The "Nicole Factor" Is Online

Welcome to the Nicole Factor at blogspot.com.

Google+ Badge

Stage 32

My LinkedIn Profile

About Me

My Photo
My blog is "The Nicole Factor" on Blogspot, my Facebook page "Nicole Czarnecki aka Nickidewbear", and YouTube and Twitter accounts "Nickidewbear."

Nickidewbear on YouTube

Loading...

TwitThis

TwitThis

Twitter

Messianic Bible (As If the Bible Isn't)

Views

Facebook and Google Page

Reach Me On Facebook!

There was an error in this gadget

Search This Blog

Talk To Me on Fold3!

Showing posts with label judgement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judgement. Show all posts

Monday, November 14, 2016

Can The LGBTQ Militants Please Cool It—And Can the Proselytizy Non-LGBT Militants Cool It?


  1. I'm a Jewish Christian whom believes that homosexuality is a thorn in the flesh and not a choice. In fact, I've argued that Paul (who got his words right from Jesus, per Galatians 1:6-12) may have struggled with it—as the "Pharisee of Pharisees" and Gamali'el's impudent student (cf. Shabbat 30b), Paul would've known the yet-to-be codified Yevamot 63b and and Sifra Acharei Mot 9:8—and, so to speak, that's a hard pill to swallow. Paul even asked God to take the thorn in the flesh away three times, and the word "flesh" in Greek can mean something related to the flesh or carnality. By the way, an example of orientation and lifestyle being two different matters would be in regards to Paul if he was homosexual. Also, that's why some get LGBTQ conversion therapy in any case—they don't want to be LGBTQ people, and they want God to heal them if He wills.
  2. I've talked about that relative's high school classmate whom later chose to be celibate—and he became celibate once he became a strong Christian, and he even dated a girl in high school in part to try to be straight. By the way, Jesus did say that marriage is between one man and one woman when the Pharisees asked him if divorce violated Torah (cf. Matthew 19:1-10. Also cf. 19:11-13 on eunuch celibacy, which can apply to other kinds of celibacy as well).
  3. Contrary to what some argue, the First, Ninth, and 14th Amendments give no room to deny the right to same-sex marriage in at least this day and age—we go either back to the nominally-Christian days or allow freedom of religion for everyone. We don't proselytize like, for instance, one of Frank Peretti's "Prophet"—sharing our faith, yes; forcibly trying to make disciples, no. Peretti's character "Prophet" Barrett—and Peretti himself, by having his character stay at the rally and encouraging real people to do that—needed to back off. Shaking the dust off of one's feet and letting God grow the seed (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:5-8) don't mean nothing—reasonless words are not included in the Bible. Besides, even Lot—whom rebuked the Sodomites—didn't threaten to kill the Sodomites, despite that he judged righteously (cf. Proverbs 31:9, Matthew 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 5). Also, we're to judge ourselves as well as others without hypocrisy—that's what "judge not lest be judged" and "make sure of your calling and election" mean.
  4. I have LGBTQ family members and friends, and I don't force them to be straight or celibate LGBTQ types.
  5. If LGBTQ people want to take risks (about which the CDC warns), that's their business—that doesn't mean that you can't point out that even the secular CDC warns that there are medical risks (e.g., exposure to higher rates of STDs) that same-sex couples take.
  6. Hatred of people whom practice certain religions sometimes come from the proselytizy ones that give the religious groups as wholes bad names.
  7. Everybody in the LGBTQ orientation-and-lifestyle debate needs to stop taking each other's words out of context, much less use reading-comprehension and listening skills in the first place.
In conclusion, the LGBTQ proselytizers and the Non-LGBTQ proselytizers can back off and understand that orientation is different from lifestyle, we're to judge ourselves and others without hypocrisy, etc.. 

Sunday, January 18, 2015

If Some Of You All Want To Keep Judging Ms. Dorvilier....

By the way, Google it, too. "Postpartum Depression violence". Some of you all need to grow up (at best) and/or get mental-health treatment (at "worst"/most). Also, do not buy that Postpartum Depression and violence have no link. Depression, let alone Postpartum Depression, can affect violence (including murder and murder-suicide). My father's paternal grandfather (not a Postpartum-Depressive man, let alone an untreated one, as far as I know) committed suicide because of Depression alone! How much more might a Postpartum-Depressive woman commit suicide and/or murder! In addition, I suggest that you keep silent if you have no clue about mental illness. After all, "Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding." (Proverbs 17:28, for Christians and so-called Christians—especially if you are Jewish. You well know that our fathers and mothers received all of Tanakh by the Second Temple Era). For everyone else, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Let me add, too, that I know about mental illness. I already explained enough about my mother's maternal grandmother's mother, did I not? I also explained enough my father's grandfather. Well, guess what? I inherited his Depression! I also inherited my father's OCD/Anxiety and ADD (He will admit to the ADD. He has yet to admit that OCD/Anxiety and Depression; though I clearly inherited his mental illnesses, and I remember those pill bottles that I saw in his now-former apartment. Let me tell you, now I know that not all of them were Vitamin B12 pills. I also have other memories that I did not think about at the time that they were present events.).

I, thus, know what I am saying. Therefore, I can open my mouth. I forgot to mention as well, and let me add, that my mother's paternal grandfather's father ended up in Springfield State Hospital due to Alcoholism. I also ended up in Sheppard Pratt once, and that's where I was diagnosed with Depression. I can give other examples as well, and now I am really going to tell the "some of you all" to shut your mouths and not say a damned thing about me—and I know that at least one of you thought that I was the fool in this case. I did not say that I am wise, by the way; so, you word twisters can really stop now (Do not think that I am clueless, either.).

I even suspect that quite a few of the "some of you all" are sociopaths and/or otherwise lacking compassion, critical thinking skills, and discernment as well. According to Fox News (who published an Associated Press article), "Authorities believe the mother doused her baby with an accelerant then set her on fire, Bewley said. They do not have a motive. The woman was taken into custody Friday night." Yet, some of you all have the hutzpah to cite "innocent until proven guilty" even in cases in which the motive is clear.

Postpartum Psychosis, Crime, Etc.

BTW, my sister wants to clarify that her rude background laughter had nothing to do with the subjects at hand, despite that I asked that she would be quiet while I made the video to which this blog entry applies.

Anyway, here are the statistics on Postpartum Depression and Psychosis:

1) http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/depression/postpartum.aspx

2) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5714a1.htm

(Please note that Black and other Non-White, Non-Hispanic women are affected the most.).

3) http://www.postpartumprogress.com/category/postpartum-depression-statistics

4) http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/womenshealth/factsheets/pdpress.htm

The original story is at http://www.theintell.com/news/local/baby-dies-after-being-set-on-fire-in-pemberton-woman/article_e40fb4a6-31e3-579e-841e-82d7ec100ccf.html

Sunday, October 14, 2012

I've Covered This Before, But...

After updating my Facebook statuses and tweeting (and after a nasty, Anti-Semitic comment that was made by a Facebook friend's friend), I have to re-cover why Jews killed but did not murder Jesus. The distinction involves mens rea--that is, I have to show how Jews killed Jesus (no mens rea) & how gentiles murdered Jesus (mens rea).

The distinction is important because we Jews honestly thought that we were righteously administering the death penalty. Gentiles, on the other hand, knew that Jesus was innocent, riled up misguided Jews, murdered Him, and then blamed the Jews for murder.In other words, we had to kill our Passover sacrifice whereas gentiles knowingly participated in the murder of a Just Man.The problem for Jews is when we knowingly & blatantly flout our Passover sacrifice. Most--e.g., Paul--did and do not intentionally do this. In fact, Paul writes down that he did what he did in ignorance (cf. 1 Timothy 1:12-17), whereas Pilate even washed his hands of the Blood.

To begin, I quote the Anti-Semitic comment:

Nicolaas Prinsloo · Friends with [a friend]
I believe the jews our actually jews but I'm also reminded that it is the jews who crucified our Lord and for years these jews have been making up propaganda (beliar)... 
I believe in the tribes of Israel... History repeats itself!


What Nicholas meant by "crucified" is "murdered"--and Nicholas is absolutely wrong. "Kill" is different from "murder". I don't mind saying that Yeshua had to die for my sin because: 1) Not that He actually had to, but He chose to. 2) Who else could die for me sin but me or G-d? 3) The Lamb had to be killed--you just don't have a Passover sacrifice to partake of without a Lamb being killed. What the Romans meant by "kill", though, as you pointed out, was murder--which, as you also pointed out, we didn't do. The Romans murdered Jesus and deliberately perverted "murder" into "kill". 

The Romans were just as sneaky as Pilate--they knew that Jesus was innocent. "When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”" (Matthew 27:24) Pilate deliberately riled up a misguided crows then blamed them for murder.


Even the Talmud, meanwhile, admits that we killed Jesus, that we saw to Jesus' death--it does not say that we murdered him. Why? Because we thought that we were fulfilling the mitzvot to kill a bad guy--e.g., Deuteronomy 13. Actually, the Talmud states, "Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'" (Sanhedrin 43a) We were blinded by the Veil of Moses (which was supposed to take effect like that) and the Talmud. So, we had no mens rea.

But we do have His blood on our hands, but in a way to cover us--not to hold us guilty for murder. "And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”" (Matthew 27:25) We were misguidedly saying, "Look; we don't mind that we killed a guy for apostasy"--we honestly thought that we were doing righteousness and earning merit with G-d. So, that's why the Scriptures say: " eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God." (Romans 2:7-11). So, we're in trouble if we flout our Passover sacrifice if and once we know better; the gentiles are in trouble for murder--and how'd you like to have answer for murder if you didn't admit that you're guilty of it? By the same token, what benefit do you get out of flouting your Passover sacrifice?

Paul even writes down that, like many fellow Jews, he didn't know better and honestly thought that he was doing right (cf., as aforementioned, 1 Timothy 1:12-17) It's a paradox--we aren't guilty of murder, but we're guilty of being ignorant if we've heard that Yeshua was our Passover sacrifice and we flout that, anyway (cf., e.g., Romans 10:2:3-4, 14-21).



In conclusion, when gentiles (and even fellow Jews) state that "The Jews killed [viz. "murdered"] Jesus!", we need to say that, "Of course, we killed our Passover sacrifice--how absurd is that the Romans blame us for murder when sacrificing a lamb is not murdering it?" After all, Yeshua stated, "“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”" (Luke 23:24)

By the way, this puts Pilate in a different light, doesn't it? Think about why Pilate really wanted to release Yeshua to the Jews:


13 Then Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, 14 said to them, “You have brought this Man to me, as one who misleads the people. And indeed, having examined Him in your presence, I have found no fault in this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him; 15 no, neither did Herod, for I sent you back to him;[c] and indeed nothing deserving of death has been done by Him. 16 I will therefore chastise Him and release Him” 17 (for it was necessary for him to release one to them at the feast).[d]
18 And they all cried out at once, saying, “Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas”— 19 who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder.
20 Pilate, therefore, wishing to release Jesus, again called out to them. 21 But they shouted, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”
22 Then he said to them the third time, “Why, what evil has He done? I have found no reason for death in Him. I will therefore chastise Him and let Him go.”
23 But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed.[e] 24 So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. 25 And he released to them[f] the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will.



He wanted them to eventually murder Yeshua and be blamed for murder--he wanted to look innocent and not release Yeshua right away. He had even been warned. Also by the way, the envy of the Jews was an inadvertent sin--and what does one do for inadvertent sin? He or she offers a sacrifice and/or flees to a city of refuge.

Flee to the Passover Sacrifice and High Priest who is Yeshua, and into the fold of the New Jerusalem. 


Thursday, July 26, 2012

Proof Of Chauvinism In Our Society Re Kristen Stewart

According to Fox News, people are even threatening to murder Kristen Stewart (and all this after innocent people were murdered in Aurora, Colorado last week!). Who's blaming the married-with-children, in-a-higher-position (director-to-the-actor), older Rupert Sanders? Even Liberty Ross Sanders is blaming Kristen Stewart. Our society patriarchally, in a bad way, refuses to recognize that "To whom much is given, much is required."

Here (as my sister noted, by the way) is an older man taking advantage of a woman who's roughly half his age, and old enough to be her dad at that (He's 41; she's 22). Here is a married man pursuing a single woman, and cheating on his wife and kids in pursuing any (let alone a single-but-not-available--but still single) woman; and here is a director pursuing an actress.

Did true Christianity (even all those years ago, and throughout the ages when it has resurrected) and the feminist movement do nothing for society? Jesus, for example, forgave the adulterous woman and the Samaritan at the well, while He constantly lambasted the hypocritical Pharisees. Much later on, He brought forth even two Non-Messianic Jewish women to liberate women--Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. 


So if Jesus brought forth even Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan to liberate women--even modern-day Samaritans at wells and adulterous women--, why can't we forgive Kristen Stewart? Furthermore, we do we judge her and not the higher-up Rupert Sanders all the more so? 

Friday, July 20, 2012

What Constitutes "Lies R Us" And Other Personal Attacks?



With all due respect to Bill O'Reilly, one can't say that--for example--that part of "Lies R Us" includes calling out my family, asking the legitimate questions about Toby Keith and exposing Cathy Dallwig (the so-called "Caring Director"), Mike Khandjian (the "pastor" who called the Aron HaB'rit a "holy piece of furniture") and the rest of Chapelgate Presbyterian Church, even though I vowed never to talk about them again, though they remain as-yet unapologetic examples.

By the way, I have never received an apology once. I did, however, during that contentious time, receive a lawsuit threat from Steve Dallwig--sorry, bud; but your wife's a public figure within a known religious institution, and--as far as I know--I was generous not to mention or even much remember your catty lawsuit threat until now. Also, the people who are making people run in droves from the Church nowadays and into, say, Buddhism and Atheism are people like you and your "Caring Director" wife--who is supposed to reach out to people like me when we go AWOL from church, because (for example) our disabilities leave us  from being able to ride to church (which, thank G-d, mine did) or even crippled in corners within our own houses and dead (and what a shame having a dead body of a church, now-ex, church member would've been if the case were that I wasn't coming to church because I was dead and nobody from Chapelgate--e.g., the "Caring Director"--called my house or e-mailed to ask if I was okay). By the way, I give credit to one church member for reaching out to me during that time (the aspects of which still crawl under my skin from time and time), and that church member certainly isn't among the Dallwigs.

Therefore--as I said--,with all due respect to Bill O'Reilly and using the Dallwigs as examples, I am (and others aren't) engaging in "Lies R Us", "personal attacks", and "smearing"--I am (and others are) following the advice to "Call it like you see it"; especially when "it" concerns even apparently-low-level, supposedly-private-citizen figures like the Dallwigs who are an example of Laodicea

By the way, I'm like an elephant: I never forget. I forgive; I don't begrudge; but I never forget, and I warn others when they need to be warned and use examples when they need to be used. Also, I'm happy at my new church home; as I said, I just warn others when they need to be warned because I don't want to them to fall into the pitfall and hole that I was in for years--and I'm still waiting for the necessary apologies:


  1. From "Pastor" Mike Khandjian for demeaning and degrading what he (if he paid attention in seminary at all) knows that we also call Ha'Aron-HaKodesh--the Holy Ark, not "a holy piece of furniture" that one can use and/or abuse anytime that he or she likes. I'm waiting for an apology to me and my people--many of whom won't turn to Jesus because foolish "pastors" degrade the very Aron-HaKodesh that held a representation of Yeshua--in fact, part of Yeshua in written form (since the Ten Commandments are part of the Word of G-d, who became flesh).
  2. From the Dallwigs. As I said, "I don't begrude; but I never forget, and I warn others when they need to be warned and use examples when they need to be used." Because of catty, fraudulent, unBiblical lawsuit threats and not being an actual "Caring Director", the Dallwigs get used as examples of why Chapelgate is part of Laodicea. 

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Repost: "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" and Credibility Issues


The credibility issues lie with the Sandusky family (e.g., Jerry and Dottie Sandusky), the defense team, and others on the Sandusky side. Firstly, Dottie Sandusky is doing what abusers and deniers of abuse commonly do: try to turn the issue of credibility on the victim and lie about what happened. For example:


Part of the defense strategy is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong, but Dottie Sandusky was unable to say with much precision how often certain boys would stay in the couple's State College home. She said one of the boys, called Victim 10 in court records, she did not know at all.
She described Victim 1 as "clingy," Victim 9 as "a charmer" and Victim 4 as "very conniving, and he wanted his way and he didn't listen a whole lot."
Victim 9 testified last week that he was attacked by Jerry Sandusky in the basement of the ex-coach's home and cried out for help when Dottie Sandusky was upstairs. She, however, said the basement was not soundproof and she would have been able to hear shouting if she was upstairs.
Dottie Sandusky, who isn't charged in the case, also said the visiting boys were free to sleep upstairs if they wanted to. The accusers have said Jerry Sandusky directed them to the basement, where they allege he sometimes molested them.


Secondly, the defense team is trying "is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". The defense first stated that the abuse victims had a financial motive and were outright liars, but now they're acknowledging that something did happen--although they're saying "that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". Thirdly, why would Dottie Sandusky smile about a matter like this? In whichever way the case ends up going, Dottie Sandusky has and should have no reason to smile. Fourthly, would you blame the victims for saying things like the following, if they really did even say what they are alleged to have said?



Witness Joshua Frabel, who lived next door to Victim 1, recalled that the young man's mother said she had just heard Sandusky molested her child and that she would end up owning Sandusky's house.
"She had said about, when all this settles out, she'll have a nice big house in the country with a fence, and the dogs can run free," he said.
He added that Victim 1 told him: "When this is over, I'll have a nice new Jeep."
The mother took the witness stand to deny it, and Victim 1 denied it last week during his testimony.


Jerry and Dottie Sandusky owe their lives to those victims, and the victims were nice enough to not bring a class-action civil suit in addition to bringing criminal complaints against them. Too bad that "Kennedy v. Lousiana" (2008) overturned the death penalty for convicted pedophiles. Fifthly, and in conclusion, the defense went really low to use a brain-damaged Iraq War veteran for sympathy--and using someone who didn't directly know Victim Four and who is cognitively and otherwise cerebrally damaged is not a smart move, anyway; since she may not even be able to understand what is really at stake in "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky". 

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

"Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" and Credibility Issues

The credibility issues lie with the Sandusky family (e.g., Jerry and Dottie Sandusky), the defense team, and others on the Sandusky side. Firstly, Dottie Sandusky is doing what abusers and deniers of abuse commonly do: try to turn the issue of credibility on the victim and lie about what happened. For example:


Part of the defense strategy is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong, but Dottie Sandusky was unable to say with much precision how often certain boys would stay in the couple's State College home. She said one of the boys, called Victim 10 in court records, she did not know at all.
She described Victim 1 as "clingy," Victim 9 as "a charmer" and Victim 4 as "very conniving, and he wanted his way and he didn't listen a whole lot."
Victim 9 testified last week that he was attacked by Jerry Sandusky in the basement of the ex-coach's home and cried out for help when Dottie Sandusky was upstairs. She, however, said the basement was not soundproof and she would have been able to hear shouting if she was upstairs.
Dottie Sandusky, who isn't charged in the case, also said the visiting boys were free to sleep upstairs if they wanted to. The accusers have said Jerry Sandusky directed them to the basement, where they allege he sometimes molested them.


Secondly, the defense team is trying "is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". The defense first stated that the abuse victims had a financial motive and were outright liars, but now they're acknowledging that something did happen--although they're saying "that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". Thirdly, why would Dottie Sandusky smile about a matter like this? In whichever way the case ends up going, Dottie Sandusky has and should have no reason to smile. Fourthly, would you blame the victims for saying things like the following, if they really did even say what they are alleged to have said?



Witness Joshua Frabel, who lived next door to Victim 1, recalled that the young man's mother said she had just heard Sandusky molested her child and that she would end up owning Sandusky's house.
"She had said about, when all this settles out, she'll have a nice big house in the country with a fence, and the dogs can run free," he said.
He added that Victim 1 told him: "When this is over, I'll have a nice new Jeep."
The mother took the witness stand to deny it, and Victim 1 denied it last week during his testimony.


Jerry and Dottie Sandusky owe their lives to those victims, and the victims were nice enough to not bring a class-action civil suit in addition to bringing criminal complaints against them. Too bad that "Kennedy v. Lousiana" (2008) overturned the death penalty for convicted pedophiles. Fifthly, and in conclusion, the defense went really low to use a brain-damaged Iraq War veteran for sympathy--and using someone who didn't directly know Victim Four and who is cognitively and otherwise cerebrally damaged is not a smart move, anyway; since she may not even be able to understand what is really at stake in "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky". 

Thursday, June 7, 2012

How Bloggers, YouTubers, Etc. Can Honestly Do Powerful Things...

For example, Brett McGurk (if the allegations are true) is in trouble and ruined his own career thanks to blogger Peter Van Buren. As for examples who I've blogged about, my unbelievably-corrupt family (among whom there is a righteous remnant who I've acknowledged), Toby and Krystal Keith, and Chapelgate Presbyterian Church. When I blog, record a YouTube video, etc.; I try to do what I can with what I have where I am--in order words, I try to do everything legally, ethically, and morally. This means that I don't hack (e.g., I see what I can on Facebook and only what I can see. I don't do password stealing or anything; and even if I knew how to hack, etc., I wouldn't do it--though it might be tempting in some cases--admittedly, I might love to hack into my dad's and grandparents' email accounts to see what they're saying and to whom they're talking about me, what I've found out, etc.).

By the way, I'm still dis- or un-recommending (however you'd like to say "not [or no longer]" recommending) any association with the people and organizations who I've dis- or un-recommended in the past--that is, unless your association can be for the good or better of them or (if nothing else) the better of everyone else. But remember, "Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.”" In other words, you will be corrupted by whom you are around if you do not have strong filters. "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean".

If you can even be around certain people, organizations, etc. (much less read their books, listen to their music, watch their shows, etc.), more ko'ach to you. However, since ""“The heart is deceitful above all things, [a]nd desperately wicked" and--even if you're a believer, you may not have the filters, be careful with whom you associate or toward whom you gravitate in any way, shape, or form. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" and "[a]s in water face reflects face, [s]o a man’s heart reveals the man."


Monday, February 6, 2012

The Gentiles Had Mens Rea; We Jews Just Have To Accept That We Got Caught Up


"Romans 2:5-10
New King James Version (NKJV)
5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who "will render to each one according to his deeds":[a] 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."


Jesus is being pretty nice-- he knows that we Jews had no mens rea (cf. Luke 23:34) and that our evil was quite inadvertent (cf. Genesis 50:20)-- we still got caught up in the emotion and hype that Pilate and the gentiles (as well as the Sanhedrin in cahoots with Pilate). Yet, all we have to do is accept that we sacrificed Pischeinu (cf. 1 Cor 5:7).

At First, I'm Mad About How People Lie About Me, Then....


anna monka trudnak
4
nicolefactor antisemitism
4
joseph trudniak
1
nickidewbear crazy jewish convert
1
nicolefactor jews wicked
1



I have to remember how the Bible says that I will be persecuted. I never have ever said that Jews are wicked. Being a Jew, I Scripturally supported how Modern Judaism is indeed wicked. I have also openly condemned Catholics such as E. Michael Jones who have hutzpah to speak on Modern Judaism when they have no authority to do so whatsoever. I also condemn the actions of the Pablo Christianis and Nicolas Donins who, by their actions, miss the opportunity to share their faith-- they instead turn fellow Jews off from the faith. If they want to burn their own copies of Talmud Bavli, they are more than welcome to do so -- Talmud Bavli is full of wickedness such as Kabbalah. But to burn others' copies instead of using them to witness is unacceptable.

After all, Brit Chadashah specifically states:


 And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven. 12 But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake. 13 But it will turn out for you as an occasion for testimony.


I have to take persecution as, so to speak, a badge of honor or even a kind of yellow star. Many Anti Semites and spiritual kapos (Antimissionaries) who want to destroy Messianic Jews and Messianic Judaism are about:



“For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy,
Now I will arise,” says the Lord;
“I will set him in the safety for which he yearns.”
The words of the Lord are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.
You shall keep them, O Lord,
You shall preserve them from this generation forever.
The wicked prowl on every side,


33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.


By the way, Matthew 23:33-35 is specifically talking about Antimissionary P'rushim and soferim in Yamim-Yeshua as well as all Antimissionary P'rushim and soferim who will follow them. Yeshua is very kind to Jews who do not know ha'emet:


32 There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death. 33 And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. 34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”


What the Church won't tell you, by the way, is that the Jews didn't know what we were doing; while Pilate and the gentiles did, did what they did, anyway; and tried to cover their tuchuses. Pilate particularly wanted to make trouble for a crowd who was very confused and emotional:



15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished. 16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. 17 Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18 For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.
19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.”
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?”
They said, “Barabbas!”
22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”
They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”
23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”
But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”
24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person.You see to it.
25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

Pilate didn't really believe in the innocence of Yeshua or he would've never washed his hands "of the blood" and "delivered Him to be crucified."