. No
sacrifice was provided for the atonement of sins committed after the sacrifice
was offered and, thus, no sacrifice can bring atonement for sins of people
born after it was offered. This includes both טּאתָחַ (haTAT)], a sin offering,
described in Leviticus 4:1-5:13, and שׁםָאָ (aSHAM), a guilt offering,
described in Leviticus 5:14-26. Had there been, among the listed sacrifices,
even one kind of sin or guilt offering that could bring atonement for future
sins, the person who would have offered that particular sacrifice would not
have had to do so again for the rest of his life. Moreover, Yom Kippur (the
Day of Atonement), which is ordained by the Torah as an annual Holy Day
(Leviticus 16:29-34), would have had to be celebrated by the Israelites only
the very first time after the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai, had they used one
of those “super” sacrificial offerings that could atone for sins of the future.
The claim by the author of Hebrews, that there are no more sin offerings
required following the death of Jesus, is false for other reasons as well:
The Second Temple stood in Jerusalem for nearly 40 years following the death of
Jesus, during which time literally thousands of animals were offered as sacrifices
of all sorts, including sin and guilt offerings, as prescribed by the Torah.
The Hebrew Bible contains prophecies about the building of the Third Temple in
the messianic era, and of the resumption of the sacrificial system at that time. All
the types of sacrificial offerings described in the Hebrew Bible will be made on the
sacrificial altar [חַ בֵּזְמִ (mizBE’ah)] in the Temple, including both the טּאתָחַ and
שׁםָאָ sacrificial offerings. In other words, the sacrificial system, which has been
in a state of suspension since the year 70 C.E., when the Romans destroyed the
Second Temple, will be completely restored in the messianic era:
Ezekiel 43:21-22 – And you shall take the bull of the sin offering, and he [the priest]
shall burn it at the edge of the Temple, outside the Sanctuary. (22) And on the
second day you shall offer an unblemished he-goat for a sin offering, and they [the
priests] shall purify the altar as they purified it with the bull. [See also: Isaiah 56:7;
Jeremiah 33:17-18; Ezekiel 40:39,46-47, 41:42, 42:13, 43:13,15,18-19,22,25-27,
44:27,29, 45:17,19,22-23,25, 46:20, 47:1; Zechariah 14:21.]
According to the New Testament, God’s “only begotten son” died on the cross
for the sins of mankind, and all who accept this belief are “saved” (i.e., get
salvation) and will go to heaven:
Romans 5:8-11(KJV) – (8) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (9) Much more then, being now justified by his
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. (10) For if, when we were enemies,
we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we
shall be saved by his life.(11) And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. [See also Acts 10:43;
1Corinthians 15:3; 1Peter 3:18.]
The Hebrew Bible strictly prohibits (human) vicarious atonement, and
mandates that everyone is responsible for his or her own sins:
Deuteronomy 24:16 – Fathers shall not be put to death because of children, nor shall
children be put to death for fathers; each person shall be put to death for his own sin.
[See also Exodus 32:31-33; Numbers 35:33.]
According to the New Testament, Jesus was “God manifest in the flesh” (this
would make it a human sacrifice):
Romans 8:3(KJV) – For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in
the flesh: [See also 1Timothy 3:16; 1John 4:2.]
The Hebrew Bible strictly prohibits human sacrifices. The concept of human
sacrifices to a deity is foreign to Judaism. Human sacrifice is a pagan rite:
Leviticus 18:21 – And you shall not give any of your offspring to pass through the fire
for Molech, and shall not profane the name of your God; I am the Lord. [See also
Deuteronomy 18:10; Jeremiah 7:31, 19:32; Ezekiel 23:37-39.]