Jesus Is Coming Soon!

Few will disagree that Chris Tomlin is both a gifted writer/performer and a man after God's own heart. Often his songs are so majestically inspiring that they exhort and compel us to fall on our knees and worship Jesus.

In a recent Sunday service we sang a very popular Tomlin tune, "Even So Come". As I surveyed the audience, it was obvious by their impassioned faces that this emotionally engaging song tugged deeply at their heart strings. It evoked a clear visceral response, especially during the refrain, "Jesus is Coming Soon." Since the early 70s when I became a Christian, similar tunes like "I Wish We'd All Been Ready" and "The King is coming", flicks such as "A Thief in the Night" and apocalyptic novels espousing "Late Great Planet Earth" eschatology, were the order of the day. Jesus was clearly coming soon! In 1973 during my sophomore year in college, there wasn't a day on my commute to USF, where I'd miss gazing up into the clouds wondering if this would be THE DAY when Jesus split the sky. But that was 43 years ago when Robertson, Falwell and LaHaye assured us that Jesus was coming soon.   

Rewind to the first century when "Even So Come" would have topped the early church charts.  In the AD 60s when Christians were being heavily persecuted, tortured and murdered for their allegiance to Christ, there was no ambiguity as they pleaded  "Come Lord Jesus, come!" The slain believers under the altar cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" (Rev 6:10) In the New Testament's pages there was an unmistakably eager expectation of the Lord's coming to both avenge and reward the beleaguered church. How long, indeed! So, 2,000 years ago, Tomlin's words would have been extremely poignant and far more emotionally compelling than they are today. Why?  Because the Holy Spirit convinced every last NT author that Jesus was indeed coming soon. So again, since Chris Tomlin has received no such divine inspiration, what gives him the certainty that he's right? This is the first verse of "Even So Come".

All of creation,

All of the earth,

Make straight a highway,

A path for the Lord,

Jesus is coming soon.

Contrast this with the inspired Apostle Paul's writings...

(1 Cor 1:7) Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed.

(Heb 9:28) so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Do you see the problem? Something is awry and though many refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room, a few decades ago it began to weigh heavily on my soul. Why were the NT authors inspired to create such eager anticipation? Were the recipients of these letters mislead? Are the souls under the altar still crying out "How long?"

Living nearly 2,000 years after the fact, I am quite frankly baffled by the repeated insistence that "Jesus is coming soon."  Though Tomlin is convinced that after 2,000 years of assuming Jesus' imminent arrival is even more imminent than ever, I believe the eschatology promoting this kind of soon coming should provoke a rather troubling question. If not then (in the AD 60s when every NT author proclaimed Jesus' imminent return), why now? What has fundamentally changed that would cause Tomlin to be so confident that we have finally arrived at what has been an interminably imminent moment?

(At this point, let me offer a disclaimer lest you get the very wrong impression that I am a skeptic. I am NOT! Far from it. I believe every word that proceeded from the mouths and pens of those who authored the NT. This problem, some refer to as "the time statements", is one of interpretation not inspiration. (2 Tim 3:16)

Yes, it's clear that America's moral climate has degraded to the point where it is rivaling that which has been commonplace in Europe for decades. And yes, the fabric of life as it was in the 1950s has been torn apart and is in disrepair. How often though have we heard the Apostle Paul's warning to Timothy, "But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come"  used as proof that we must be living in the last days near the end of time? The apocalypse must be just around the corner! The worse things get, the closer to Jesus' coming...or so many believe.  

Following Paul's ominous words was a laundry list of moral depravity: "For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, ³ unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, ⁴ treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, ⁵ holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power." (2 Tim 2-5)

Exposing all manner of wickedness, I constantly hear items plucked from this menu of sinful proclivities as proof that we have finally reached the zenith of a sin-drenched world. But let me pause for a moment and ask a question. Is there truly anything on Paul's list that is peculiar to 2016? Lovers of self and lovers of money? Disobedient to parents? Ungrateful? Haters of God? Lovers of pleasure? Does anyone seriously believe that this list could not apply to every generation since it was written? If we think that things today are worse than they've ever been, I think it's time we take a serious peak into history to gain context.  Perhaps a read through George Holford's 1805 classic, "The Destruction of Jerusalem - An Absolute & Irresistible Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity" would be in order (the pdf is only 30 pages in length)?

Stop for a moment and put your objective hat on. Do you truly believe that at the time the Apostle Paul issued this warning, that this group of sins wasn't thoroughly inculcated into that AD 60s generation in which Paul wrote? (and I'm not talking about the 1960s!) Considering the very next verse. "Avoid such men as these", why in the world was Timothy instructed to "avoid such men" if Paul was specifically targeting our generation 2,000 years into the future? How could Timothy and his disciples avoid evil men who were thousands of years from being born? And since when has anyone argued that the humanism which has swept through Europe and America in the past century, could in any way be construed as "holding to a form of godliness"? There is no semblance of godliness in today's secularism. This isn't a description of our day's moral depravity, but rather of the times in which it was written a few decades after the ruling religious elite who killed Jesus continued to deny their Him as they persecuted His followers. Paul, in his warning to Timothy of that which was to befall that wicked and perverse Christ-killing generation in the latter days, exhorted Timothy to stay the course of godliness. It is imperative that we read the NT letters with first century glasses. How can we possibly think we can understand Paul's second letter to Timothy if we rip from it's AD 60s moorings and time-warp it into the 21st century?

(2 Timothy 3:10) But you [Timothy] have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, ¹¹ persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra—what persecutions I endured.

How often have you heard a pastor or teacher pluck the following verse completely out of it's context and apply it specifically to our time? If evil men and imposters have been growing worse and worse since the AD 60s, then we wouldn't be able to go outside for fear of being murdered. Paul is talking about the wickedness of his time, not ours, when false Christs and antichrists were attempting to deceive the Church.  

(2 Tim 3:13-15) But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 

Notice the exortive contrast in the very next verse to the proliferation of evil.

¹⁴ But you [Timothy] must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, ¹⁵ and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Yes, there was indeed a crescendo of evil as men were growing worse and worse in the last days of Old Covenant Israel. During the war with Rome (AD 67-70) the wickedness inside Jerusalem was unparalleled. Consider for a moment how the 1st century Jewish historian, Josephus, characterized the generation to which Paul was referring.

"Neither did any other city [Jerusalem] ever suffer such miseries, nor did any age breed a generation [AD 30-70] more fruitful in wickedness than this one, from the beginning of the world." War of the Jews, Book V, Section X, Flavius Josephus.

No generation since the foundation of the world was more fruitful in wickedness? And this includes the days of Noah! How often has someone or perhaps even you cited sins on Paul's list as proof that we're living in the last days? Though I don't have time to fully explore it here, did you know that both Peter (in Acts 2:16-21) and Paul (Hebrew 1:1-2) said rather unequivocally that they were living in the last days? 

Sidebar note: If the "last days" lasted longer than the Mosaic economy it was supposed to be the tail end of, does that make any sense? If we continue to ignore the meanings of these kinds of simple phrases, I think we do ourselves a grave disservice.

So is Chris Tomlin referring to the same soon which was associated with the last days of the Old Covenant economy? Is he referencing the same soon that Jesus prophesied in the 1st words of the apocalypse? "The Revelation [unveiling not the concealing] of Jesus Christ, which God [the Father] gave Him [Jesus] to show to His bond-servants [in the seven churches of Asia Minor], the things which must SOON take place..." (Rev 1:1)  Tomlin is also using the same imminent phraseology that James, the brother of Jesus used: "You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is NEAR." (James 5:8)

Is Tomlin echoing the sentiment of Peter as he addressed the Church in his first epistle: "The end of all things is NEAR"? (1 Pet 4:7)  Or the Apostle Paul, writing in the early AD 60s to the Philippians and Hebrews respectively, "The Lord is NEAR" and "In A VERY LITTLE WHILE He who is coming will come and WILL NOT DELAY." (Phil 4:5; Heb 10:37)

The common theme throughout the New testament was the eager expectation that Jesus was in fact coming soon. So again, the question we all should be asking is, Why now, Chris? Could it be that many ignore the timing because they have not understood the nature of His coming? This sense of imminent anticipation is dripping from the pages of the NT. "EAGERLY WAITING for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ..." (1 Cor 1:7)  "So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who EAGERLY WAIT for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation." (Heb 9:28) Just before Jesus conquered the grave and ascended to the right Hand of the Father in AD 30, He made clear that He was returning in that first century generation while some of His followers were still alive. (Matt 24:34; 16:27-28)  It should therefore be noted that Jesus created this eager anticipation of the blessed hope.

We've been told ad nauseum that all of the imminent language surrounding the second coming of Christ had no direct relevance to the beleaguered and maligned first century believers who received it. It has been beaten into our brains that when Peter, Paul, James or John spoke imminently about the Parousia (coming with a consequential presence), that they really didn't mean it, because after all, God's timing is not ours. Is time really supposed to be cajoled, manipulated and elasticized to fit the reader's paradigm?

Twenty six hundreds years ago God put an end to the proverb, "The days are prolonged, and every vision fails’". In other words, just as today when people take Peter's "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years" out of context arguing that God's prophetic word is as elastic as silly putty, they did the same in Ezekiel's day. And notice how God addressed this notion.

(Ezek 12:23- 25)  ²³ Tell them therefore, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “I will lay this proverb to rest, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel.”’ But say to them, ‘“The days are at hand, and the fulfillment of every vision. ²⁴ For no more shall there be any false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel. ²⁵ For I am the Lord. I speak, and the word which I speak will come to pass; it will no more be postponed; for in your days, O rebellious house, I will say the word and perform it,” says the Lord God.’”

Could God have been any clearer? "It will no more be postponed"!!! "The days are at hand and the fulfillment of every vision". And if anyone questioned God at this point, He made it even clearer.

(Ezek 12:26-29) ²⁶ Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ²⁷ “Son of man, look, the house of Israel is saying, ‘The vision that he sees is for many days from now, and he prophesies of times far off.’ ²⁸ Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “None of My words will be postponed any more, but the word which I speak will be done,” says the Lord God.’”

So again, when Paul wrote, ""In A VERY LITTLE WHILE He who is coming will come and WILL NOT DELAY", are we on safe ground to say, that which Paul prophesied was to take place "many day from now"? If "None of my words will be postponed" doesn't mean "Will not delay", what does?

Listen, I realize for some this is a very hard teaching. But rather than continue to foster a proverb that God put to rest, shouldn't we take the intellectually honest high road and try to figure out what Jesus and the NT authors meant by their many imminent statements? Is it possible that they were correct and that our presuppositions are in error?

Do you really believe that Jesus, sitting at the right hand of God the Father after He had overcome physical death and ascended to glory, was speaking ambiguously when He said, "things which must soon take place...for the time is near"? Listen, I realize this puts serious pressure on your eschatological worldview and what you've been taught for probably your entire Christian life. I understand the angst. I was there wrestling with this very issue for decades. I believe there is a better answer than the one which we have been given for the past 150 years.

Read the following words and ask yourself why soon means soon when Tomlin wrote it but in the inspired word of the living God, soon supposedly means thousands of years?

All of creation,

All of the earth,

Make straight a highway,

A path for the Lord,

Jesus is coming soon.

Call back the sinner,

Wake up the saint,

Let every nation,

Shout of Your fame,

Jesus is coming soon.

Like a bride,

Waiting for her groom,

We'll be a church,

Ready for You,

Every heart longing for our King,

We sing...

Even so come,

Lord Jesus come.

There will be justice,

All will be new,

Your name forever,

Faithful and true,

Jesus is coming soon.

So we wait,

We wait for You,

God we wait,

You're coming soon.

How on earth can Tomlin know that Jesus is coming soon? Sure, he'll appeal to the condition of our world and conclude that it can't get much worse. But is that really the case? Does he have any understanding of history? Are we truly living in the most horrific times mankind has ever experienced? Is it possible that times have been far worse, especially in the first century just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70? And is it possible that the NT reference to "last days" was not speaking about the end of the world but rather the end of the age?

A King James mistranslation of Matthew 24:3 has created some rather skewed expectations. The disciples asked Jesus when the "end of the age [aion]" and NOT "end of the world [kosmos]" would come. This is absolutely critical. Did you know that there's not one reference in the NT referring to the "end of the world"?

I highly recommend three lectures/sermons which may answer many of your questions. The first is from an Australian pastor, John Alley as he specifically targeted the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24.



The other two come from Bruce Gore who is one of the best teachers of Biblical history I've ever encountered. These come from his "Apocalypse in Space and Time" series.

Is Israel the apple of God's eye?

How many times have you heard someone say, I believe the Jews i.e. modern day Israel, are God's chosen people and the apple of God's eye? In the minds of many, this view is so sacrosanct that to dare question it, is to put one's toes over the precipice of heresy. Rather emphatically and defiantly, John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel, makes clear that receipt of heavenly blessings is contingent upon the way individuals and nations treat Israel. After quoting Genesis 12:3, Hagee writes, "God has promised to bless the man or nation that blesses the Chosen People. History has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the nations that have blessed the Jewish people have had the blessing of God; the nations that have cursed the Jewish people have experienced the curse of God." So if you even question Israeli policy, Hagee asserts that you become an enemy of God.

Oddly and contrarily, all those who espouse this popular doctrine known as Christian Zionism, put little to no emphasis on the way nations and individuals treat Jesus the Messiah. You might initially argue that Jesus is central in their view, but if you listen to those championing this message, you will rarely find any mention of Jesus in this same context. And I find this rather telling. Perhaps it should be the first sign that something is amiss with this supremely popular doctrine. So, according to this view of the Bible, the secular nation of Israel (which was founded in 1948), is THE focal point of Bible prophecy. Let me again point out that any doctrine, unwittingly or not, neglecting to make Jesus Christ the centerpiece of both history and prophecy, must be questioned. Admitted or not, in the political rhetoric of the Christian Zionist, the supremacy of Jesus Christ has been supplanted by the nation of Israel. 

And lest anyone think Hagee stands alone, the late Jerry Falwell, founder of one the largest Christian university in the world, echoed Hagee when he wrote, "I believe that the people of Israel

are the chosen people of God." Not to be outflanked, after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke in 2006, former presidential candidate and founder of CBN, Pat Robertson, made this startling and disturbing declaration, "God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.' ... He was dividing God's land. And I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations, or the United States of America.' God says, 'This land belongs to me.You better leave it alone.'"  

So, not only must we support the nation of Israel and turn a blind eye to the human rights violations it commits, but we must protect the dirt on which the nation rests. 

The above statements are standard fare within evangelical Christian leadership and not surprisingly, is also the view held by most laity in American mega-churches. Given the dominance of Christian Zionism, one might conclude that this doctrine has overwhelming Biblical support. But to the surprise of most, that is not even remotely the case. 

You may be shocked to learn that every New Testament usage of  the word "chosen" (by God), refers singularly to those who have faith in Christ. And nary once is it mentioned in the context of national Israel or even physical descendants of Abraham, that  they are "God's chosen people". So, how in the name of intellectual honesty, have we come to the place where we regard the Jews as "the apple of God's eye"? It's as if the New Testament was never written, because save for a few cherry-picked verses, there's not a shred of New Testament support. Neither Jesus nor any New Testament author ever stated or even implied that ethnicity was a Kingdom factor. Matter of fact, Jesus emphatically stated, "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. "And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust." Does this sound like an endorsement for the Jews continuing to be God's chosen people? How can one read this and other similar statements in light of Christian Zionism dominance?

It will be developed more thoroughly in the video below, but suffice it to say, the Apostle Paul couldn't have been clearer in his opposition of Christian Zionism when he wrote, "Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham."  What about the Jewish birthright, Paul? 

Well, just a few verses down Paul added, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus...There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  Therefore, becoming a child of Abraham didn't/doesn't involve heritage, birthright or any other physical factor...for we all, both Jew and Gentile Christ-followers, are heirs according to the promise. There is neither ethnicity in God's Kingdom nor is there any advantage to being born with even a fraction of Abraham's blood. The first century Jews had every advantage (Romans 9:1-5) but it was all for naught since only a remnant (Romans 9:27; 11:5) was to be saved.

And if you think any of the above verses are isolated verses, let me say gently that you would be wrong. The New Testament overwhelming rebuts the notion that the Jews are God's chosen people and it resoundingly opposes this idea that the modern nation of Israel must be supported at all costs.

At this point let me make clear that I am NOT saying that Israel has no right to exist or to defend itself against aggression. That's a ludicrous charge that I, and those who side with the Apostle Paul, have been accused of. Simply because I believe Christian Zionism is seriously misguided and cannot be supported Biblically, does not mean that I side with Muslim extremists who wish to drive Israel into the sea. I strongly and vehemently oppose ALL aggression, for Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God." This ministry of reconciliation should be the role of the Christian as we bring the good news of the Gospel to all, showing no genetic partiality. 

In fleshing out this extremely important issue, let me recommend to you the following lecture from friend and UK rector, Stephen Sizer. He. in my view, did a marvelous job of dealing with and exposing the fallacies of Christian Zionism. If you will set aside your presuppositions for just a moment, I believe you will benefit a great deal. Surely, no one likes change and even less do we want to admit being wrong, but after studying this issue a number of years ago, I was forced to alter my view and admit that I had been very wrong. So please keep an open mind.

Let me add that both Stephen and I love the Jewish people just as the apostle Paul did. For in his letter to the Romans, Paul wrote, "For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh". Paul was so distraught by the Jews stiff-necked unbelief, that he was willing to be accursed if it meant their salvation. But, and this is a very important distinction: those of us who oppose the doctrine of Christian Zionism don't love the Jews exclusive of other people groups. Everyone needs the Gospel, no less the Muslim, the Hindu or our mail carrier. :) Jesus Christ has brought His bountiful blessings to the nations, and this includes Israel, but it also includes China, Iran, India and the rest of humanity!

"Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. ⁷ Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. ⁸ The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” ⁹ So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer." (Galatian 3:6-9)

Anyone, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Budhist, can become a child of Abraham by faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the focal point of human history and how you treat Jesus Christ will determine whether you will be blessed or cursed. 

Does anybody really know what time it is?

Does eschatology matter? Clearly it's not a bedrock issue like the atonement, the virgin birth or the deity of Christ, so why waste valuable time studying a doctrine that causes so much conflict and seems to accomplish so little? After all, whether we understand the Biblical view of the end times or not, everything is going pan out the way God intends. So, since brilliant people can't come to a meaningful consensus, why bother flirting with a subject that seems above most of our pay grades? Wouldn't it be prudent to simply take the path of least resistance rather than get caught up in all the hype and confusion that accompanies the prevailing eschatological view? After all, who do we think we are, believing that we can discover God's truth on a subject that those far brighter have been jousting about for centuries? 

Well, perhaps after watching this short video, you'll begin to appreciate the reasons why eschatology really does matter and why it might be time for you to take a serious look. Maybe it's not quite as complicated as you'd imagined? And it may turn out to play a far more extensive role in the health and vitality of the Church than you'd ever dreamed...and it might even make a difference in the way you view your future. 

bin Laden re 9/11 in his own words

I continue to hear people, empowered by conspiratorialists like Alex Jones, claim that ISIL, ISIS or whatever name you choose for the Islamic State, is merely a fabrication of the CIA/Mossad, and that the terror they are accused of spreading, only serves to falsely demonize Muslims. But what about the beheadings? Crisis actors. Yes, that's correct, they insist that the dead journalists were just part of the illusion. And these same conspiratorialists believe that the U.S. government in consort with Israel, plotted and perpetrated 9/11 and that they, are the greatest dangers to worldwide freedom. 

Now, if you believe or are entertaining such a belief, I'd like to know if you've ever taken the time to listen to the words of Osama bin Laden one month after the collapse of the Twin Towers. In this interview, bin Laden not only proudly claimed responsibility for the attacks on New York and Washington, but he openly shared his motivations for masterminding this nefarious plan? 

However, the conspiratorialists are not easily fooled. They insist that bin Laden was a mere CIA asset and that he's simply part of the charade. 

I'd like to challenge you to listen carefully to bin Laden, as he clearly enunciates the fact that he is not a pawn of the west, and has only and always represented the interests of Islam. If you think this is a vaudeville act, then you will have no trouble believing just about anything. 

Why was America attacked on 9/11? Bin Laden states a number of reasons, one being the U.S. backing of Israel as they've treated the Palestinians with contempt. But the bottom line is that bin Laden was no a patsy. Most people won't watch the interviews, but they will continue to repeat the mantra, "9/11 was an inside job" and then begin to turn reason on its ear. 

Secrets and Conspiracies - never the twain shall meet

The following story is a rather poignant reminder why large scale conspiracies involving hundreds, if not thousands of people, simply cannot be true. The fact is that people can't keep their mouths shut... not for long. Even in this small group of highly trained Navy Seals, not all of them kept their traditional oath of silence. When money, fame and/or notoriety are on the line, somebody always chirps. 

On Nov. 11 and 12, Fox News Channel will air “The Man Who Killed Usama Bin Laden,” a two-part documentary featuring “an exclusive interview with the Navy SEAL who says he fired the shots that killed terrorist leader Usama Bin Laden,” according to a Fox media release, using an alternate spelling for the jihadi’s name. The retired SEAL, “who will reveal his identity and speak out publicly for the first time, describes the events leading up to and during the historical raid that took place on May 1st, 2011.” (TBO.com)

Though the detail in which "The Shooter" described his assassination of bin Laden seems inappropriate for public consumption​, it nonetheless serves to confirm this object lesson. Silence, even in an event confined to a band of brothers, is a virtual impossibility. And this Seal team revelation came to light less than 2 years after the death of bin Laden. 

So when people talk about conspiracy theories on the magnitude of 9/11, where thousands ​had to have been "in the know"​, the chances of long term silence are ​extremely slim. It's simply contrary to human nature, especially in a free society​. 

Recently, a Facebook friend ​argued that since ​the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 (the Solomon Brothers building) in advance of the actual collapse, this was proof that the BBC had ​prior knowledge. Therefore, in his eyes, this was clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, that Larry Silverman (owner of the complex)​, ​plus all of the alphabet networks, the CIA, the Mossad, the U.S. military, and many high level government officials, were all in on the plot. 

So instead of this fellow realizing that on that chaotic day of mass hysteria, reporting was at times confused and downright errant, he chose to believe that thousands knew of the supposed conspiratorial plans to bring down the Twin Towers and WTC 7 through controlled demolition, to wreak havoc on the Pentagon through a missile strike, and to shoot down Flight 93 (that they insist didn't crash in Shanksville). 

Yes, indeed, the 19 hijackers were just a bunch of poor Muslim patsies scapegoated so that the U.S. could muster the moral justification to invade Iraq while ultimately stealing their oil. So why weren't any of the patsies actually from Iraq? Couldn't the sociopathic NWO masterminds behind the attack, have managed to throw a few Iraqis into the flight manifests? And why does the U.S. import a lesser percentage of oil post Gulf War than it did while Hussein was in power? These menacing little factoids don't matter to the true believer.  

Further, consider this. Why would the triumverant of Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have used four planes (two to strike the Twin Towers, one to merely fly over the Pentagon, and one to shoot down), as some sort of magician's misdirection? Why not crash all four planes into hard targets to create the most damage?  

At any rate, now, some 13 years after that fateful day, ​the conspiracy theorists don't seem to notice that no one has come forward to write the tell-all book or spill the beans on the greatest cover​-up in human history. They want us to believe that hundreds of eyewitnesses, thousands of military personnel, a plethora of government officials, and untold numbers in the media, are all keeping the deafening silence. The government couldn't even keep a lid on Watergate, which was confined to a mere few, and yet they're supposedly capable of covering up the mother of all conspiracies? 

A friend, deep into the rabbit hole, scolded me, "Use your HEAD, man!" As if I was the one who was living in a dream world void of reality. But using my head is quite frankly what eventually woke me from my conspiratorial stupor. Instead of watching one propaganda flick which is riddled with lies and half truths, I began to do some serious research. I decided to be a Berean and not simply believe what I'd been told. And so, after reading thousands of website pages and viewing the video evidence in detail, I climbed out of the rabbit hole and left the cozy confines of conspiracism.  

The bottom line is that people will believe whatever is necessary to confirm their bias. And even when confronted with the improbability of their conspiracy theory, undaunted they simply ignore the evidence, get verbally aggressive and move on to force the next square peg anomaly into their conspiratorial round hole. Anything to make the world less complex. 

So this latest Seal shooter revelation is further proof that massive conspiracies are as improbable as a snowy day in San Francisco. People don't keep secrets even in the most well-confined events, much less the 9/11 granddaddy of them all. 

My recommendation? Break down every conspiracy claim and determine if it can stand on it's own merit. Don't fall prey to allowing the massive number of bogus claims overwhelm you. A hundred false claims does not the truth make.   

One concluding thought. For goodness sake, don't watch one clever Youtube vid and believe you have all the facts. One of the guys obsessed with 9/11 being an inside job, did just that. He actually made the following statement which he believed was proof that WTC 7 had to have been collapsed by controlled demolition. "Your video [which simply showed the WTC 7 collapse in real time] shows NADA of this. NOTHING ON TOP OF THIS BUILDING absolutely NOTHING because they were turned into DUST!!!" 
I don't mean to sound unkind, but this is complete nonsense, devoid of reality. The slick "Loose Change" movie producers, using carefully selected video clips, led this dear brother to believe that the Twin Towers were basically vaporized into what conspiracists like John Lear and Judy Wood refer to as nano-dust. How could they come to this conclusion if they watched ANY of the video footage of the collapse? 

Watch the following to see the kind of "nano-dust" that fell to the ground during the collapse. They hauled away massage amounts of steel, but the revisionist's theories are so compelling to the uninformed, that far too many fail to do any fact checking. 

Conspiracism is a rabid form of cynicism that is not serving us well. It's both crippling and debilitating, and it causes such a severe malaise that one is left feeling disenfranchised and helpless. Ultimately people remove themselves from the political process believing that their vote and voice are worthless. Clearly our government is seriously flawed. And yes, it conceals far more than it ought. But blaming the government for things done by terrorists is not only unhealthy but it's intellectually dishonest. Don't allow a small group of cyber-conspiracists to control the debate. Think for yourself.

Does Bill Gates want Depopulation through vaccines and health care?

A FB friend posted a snippet of a 2010 Bill Gates' speech, "Innovating to Zero", where Gates essentially outlined what he believed are grave environment problems that will guarantee cataclysmic results. He specifically referenced global warming through greenhouse gas emissions as the main culprit. One of his methods to reduce C02 is through global Population (P in the equation below) reduction. Though I have serious issues with Gates' alarmist environmental claims (which I dealt with in a prior blog), my intent here is to focus on one particular facet of a statement which I shall quote in a moment. 

Because the amount of CO2 emitted correlates to world population (with developed countries emitting far more of the environmental load), Gates briefly mentioned ways to reduce the projected world population (currently at 6.8B headed to 9B), including "reproductive health services" i.e. abortion and contraception, and also the vaccine initiatives. Following is the exact quote from the lecture. 

"Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that [the population] by perhaps 10 or 15 percent". (article HERE, video below)

Did you catch that? One can certainly understand how abortion and contraception lowers world population, but how in the world can new vaccines and better health services also shrink population. Aren't vaccines designed to prevent disease? 

Well, not according to the way Natural News and the many other conspiratorial-minded websites, interpreted Gates' intentions. Natural News reposted just the first 3 minutes of the 30 minute lecture and changed the title to, Bill Gates Wants Depopulation Through Vaccines and Health Care." And off they went with their NWO (New World Order) diatribe accusing Mr. Microsoft of plotting to wipe out millions. But is that truly what Gates meant by the above statement? Even if that was his intent, would he be so brazen to telegraph his diabolical plan to kill off half the world? 

Though I couldn't disagree with Gates more on his bogus global warming assertions, and I despise (is that a harsh enough word?) his pro-abortion initiatives, anyone with a modicum of common sense should have known that Gates, in that 2010 speech, was not talking about euthenizing large population centers with some sort of killer drug disguised as a vaccine. Talk about confirmation bias!

Admittedly, thought he sounded a bit like Mr. Hyde with some severely demented logic, he was essentially saying that reducing infant deaths by using vaccines and providing better health care, reduces a family's fears of losing their children through disease. Therefore, he argued, that they're not as apt to have as many children to compensate for the expected infant deaths. And given the following stats, one need not wonder why.

• Diphtheria–​760,000 deaths
• Hepatitis B–12​,700,000 deaths
• Measles–96​,​7​00,00​0 deaths
• Meningitis-21​,900,000 deaths
• Polio–​130,000 deaths​ (and who knows how many permanently crippled)​
• Smallpox–​400,000,000 deaths (yes, 400 million)
• Tetanus–​37,000,000 deaths
• Whooping cough–​38,100,000 deaths

Gates wrote in his 2009 Annual Letter, that a "surprising but critical fact [is] that reducing the number of [infant] deaths actually reduces population growth."

He continued by explaining the theory that "parents will have more children when infant mortality is high, so as to ensure that several children will survive to take care of them as they grow old."

Furthering that argument in a 2008 CNN interview, he said, "If you improve health in a society ... surprisingly, population growth goes down. And that's because a parent needs to have some children survive into adulthood to take care of them when they're old. And so, if they think having six children is what they need to do to have at least two survive, that's what they'll do. And amazingly, across the entire world, as health improves, then the population growth actually is reduced."

If Natural News had done a simple internet search or called the Gates Foundation directly, they would have preempted this false accusation. And if my friend would have done the same, it would have saved them the embarrassment of propagating a falsehood. One has to wonder if Natural News chose to close their eyes or if they simply wanted to believe the lie since it confirmed their bias against the nefarious "they". This kind of bogus reporting, which seems all too typical of Natural News and similar conspiratorial "watchdog" organizations, makes the many Christians who share their blogs look rather foolish. But this raises the wider question about vaccines. Are they as dangerous, and are they're makers as evil as they're made out to be. 

Consider the fact that Small Pox, Polio and Influenza have killed and crippled hundreds of millions. Does Natural News and the anti-vaccers really want to return to those days? It has been estimated that nearly 1.7 billion people have died from infectious diseases.Though Dr. Mercola points out that the Gates Foundation vaccination programs are not necessarily what malnourished, dehydrated, children living in squalor, need, vilifying Bill Gates as some sort of a sociopathic monster waging a murderous population control campaign through the use of vaccines, is libelous and irresponsible. Natural News and others who spread this disinformation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

If we don't do a better job of holding these kinds of organizations accountable, we're going to continue to look like fools to the world... and not for the right reasons. And the Gospel's proliferation will be compromised simply because too many Christians are passing along these errant stories lessening our credible by the day.

In closing, let me leave you with some food for thought about vaccines. I apologize in advance for the occasional foul language in the following video, but I offer it to you to dispel some of the anti-vaccine rhetoric that I continue to hear. In my view, too much of what we take at face value from the alternative medicine community is poorly researched. Though I put little trust in traditional medicine in dealing with cancer and immune disorders, I've found that I was throwing too many babies out with the bath water. As Bereans we tend to disbelieve anything and everything coming out of the establishment, but I have found this to be imprudent. Everything should be studied on a case by case basis. Vaccines are no different than anything else.

Global Warming, Fact or Fiction?

Global warming is a fact, the polar ice caps are melting and industrialization is the root cause. Well, that's at least what the "experts" are telling us.  

Is our planet really in a dangerous state of warming precipitated by human activity? Are we truly on an imminent and ominous Armageddon type collision course lest we immediately and resoundingly throttle back our greenhouse gas production? One need only listen to the Paul Revere style rhetoric of Al Gore, John McCain and the true believers in this "climate crisis", to realize that more than science is fueling this movement. It has reached religious fervor and, according to them, only ignorant neanderthals incapable of objective inquiry and open-mindedness, could possibly disagree with their conclusions. The facts, they say, stand decidedly in their corner. 

Listen, I have no ax to grind. I want to be a faithful steward of God's provision. If we need to alter our behavior to save the planet from calamity, I have no problem making the necessary changes. However, in my view, the interpretation of the facts may not be quite as clear as the climate crisis advocates would have us believe. In the "The Mind Blowing Truth about Global Warming that Nobody Talks About", blogger Steven Bancarz makes the following rather insightful observation.

"Every single planet in our solar system is experiencing the exact same changes the earth is experiencing.   Uranus, Pluto, Mercury, Mars, you name it.  Global warming is not an effect unique to the earth, but is instead a universal phenomenon that is happening throughout the entire solar system in ways that have been documented by Hubble, NASA, BBC, CNN, and mainstream university professors and scientists all over the world.  Every celestial body in our solar system is undergoing dramatic changes, meaning that global warming on earth would still be happening even if it was uninhabited by humans."

If you are confused by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and wonder if the global warming denialists are full of hot air, I highly recommend the following videos. I think you will find that science is not as heavily on the side of the alarmists as they would have you believe. 

One closing word of caution. Though some climate alarmists appear to have an anti free- market agenda, I don't think it's prudent to jump on the conspiratorialist bandwagon as so many are prone to do. Every issue must be weighed individually and should not be linked into some web of NWO (New World Order) conspiratorial fear mongering dogma. You don't have to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Sandy Hook massacre and the Boston Marathon bombing were false flag hoaxes, to realize that humans are not the enemy of God's gracious provision. 

Should we be responsible stewards of the earth? Absolutely! However, the fact remains that global warming and cooling are phenomena which have been cyclical since the creation without regard to human activity. So it seems prudent to me that we not crush human industry until we have a far better handle on this issue. And after watching the above videos I think you will find that man-made global warming is anything but a certainty. 

Either Convert them or kill them! Islam or Christianity?

Who recently said, "Either convert them or kill them?" An Islamic terrorist or Cleric, right? It clearly sounds like Middle East rhetoric we've heard before, but in this instance, it was a famous Christian duck hunter. 

Phil Robertson seems like a very committed believer. In reading the book, "Duck Commander", I came away with three thoughts. He really, really, really like to kill ducks (never heard of so many varieties), he's a very simple man who loathes technology, and he loves the Lord. I believe he and his family are bold and courageous in their willingness to stave off political correctness and speak affirmatively concerning Christian values. 

Recently as a Foxnews contributor, Robertson made the statement regarding ISIS, "Either convert them or kill them." 

In reaction, a FB friend's repost simply stated, "'Convert them or kill them.' Congratulations, Phil, you just taught the philosophy of Islam." I found the ensuing debate rather intriguing and invigorating. Many Christians supported Robertson with a "get them before they get us" mentality, The first response was, "He ain't wrong when it comes to radical Islam. However, since a conversion is unlikely with these radicals, just save time and go to option 2". Another posited, "If Christians and "Christian nations" do not bring "liberty and justice" to the world, then who the hell will." Yet another expressed an entirely different point of view when he simply wrote, "He're Phil's Christ", and then linked the following photo of Jesus holding a 50 caliber machine gun. 

To a wildly cheering crowd, John Hagee (video link) has made similar statements regarding the Palestinians, Muslims and what he regards as the terrorist state of Iran.

A number of years ago he proclaimed, "It is time for America to consider a military preemptive strike against Iran to prevent a nuclear holocaust in Israel and a nuclear attack in America." I refer to this as the Hagee commandment, "Nuke unto others before they nuke unto you."

The fellow who posted the Hagee video which included the above quote, wrote, "It's time for all americans to rise up and nuck the terrorists in Iran before they come over here and hop on the Al Ciada naval ships and reign down nuckler terror on America! It's time to say no to the racists and liberal ku klux klan nazi members like Pat Buchannan and Ron Paul who just want us to roll over and surreder to the terrorists." Though this guy could clearly benefit from a little spell check (which in and of itself makes him sound extreme), I don't find his sentiment all that unusual. Perhaps most are not quite as blatant in their militaristic attitudes, but it appears that he's clearly not out of the dispensational mainstream. Just watch the Hagee video and take a good look at the crowd as they cheer his war cry. 

At another time, John Hagee and Benny Hinn gathered to pray to lead "this nation into war..." Though the Hagee ministry eliminated this prayer session from public view based upon "copyright infringement", it can still be found here: John Hagee With Benny Hinn: Praying For War, In the Name Of Jesus. Certainly doesn't remind me a whole lot of Jesus' sermon on the mount's "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called son of God." How did we get so far from the prayers for peace? 

But as much as it feeds our sense of justice to hold savages and terrorists to an account, is this a Biblically sanctioned response?  ISIS may be out of control, but to pray for the annihilation of a sovereign nation that has NEVER attacked us (Iran), seems less than prudent. 

The question we must answer is if Hagee's and Robertson's message is that of Jesus and the NT authors? Where does "love your enemies" and "pray for those who persecute you" come into the equation? Every last disciple (and yes, I believe John is included) died martyrs. Stephen didn't even pick up a rock in self defense and as he was dying said, "Lord, do not charge them with this sin."  And the one time a disciple attempted to use aggression to thwart the enemies of Christ, Jesus rebuked him and restored the ear of the enemy. 

So are Phil Robertson and John Hagee correct? What should we do? Following is an interview with Semse Aydin, the Christian Widow Who Forgave the men who brutally torturned and murdered her husband and two other missionaries in Turkey. 

In closing, please consider the following article, "Phil Robertson preaches Islamic doctrine? Convert or die?, as Joel McDurmon of American Vision weighs in on this debate. He wrote, "While Robertson’s sentiment resonates with a lot of people, especially conservatives stirred to outrage by gruesome videos of alleged beheadings and alleged threats to “America,” we must step back for a moment and check our reaction. 

On the surface of this quotation, Robertson’s response is little more than the doctrine of the very Islamic “thugs on steroids” he would confront. “Convert them or kill them,” is no different than the classic Islamic battle cry: “convert or die!” Is this really the response Christians should have? Is this what the Bible teaches? Is this even what the allegedly harsh and outdated Old Testament ethic for war would prescribe? No, it is not.