The Original Heresy, pt II: The Gnostic Gospels

Discovered near the Upper-Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi, the Gnostic Gospels (also known as the Nag Hammadi library, or the Nag Hammadi Codicies) have managed to capture imaginations, and generate heated debate over what biblical canon ought to be, what it is, and why it exists in its current form. This collection is made up of 13 leather-bound Codicies, and contains 52 separate works, most of which are Gnostic treatises. Of the parts that are not, there are three works that are part of the Corpus Hermeticus, and a partially rewritten version of Plato’s “Republic”, complete with Gnostic themes that had not existed prior.

Since their discovery, much of the debate that has surrounded them has focused on whether or not they are to be considered biblical canon. For the majority of Christians, they simply are not considered Scripture for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they are inconsistent with the actual biblical canon. In this post, we will explore why they are inconsistent, and hopefully dispel a few of the more interesting conspiracy theories.


In 1945, a man named Muhammad Ali and his brother were digging for fertilizer near the town of Nag Hammadi, when they unearthed a sealed clay jar. Though they were initially hesitant to open it, fearing that it might contain a Jinn (a type of Arabic demon, and where we get the English word “genie”), they were amazed to find the library carefully hidden within.

Rather than turn it over to local authorities, they chose to hang on to the library, in the hope that they would be able to get a really good price for each piece. The brothers took it home, and kept it there.

Through a series of events, virtually all of the library was eventually acquired by the Egyptian government, and is presently housed in a museum in Cairo. Of the parts that did not make it there, an unknown number were burned by Muhammad Ali’s mother, who feared that the codicies might cause too much trouble, and another part was eventually sold to an organization in the Netherlands, after it had been unsuccessfully offered for sale in the U.S.

The Languages

Though the Nag Hammadi library was written in Coptic, some linguists have suggested that it had been translated to Coptic from Syriac, based on the wording of certain works, like the Gospel of Thomas. The prevailing scholarly opinion is that it was originally written in Greek, but there is a strong case to be made for a Syriac origin.

In his essay, “The Fifth Gospel?”, for example, Nicholas Perrin points to linguistic analysis to suggest that the Gnostic Gospels were in fact Second Century Syriac documents, rather than First Century Judean. He says, “As I have argued more fully elsewhere, the evidence seems to show that the Coptic
gospel is not so much a witness to the historical Jesus, but instead a witness
to early Syriac Christianity. Following a linguistic analysis of the Coptic collection, with particular attention to the use of catchwords, it appears that
Thomas was not written—per the standard and prevailing assumption—in Greek, as an evolving sayings collection, dating back to the first or early second century. Instead, it seems that our sayings gospel was written in Syriac, as a piece, showing dependence on the first Syriac gospel record,
Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. ad 173).”

Perrin’s Findings

A page from Perrin’s “The Fifth Gospel?” showing the comparison between the Gospel of Thomas, the Diatessaron (a Second Century Syriac harmonization of the Synoptic Gospels) , and Scripture.

According to Perrin, the wording in the Gospel of Thomas is more reminiscent of the Diatessaron than the actual Gospel accounts, suggesting that the Gospel of Thomas was derived from the Diatessaron, not from the Synoptic Gospels. What this means for the Gnostic Gospels is that they may well have been written in the wrong time and place, with the wrong content, to be Scripture.

While the Gnostic Gospels themselves were physically dated to the Fifth Century, it is the materials contained within that were dated to the Second Century. This would imply that the Gospel of Thomas was written in the Second Century, never mind the fact that he is not believed to have survived to the turn of the century. Historians place him in India in the late 70’s when he died, yet, the Gospel of Thomas is dated to somewhere between 120-150 AD. That disparity is rather difficult to ignore.

Do bear in mind that I’ve only chosen to focus my attention on one small portion of the overall library because it is so big a detailed analysis would end up becoming a series of its own. The idea is not out of the question, but for now, I plan on sticking with the more skin-deep approach. I trust that the person reading this is more than capable of doing their own research.

The Contents

Going beyond the age of the documents, there are also the contents to be considered. What the Gospel of Thomas contains is a list of sayings attributed to Jesus throughout His ministry. Some are correct, others only partially so, and most find absolutely no correlation with what is found in the Synoptic Gospels. It runs the full gamut of credibility, however, it also completely lacks a narrative.

While some have suggested that the Gospel of Thomas is as old as the document commonly referred to as “Q”, the fact of the matter is that one would be hard pressed to make the case given the similarities between it and the Diatessaron.

Here are a few examples of what is found in the Gospel of Thomas:

#3. Jesus said, “If your leaders say to you, ‘Look, the (Father’s) kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father’s) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.”

#7. Jesus said, “Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human.”

#9. Jesus said, “Look, the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered (them). Some fell on the road, and the birds came and gathered them. Others fell on rock, and they didn’t take root in the soil and didn’t produce heads of grain. Others fell on thorns, and they choked the seeds and worms ate them. And others fell on good soil, and it produced a good crop: it yielded sixty per measure and one hundred twenty per measure.” (Similar to the Parable of the Sower)

Finally, #14. Jesus said to them, “If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them.

After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.”

Note that much of 14 appears to be the very characterization of Gnosticism, while one small portion actually pertains to something Jesus said. This is an example of what I was saying. It is not difficult to insert an outside influence into Scripture and make it sound good. What simply does not help is that people today seem to be unwilling to sit down and engage with Scripture. People do not want to learn, and will be easily duped when someone comes along with heretical teaching that sounds similar to some half-remembered verse they heard in Sunday school.

How They Fail the Test

In my post on what constitutes heresy, I made the point that biblical teaching must be consistent with what is found in the Bible. The Bible is, in and of itself, the final judge of what is Scripture and what is not. Each of the books in Scripture find corroboration with the other books. Both Testaments support each other, with high degrees of agreement. Anything that does not mesh with this system is not to be considered Scripture. This is why the Gnostic Gospels fail as Scripture. Gnosticism is not biblically supported, it is actually proved false by it.

In Part 3, we will take a look at the Corpus Hermeticus.

Allow me to Introduce Myself…

I am a married Medical Assistant, parent of nine children (six sons, three daughters) and a currently serving Medic in the National Guard. I currently reside in a metropolitan city in the Midwest, though I’m a native Texan.

In case any are wondering, EngMed is short for Engineer Medic. I’m currently serving as a Platoon Medic in a Combat Engineer Company, so that seemed a fitting name, wouldn’t y’all think?

My interests vary between religion, politics, art, literature, hunting, camping, fishing, hiking, music, writing and serving the Lord. Yes, I am an evangelical Christian and I won’t ever shy away from the subject. I invite any to ask questions, debate and will gladly pray for any who ask.

In terms of politics, I’m a Conservative Constitutionalist. No, I’m not a Republican. I’m actually very disaffected with them, given that their commitment to conservative values tend to disappear faster than water on the surface of the sun.

I’m pro-gun, pro-life, pro-death penalty, and pro-limited government. I believe that the Constitution is the law of the land, not social whim.

I’m anti-Islam (a topic I will expand upon in the future), against virtually all forms of gun control, and I’m totally OK with the idea of legalizing marijuana, though I personally detest the stuff.

Well, I think that’s about all I have at this time. If y’all wanna know more, feel free to ask. I’ll just end with this quote:

“Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori.” “It is sweet and fitting to die for your country.”

Defeating the Personhood Argument

Today, I want to touch on an argument for abortion that I have recently had occasion to discuss. When dealing with pro-abortion supporters, I have been told that the unborn are not persons, and are therefore subject to the whim of their mothers. At first blush, this may seem like a difficult argument to overcome, but the truth is that it really is not.

First, when someone makes that argument, they are acknowledging that unborn human children are in fact human. They are admitting that they recognize the unborn as human beings, but are unwilling to admit that their position is morally wrong as a result. This is why they fall back on the personhood argument.

The argument goes something like this. “Abortion is acceptable because they are not persons. Personhood begins when they develop consciousness”. Mind you, this is not a precise representation of the argument itself, just a bare-bones paraphrasing. While they acknowledge that the unborn are genetically human, and certainly bear a human appearance beyond a certain stage of development, they insist that this does not grant personhood to the unborn, and this makes it acceptable to strip them of their humanity and end their lives. (If you were so inclined, you could also point out that similar arguments were once used to justify slavery and the Holocaust) In effect, they have found themselves in the situation where all of their arguments have failed, and the only options remaining are to either admit defeat, or move the goalposts.

In moving the goalposts, what they are doing is changing the rules in an underhanded manner, in order to remove the benefit from the opponent they cannot beat, and play a game with semantics. Rather than make the easily defined humanity of the unborn the guideline, as it should be, they attempt to drag their opponents off into the weeds with discussion on the rather nebulous topic of “personhood”.

What is personhood? The Oxford dictionary defines personhood as, “the quality or condition of being an individual person”. It further defines person as, “a human being regarded as an individual”. Note what has just happened, the argument from personhood seems to have been defeated by two simple dictionary definitions, but it would only seem that way. This is where we delve into the reason why personhood is nebulous.

What pro-abortion supporters have done is engage in a war of words, in which they get to redefine what those words mean. If you point out the dictionary definition of person, they will simply seek to redefine the parameters to include consciousness, viability, or any other term they can think of to justify their position. In so doing, they have taken a word that can be objectively defined and turned it into a subjective topic that is entirely dependent upon the whim of the person using it. The end result is that the pro-abortion camp is divided on where the cutoff line is for abortion.

Some would argue that the line is viability, but advances in medicine continue to move that line back. When last I heard, viability was about 21 weeks gestation. Others would argue that the cutoff should be when the unborn child can feel pain, which usually occurs weeks into the first trimester. There might even be those who use the legal definition of persons as “someone who can be sued”, though pointing out that minors cannot be sued usually stops that one. Of course, there are those who support abortion all the way up to birth. With so many different opinions on where and when that line ought to be, it seems that defining personhood for them is really just anyone’s guess.

So, how do we avoid being dragged down that rabbit hole? We stop them before they get the chance to try. If they are choosing to use this particular argument, then the humanity of the unborn is not even a question. They have acknowledged that by even using this argument, and this is where we get them.

First, we use what they claim to adhere to, science. While I would prefer to use the Bible, your opponents will simply try to defeat you with the reliability of Scripture, but again, that is dragging you off into the weeds. You can easily defeat that argument, but it will divert you from the main goal of saving the lives of children, so the choice is yours.

To the end of heading them off at the pass, here is one of the best quotes I have come across,

“There are different opinions of when an embryo becomes a human being because opinions are often affected by religious and personal views. The scientific answer is that the embryo is a human being from the time of fertilization because of its human chromosomal constitution. The zygote is the beginning of a developing human.” “Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects”, 10th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Torchia (2019)

Next, bring up the definition of murder according to the dictionary, the law, and the Bible,

Murder (dictionary): the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Murder (legal definition): Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.

Murder (Bible): Genesis 9:5-6, “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.

6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

Note something here. Each and every one of these definitions are in agreement with each other, and not a one of them is in any way, shape, fashion, or form predicated on personhood. Why? Because with humanity comes the presumption of personhood.

Thank you, have a nice day, and the mic has been dropped.

Where did the Trinity come from?

The simplest answer to this question is that it comes from Scripture. As I have shown in previous posts, the members of the godhead appear at various points in the Bible, acting independently of each other, showing the same attributes, and taking the same prerogatives. Yet, the inescapable fact of Scripture is that it clearly says that there is only One God, as opposed to three. For there to be only one, the three acting independently must be One in essence, even if they are three in being. This is a clear principle that one can even identify within the first 16 chapters of Genesis,

Genesis 1:1-2, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Genesis 16:7-14, “And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. 8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. 9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. 10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
13 And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me? 14 Wherefore the well was called Beerlahairoi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.

This has led to many stating that the Trinity is hinted at in the Old Testament, and revealed in the New. For example, Matthew 3:16-17,

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

That moment was the revelation of the Triune nature of God, as represented by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and as was hinted at in the Tanakh. This is what people are arguing against, stating that Jesus is not God in the flesh, but rather a prophet, a man, or some other type of being created by God. What we will be addressing is two of the more common arguments against the Trinity that you will encounter.

1. The Council of Nicea

The most common argument you will encounter is the idea that this doctrine dates back to the Council of Nicea, with Emperor Constantine. Prior to this point, they assert, Jesus was not seen as divine, but merely as a human prophet. The issue with this idea is that the facts of history do not back up this version of events. Despite this fact, you will encounter no small number of Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, and Unitarians who will continually assert that the Doctrine of the Trinity was an invention of Constantine, and kept alive by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. This is why it is important for you to know how to answer their objections.

The Da Vinci Code

In Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”, the storyline includes numerous revelations about Jesus based upon claims made in The Gnostic Gospels. Among those are the claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that He was nothing more than a human prophet, that He was not the Son of God, etc.

I will take a moment and point out that Dan Brown is not a biblical scholar. While the alternative “historical” facts presented in this book worked well for the storyline, it is safe to say that Sophie Neveu is neither a living person, nor a descendant of Jesus and Mary. If there happens to be a Sir Leigh Teabing, I very much doubt he is an eccentric millionaire who has the ability to trick people into committing murder and solving centuries-old riddles. I would also hope that Silas the albino monk is not running around somewhere.

One of the assertions made in the storyline was that Constantine called the Council of Nicea, and forced Jesus’ divinity onto the men present, thereby deifying a man and creating a new religion out of one that had already existed for centuries. Controversial does not begin to cover the ideas presented, most especially the idea that Emperor Constantine was the originator of Jesus’ divinity and the Doctrine of the Trinity.

The uproar was so profound that numerous biblical scholars felt compelled to address it. Bart Ehrman was no exception. In response to “The Da Vinci Code”, he wrote,

“Constantine did call the Council of Nicea, and one of the issues involved Jesus’ divinity. But this was not a council that met to decide whether or not Jesus was divine…Quite the contrary: everyone at the Council – in fact, just about every Christian everywhere – already agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God. The question being debated was how to understand Jesus’ divinity in light of the circumstance that he was also human. Moreover, how could both Jesus and God be God if there is only one God? Those were the issues that were addressed at Nicea, not whether or not Jesus was divine. And there certainly was no vote to determine Jesus’ divinity: this was already a matter of common knowledge among Christians, and had been from the early years of the religion.” (“Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine”)

Truth be told, the Council of Nicea had been called to settle a dispute within the Church. On one side, you had a sect of Christianity known as “Arianism”, who taught that Jesus is not God in the flesh, but that He is a divine being, the first to be created before the rest of the universe. On the other, there was the Trinitarian camp, whose teachings regarding the Trinity are what we now know, that God is a threefold being, manifesting as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

While the fight was Arians vs Trinitarians, the Doctrine of the Trinity was very plainly not the reason for the council. The Doctrine of the Trinity was already a given to the majority of Christians, and had been so since the days of the Apostles, which brings us to the second argument: Paul the Apostle.

2. Saul of Tarsus

First, a bit of background on Saul of Tarsus, later to be known as Paul the Apostle. He was a Pharisee, trained under rabbi Gamaliel, a famous Jewish rabbi who was rumored to have become a Messianic Jew after his famous student underwent his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. No one has been able to prove it, but it makes a nice bit of subtext to the story, does it not?

When Saul entered the story, he was the one doing the persecuting. He assisted in detaining, imprisoning, torturing, and executing Jesus’ Jewish followers wherever he could root them out. In fact, that is the reason why he was on the road to Damascus in the first place. He was on a mission to find Messianic Jews and hold them over for trial.

After his experience, he went to the Apostles, presented himself to them for examination, and was declared an Apostle. From that time on, he saw little more than struggle and strife. He was repeatedly beaten, flogged, starved, imprisoned, and eventually died by beheading in Rome.

Those who object to the Trinity will seek to convince you that Paul somehow managed to alter all of the teachings of the Apostles, their disciples, and everything in between. If it seems far-fetched wait until you see the evidence.

The Evidence

In the first part, we examined the idea that the Doctrine of the Trinity, along with the divinity of Jesus, were the product of the Council of Nicea and the mind of Emperor Constantine. In addition to the point made by Bart Ehrman, I have quite a bit more to share.

The Evidence in Scripture

A careful read of the Gospel accounts shows that Jesus claimed to be divine in both word and deed, and in that His followers were in agreement. While it is true that Jesus never uttered the phrase, “I am God, worship me”, an Islamic argument that is as sophomoric as it is frequent in its use, what He did do was accept worship from His followers, as well as lay claim to divine titles and prerogatives. The reason why is simple. Announcing “I am God” in First Century Judea would have simply resulted in confused looks and the assumption that you were insane. However, call yourself the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Lord of the Sabbath, the Light of the World, the I AM, and suddenly you have strayed into an altogether different territory. That is when you begin to see people respond as they did in John 10:30-33,

I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

This is just one example of the many claims to divinity made by Jesus, but He was not the only one making those claims. Certainly Paul (Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Phil. 2:5-8), Peter (2 Pet. 1:1), and John (John 1:1-3, 14; 8:58; 20:28) believed that Jesus is God. They all stated it in very clear terms.

The Apostolic Age

At the time that Jesus ascended, He had given the Disciples a set of commands. First, follow His Commandments. Second, share His Message. Matthew 28:18-20,

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

In order for the Apostles to obey the Lord’s command, they would have to leave Judea, preach the Gospel to all who would listen, and take on their own disciples. They knew that teaching all nations would be something beyond themselves, so they got to work.

It was not long before they began to share the Gospel in Jerusalem and surrounding areas. It also was not long before the religious leaders in Jerusalem sought to silence them, and it was from this point that they began to spread out. Paul and Peter both made it to Rome, James made it to Spain, Matthew made it to Ethiopia, Thomas made it to India, Andrew made it to Russia, and so on. Everywhere they went, they met up with people who would become new converts, who would then go on a form local churches. Many of Paul’s epistles were to the churches he had planted in the various cities and settlements he had traveled to.

It is from this group of converts that we are able to find some of the most compelling evidence against the two arguments that bring us here today. The early Apostolic Church took time to grow and build, with quite a few issues to work out, not the least of which was how Gentile believers fit into what had originally been a thoroughly Jewish lexicon.

Through careful study, scholars have been able to determine not only the majority of who the Apostles took on as disciples, but they have copies of their writings, in the form of commentaries, homilies, letters, and sermons. They can account for virtually the entire New Testament, and even determine what it is that they were taught and were teaching, which is what we are here to discuss. Here are some examples of these writings, and what they had to say regarding the Doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus.

Polycarp (AD 69-155), Letter to the Philippians:

“Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth…and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.”

Ignatius (AD 50-117) bishop at the church in Antioch and a disciple of John

“Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.
Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.

There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.

Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life.

For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father.

I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observed that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Wait expectantly for the one who is above time: the Eternal, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible; the Intangible, the Unsuffering, who for our sake suffered, who for our sake endured in every way.”

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) was a Christian apologist of the second century

“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.

Permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts.

Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ.

The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin…

For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.”

Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202)

“For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man…He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;—all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.
He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons.

Christ Jesus [is] our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father.

Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.

Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man…[W]e should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.”

Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)

“This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man—the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal…The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends.

For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Savior, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God…”

Tertullian (AD 150-225)

For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.

Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled…That which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.

Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that they are distinct from each other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?

As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235) disciple of Irenaeus

“The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.
For, lo, the Only-begotten entered, a soul among souls, God the Word with a (human) soul. For His body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity; but as, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father, so was He also in the body and in Hades. For the Son is not contained in space, just as the Father; and He comprehends all things in Himself.

For all, the righteous and the unrighteous alike, shall be brought before God the Word.

Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe on His name…He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man. For it was not in mere appearance or by conversion, but in truth, that He became man. Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow.”

Melito of Sardis (died c. AD 180)

He that hung up the earth in space was Himself hanged up; He that fixed the heavens was fixed with nails; He that bore up the earth was born up on a tree; the Lord of all was subjected to ignominy in a naked body—God put to death!…[I]n order that He might not be seen, the luminaries turned away, and the day became darkened—because they slew God, who hung naked on the tree…This is He who made the heaven and the earth, and in the beginning, together with the Father, fashioned man; who was announced by means of the law and the prophets; who put on a bodily form in the Virgin; who was hanged upon the tree; who was buried in the earth; who rose from the place of the dead, and ascended to the height of heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.”

Origen (AD 185-254)

“Jesus Christ…in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was.
Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated from Him by “prolation,” as some suppose. For if the Son be a “prolation” of the Father (the term “prolation” being used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then, of necessity, both He who “prolated” and He who was “prolated” are corporeal. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist…How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence.

For we who say that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, “The Father who sent Me is greater than I.” And none of us is so insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God. But when we regard the Savior as God the Word, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Truth, we certainly do say that He has dominion over all things which have been subjected to Him in this capacity, but not that His dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all.

Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding.
But it is monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-begotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man or other living thing engaged in such an act; for we must of necessity hold that there is something exceptional and worthy of God which does not admit of any comparison at all, not merely in things, but which cannot even be conceived by thought or discovered by perception, so that a human mind should be able to apprehend how the unbegotten God is made the Father of the only-begotten Son. Because His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced from the sun. For it is not by receiving the breath of life that He is made a Son, by any outward act, but by His own nature.
And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: “Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” For who else was “He which is to come” than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Savior is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent.”

As you can see, the Doctrine of the Trinity was already a well known concept long before the birth of Emperor Constantine. Furthermore, when you take note of the people quoted, you will see that these men were not all disciples of Paul. In fact, many of them were either babies or small children when he was executed in Rome, which should make clear that he had absolutely nothing to do with their instruction. We can then safely infer that Paul could not have invented the divinity of Jesus or the Doctrine of the Trinity. What I have quoted here may seem like a lot, but the fact of the matter is that this is a drop in the bucket when compared to the overall body of Patristic works.

Source for the quotes:

More to Consider on the BLM Riots

Someone in the Portland Police Dept had a brilliant idea when they sat officers down and asked them questions about the situation with Black Lives Matter and the protests and riots taking place. One of the Officers interviewed was Officer Jakhary Jackson, a black police officer, and he was asked a series of questions geared toward learning his perspective on the events that have lasted for the better part of three months. What he had to say was both profound and frightening.

Here is the link to his interview. I strongly recommend that you watch all of the video before you continue reading this, so that you can better understand what I have to say.

Here’s my outsider’s view of what he had to say. The purpose to a peaceful protest is to ensure that your grievances are heard and dealt with in some manner. No part of that is a guarantee that your grievances will be dealt with in the manner you believe it ought, but the idea is to be heard and to have some type of dialogue between the aggrieved and the government. Never forget the old adage, “A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied”.

Officer Jackson mentions that everytime he sought to engage in discussion with black people from BLM, in order to answer their questions about where he stands, the conversation was being derailed by a white supporter of BLM. The interesting dynamic here is that he is engaging in those conversations both as a private citizen and as a representative of the local government (i.e. as a law enforcement officer), and these people are asking him questions because, as he notes, he looks like them. They want to know why someone who looks like them is standing on the other side, a question I regard as entirely valid. Why then would anyone shut down such a conversation?

If the purpose to protest is to hear and be heard, then why is it that 1) one side is constantly shutting down open dialogue, and 2) why is it that their methods for doing so convey the simultaneous impressions of herding and control? If you are not sure what I mean, then consider the following.

There is a class of dog breed that is intended to work as herders. Sheep dogs, cattle dogs, and the like, were developed as working breeds meant to help farmers and ranchers keep their livestock from wandering off and being picked off by predators. They are also typically large breed dogs intended to fight off those predators, should they come looking for prey.

Those dogs help farmers and ranchers maintain control over their herds, so that they incur minimal loss when those animals are taken to market. That is why those dogs exist, and that is how they earn their keep. If ever you have watched them work, they run around the herd, nipping at the heels of the animals they are herding, in order to guide them in one direction or another.

What Officer Jackson’s description brings to mind is the fact that the actions of the white BLM supporters resemble those of herding dogs. Whenever a black person gets too close to the police, one or more of them are invariably dispatched with the expressed mission to do whatever they can to disrupt the conversation. Why is it then, that they seem to be acting as sheep dogs every time any form of dialogue begins to take place? Why is it that human beings are being herded like cattle whenever someone tries to use protest for its intended purposes?

My considered opinion is, it comes down to a form of prejudice I have begun to call “soft-sided racism”, which is primarily characterized by lowered expectations based upon the idea that one’s skin color and/or religious belief automatically renders someone incapable of fully functioning within our society.

The reason I call it “soft-sided” comes down to how it appears. Far from being open in the way we regard mainstream racism, the KKK and Skinheads for example, this form of racism comes under the guise of helpful white folks who outwardly want to level an already level playing field through the use of their supposed privilege.

One example that illustrates my point is the controversy over voter IDs. We conservatives mostly see the wisdom of having voter IDs as a way to prevent voter fraud, but Liberals have almost uniformly rejected them as a racist measure intended to prevent minorities from voting.

The issue there is that they seem to operate under the assumption that minorities are somehow unable to manage to put together a packet of paper and deliver it to an office, ignoring the fact that minorities do this all the time. I mean, that’s all you have to do in order to apply for a driver’s license or a state-issued ID, minus the driving test, right?

The underlying assumption is that so-called “people of color” are too feeble-minded to manage so simple a task, and therefore need the guiding hand of some well-meaning white ally to ensure that they never have to suffer the indignity of such a measure. This is what I call soft-sided racism, and it is on full display in places like Portland, Seattle, Atlanta, Washington DC, and New York City. This is why we have white BLM supporters acting like sheep dogs and herding their black compatriots away from black police officers on the other side of the line. This is why they make continuous efforts to derail any form of open dialogue. Much like the farmers and ranchers who employ working dogs to help ensure they suffer minimal loss at the market, the Left seeks to minimize any loss they may experience at the polls.

They know that open dialogue will come to positive net results, and suddenly groups like BLM and AntiFa are rendered unnecessary. If they become unnecessary, then the goals they have undergirding their efforts will come to naught, and they cannot have that. We must be divided and we must be weak, for them to achieve their aims.

Groups like AntiFa and BLM seek to take control of the narrative in order to change the history and direction of this country. They continue to foster the idea that all black folks in this country are victims of history, that all white people alive today are 1) born racists, 2) guilty of oppression, and 3) responsible for the history of european colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade, never mind the fact that the majority of white people are not racist, have not oppressed anyone, and were not alive when the transatlantic slave trade ended, let alone began.

If they succeed, the damage done to this nation will be severe, as we have already seen a few precursors of what is to come. Thus far, there have been too many examples of white people being so consumed with guilt over the actions of people long dead that they have committed ludicrous acts such as bending the knee to black folks, apologizing for slavery and their own non-existent racism, and even debasing themselves by kissing the boots of black people!

At this time, BLM Seattle is demanding that residents in a Seattle neighborhood give their homes to black people who sold their homes and moved out. They are actually demanding that these people take homes that they have invested time and money into, and just hand them over! Why? They accuse them of predatory buying practices, which they mistakenly refer to as gentrification. Even people who may not have had anything to do with the original purchase, and may have come along later, are being asked what they will do to “fix it”, and the demand is that they do something.

Here is a video of them making the actual demand:

If they succeed, the greatest nation on the planet becomes one of the most monstrous, and they get to erase our history and destroy all that the Founding Fathers fought and died to create. This is why the Left works so hard to prevent any form of meaningful dialogue, they do not want anyone to find a solution that is not the one they have dreamt up.

I will finish up with this. At no point have I hidden where I stand on this matter. I disagree with the idea that white people are inherently racist, that our country is inherently racist, that there is anything resembling institutional racism in this country, and that black people are presently oppressed in this nation.

I believe that the narrative is false, that the police are not actively involved in hunting down young black men, and that this means that groups like BLM are an anachronism dreamt up as a way to force us down the road into full-blown Marxism.

Truth be told, we all enjoy equality of opportunity to succeed or fail on our own merits, regardless of skin color, religion, or national origin. The only thing we do not enjoy in equal measure is the outcome of our efforts, and this is a good thing because systems that promise equality of outcome only have one outcome, and that outcome is misery and oppression.

To drive the point home, here is one final video, in which a Conservative journalist speaks with multiple Progressives at an anti-Trump rally outside of a pro-Trump event. In this video, Millennial Millie attempts to convince people on the anti-Trump side to go across the street and engage the Trump supporters in open dialogue, but only one was willing to do so. What followed should be very eye-opening for those who have preconceived notions about what would happen if a Leftist were to walk into a Trump rally. What I want all of you to focus on is the contrast between how the anti-Trump side treated Millennial Millie, and the man she spent most of the video interacting with, and the way the pro-Trump side treated the man she convinced to walk across the street. Fair warning, the video contains a lot of foul language that begins within seconds of the start of the video:

Social Justice and the Gospel? (Following up on my last post)

As I was finishing up my most recent post, a question occurred to me. Is the Gospel compatible with Social Justice? This is, I think, one of the most important questions we need to be asking and answering right now, because the Social Justice movement has moved into the forefront and seized control, in some cases literally, of our national stage.

This question also leads to two other questions. 1. If it is compatible, how do we reconcile the current state of affairs in our nation, specifically all of the violence that is occurring? 2. If it is not compatible, how do professing Christians go about extricating themselves from said movement without making the situation worse?

During the course of researching this post, I encountered the Dallas Statement. This is a statement written up to address the issue between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Social Justice Gospel, which are mutually exclusive. As you will see, what I have found is a statement that lays bare the plainly unbiblical basis for the Social Justice movement, and the ways in which this movement’s ideological approach run entirely counter to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Under normal circumstances, I would simply present the entire thing in bits and pieces, with my own commentary, but this time will be different. What I will do is present the Introductory Statement for your consideration and provide the link to the page so that you may also sign if you see fit. As far I’m concerned, there is not a single thing that I can add to this statement, nor would I presume to.

“In view of questionable sociological, psychological, and political theories presently permeating our culture and making inroads into Christ’s church, we wish to clarify certain key Christian doctrines and ethical principles prescribed in God’s Word. Clarity on these issues will fortify believers and churches to withstand an onslaught of dangerous and false teachings that threaten the gospel, misrepresent Scripture, and lead people away from the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

Specifically, we are deeply concerned that values borrowed from secular culture are currently undermining Scripture in the areas of race and ethnicity, manhood and womanhood, and human sexuality. The Bible’s teaching on each of these subjects is being challenged under the broad and somewhat nebulous rubric of concern for “social justice.” If the doctrines of God’s Word are not uncompromisingly reasserted and defended at these points, there is every reason to anticipate that these dangerous ideas and corrupted moral values will spread their influence into other realms of biblical doctrines and principles.

We submit these affirmations and denials for public consideration, not with any pretense of ecclesiastical authority, but with an urgency that is mixed with deep joy and sincere sorrow. The rapidity with which these deadly ideas have spread from the culture at large into churches and Christian organizations—including some that are evangelical and Reformed—necessitates the issuing of this statement now.

In the process of considering these matters we have been reminded of the essentials of the faith once for all handed down to the saints, and we are re-committed to contend for it. We have a great Lord and Savior, and it is a privilege to defend his gospel, regardless of cost or consequences. Nevertheless, while we rejoice in that privilege, we grieve that in doing so we know we are taking a stand against the positions of some teachers whom we have long regarded as faithful and trustworthy spiritual guides. It is our earnest prayer that our brothers and sisters will stand firm on the gospel and avoid being blown to and fro by every cultural trend that seeks to move the Church of Christ off course. We must remain steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord.

The Apostle Paul’s warning to the Colossians is greatly needed today: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8). The document that follows is an attempt to heed that apostolic command. We invite others who share our concerns and convictions to unite with us in reasserting our unwavering commitment to the teachings of God’s Word articulated in this statement. Therefore, for the glory of God among his Church and throughout society, we offer the following affirmations and denials.”

Here is the link. Read through each and every affirmation and denial, prayerfully considering every point that is made, and make your choice, sign or not. As for me, I will very likely be signing this statement once I am done reading through it and praying over it.

Final note: for those Christians who have wholeheartedly supported the Social Justice movement, and now find themselves in the process of rethinking their position, I cannot offer you an easy answer. All I can do is remind you that Jesus warned that we would be hated by the world for His sake, and stated unequivocally that those who love the world will not be judged worthy of Him. You face a tough decision. I pray that you be granted the strength, the wisdom, and the knowledge necessary to determine for yourself what you will do next.

Should Christians support BLM?

The short answer is, “No”. While every human life is absolutely precious in the sight of God, which makes the statement that black lives matter unquestionably true, there is a point where believers ought to run into a problem, and that point lies within the stated beliefs of the movement by that name. To illustrate this point, I recommend following this link:

I recommend that you, the reader, take the time to carefully read through everything they say in their Mission Statement before continuing on. In order for me to make the case for the complete withdrawal of any and all Christian support for this movement, I will need to go through a point-by-point analysis of their mission statement as it relates to Scripture, and demonstrate why it is that Christian support for BLM is utterly untenable.

Likewise, I want you to read through and understand what it is that they are saying, so that you may better understand the points that I will be making, and so that you may be better able to determine for yourself whether or not you agree with my assessment. I have come to the conclusion that this is, by far, one of the most important issues of the day, and this needs to be as impactful as possible.

The Beginning

1. Exodus 20:15-17, “Thou shalt not steal.

16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Their raison d’être is predicated on lies, half-truths, and false narratives. In order for them to justify their position, they must bear false witness, and encourage wholesale theft and covetousness. They must insist upon a system that is geared against them, in order to create the lasting impression of injustice and victimhood.

Through this, they are able to justify all of their misdeeds through the idea that they are fighting against an oppressive enemy that opposes them at every turn, and who is determined to keep them in a subservient position. The issue is that this idea is proved false by the lack of evidence.

There is not a systemic framework intended to unfairly target minorities in general, and/or Blacks in specific. The one framework that did exist, the Jim Crow laws, only existed in the South, and has been dead far longer than most of the “protesters” have been alive. What this means is that most of those young people running amok in places like New York City, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and points in between, have never actually experienced a system that was intended to hold them down. This brings us to the first point, the lies, half-truths, and false narratives.

In the opening of their Mission Statement, they say,

“Black Lives Matter began as a call to action in response to state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. Our intention from the very beginning was to connect Black people from all over the world who have a shared desire for justice to act together in their communities. The impetus for that commitment was, and still is, the rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on us by the state.”

As I have demonstrated in previous posts, the assertion that the state has in any way sanctioned violence against black people is patently false. Given that police kill twice as many White people as they do black, and given that prosecution has routinely occurred in incidents where wrongdoing on the part of Police was identified, it is clear that the “State” is not actively engaged in said action. (see my blog post: )

In fact, given that cops are killing two Whites for every Black, in spite of the fact that Blacks commit more violent crimes, there seems to be an indication that the bias of cops tends to go in the opposite direction. IF there is any form of bias or prejudice involved in police work, then it would seem to be against White folk, not Black. Of course, I am only offering that as a hypothetical, because I don’t believe that the majority of law enforcement officers are operating with any kind of bias whatsoever. Their entire goal is to do their jobs, and go home in one piece.

Does this mean that all cops are good guys? No, not in the slightest. It may surprise you to learn that Police are human, too. This means that there will be good cops, bad cops, and those in between. Where the focus needs to be is on the good cops, who can be pressured into ferreting out the bad cops before they can do damage, and making arrests among the ones who do end up doing damage. They need to take the time to keep each other in line, and be deeply concerned with ensuring that everyone they work with is going to do their job right. If you think for one second that they are not the slightest bit bothered by incidents like the murder of George Floyd, you would be mistaken.

Of course, some of you may be inclined to point toward the amount of time it took to arrest and charge the officers involved in George Floyd’s murder, as evidence that the system does not care about the death of one black man unless groups like BLM are involved, but I would like to ask you to consider the possibility that it took that long because the investigators and prosecutors wanted to ensure that they had an absolutely spotless case against those men.

When you take the time to dot each and every “i”, and cross each and every “t”, the chance of a mistrial and eventual miscarriage of justice diminishes to virtually nil. They wanted to get it right the first time, so that there would not be one single doubt of their guilt left among the jury. The standard for any jury trial is “within a reasonable doubt”, and that would be the fence the prosecution team was aiming for. To any of us, the available evidence was pretty clear and concise, however, what we saw was only what the media allowed us to see. In any investigation, there is always more we do not see, and that is what gets to come out as time progresses. This is why we need to adopt a very healthy level of skepticism, or what I refer to as a “wait and see” attitude, when stories like this break. There is no room for jumping to conclusions.

Additionally, when Black Lives Matter chooses to involve themselves in cases such as these, the waters rapidly become muddied because their true focus is not on finding justice, but rather on pushing their particular agenda. These people have chosen to use the deaths of men like George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks as a way to stir the pot and force people to give them what they want, which is more chaos. In so doing, they keep alive the false narrative of widespread racism and systemic discrimination against all Black people.

With this, they are able to bludgeon White people and government officials about the head until they bend the knee and lick a boot or two. That is their goal, superiority, not equality. As an American who is politically egalitarian, I say, “No”. As a Christian, I say, “The only One I bend the knee to is my Lord and Savior.” I would hope that my Christian brothers and sisters would feel the same, regardless of their skin color. I would hope that my fellow citizens would echo that sentiment.

Next, they say,

“Enraged by the death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of his killer, George Zimmerman, and inspired by the 31-day takeover of the Florida State Capitol by POWER U and the Dream Defenders, we took to the streets. A year later, we set out together on the Black Lives Matter Freedom Ride to Ferguson, in search of justice for Mike Brown and all of those who have been torn apart by state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism.”

Again, we are dealing with lies and false narratives. The shooting death of Trayvon Martin was the end result of his own decision to attack George Zimmerman. As such, it was justified. Had he chosen differently that night, he likely would still be alive today. That was his decision to make, and the decision he made had a tragic outcome for him and his family.

While I will grant that Zimmerman had been repeatedly advised by the 911 operator to not follow after Trayvon Martin, the decision was still his to make, and no laws were broken in choosing to do so. He chose to follow after Martin, in order to determine what he was up to. This action is neither right nor wrong, and cannot be construed in any way as an act intended to force a physical confrontation with Trayvon Martin. That decision lay with Mr. Martin himself, and we know which direction he chose to go.

Similarly, when Officer Darren Wilson encountered Michael Brown on that day in Ferguson, MO, he was in search of a suspected strong-arm robber, who it would later turn out was Michael Brown. As a sworn law enforcement officer, it was his duty to initiate a stop with young Mr. Brown, and he did it.

No part of that forced Michael Brown to attack Officer Wilson, reach for his weapon, or charge at him in the final moments of his life. The only point where anyone might have an issue with how things were handled is that Officer Wilson chose not to wait for assistance from other officers before engaging with Michael Brown and his accomplice, but that does not cast one bit of doubt on the justification for shooting Michael Brown. He chose to make himself an ongoing threat to a law enforcement officer, and paid the price for it. As with Trayvon Martin, had he chosen a different direction in this incident, like compliance, then he very likely would still be alive today.

As you can see, their first two examples in support of their position are patently false, and it does not get any better from there, especially when you consider that no small part of their narrative exists because people bore false witness against the shooters in question. This is a position based upon false narratives, lies, and very shaky ground indeed.

What’s more is that their insistence that they are working against state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism is a smokescreen. Given that an investigation into the incident with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin found Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin, how can they continue to demand justice for the death of Trayvon Martin? Given that the Obama/Holder Justice Department report on the shooting of Michael Brown determined that there was no wrongdoing on the part of Officer Wilson, it is clear that the shootings were justified and not motivated by race.

If race was not the motivator, and the shooters were justified in their actions, why then is BLM insisting on standing on those incidents as justification for their reason to exist? They are absolutely unjustified in what they are stating here, and they know it. However, as I mentioned earlier, their insistence on this, in spite of their lack of actual justification, has nothing to do with justice in any form.

Furthermore, their insistence that they are fighting against racism tends to implode when one considers the number of non-White law enforcement officers serving in departments all across the country. For this idea to work, all of those officers must have a demonstrable prejudice against Blacks, to include on the part of Black officers. That would be a hard sell indeed. No matter how one looks at it, their stated intent is a red herring, and that is a violation of three of the Ten Commandments.

2. Going back to Exodus 20:16, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Next, they say, “Our continued commitment to liberation for all Black people means we are continuing the work of our ancestors and fighting for our collective freedom because it is our duty.”

This statement implies that they somehow still exist in a state of bondage. They wish for people to believe that they are still being kept on the plantation, in spite of the fact that not a one of them has experienced an ounce of actual slavery or discrimination in their lives, at least none from the government or law enforcement. There still are people stupid and ignorant enough to be racist, but they are not the government, nor are they the system.

As I noted, the majority of Black supporters of BLM were born long after the Jim Crow laws died their well-deserved death, and there isn’t a one alive today who was ever a slave (minus some African immigrants, as slavery is still practiced in parts of Africa). It is clear that they are going on about something for which they have no personal knowledge, but have somehow chosen to take on the feeling, as if they could actually comprehend it.

To insist upon this as a reality, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, is tantamount to bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. For them to make this claim, they must first convince their White neighbors that they are oppressing them, which has the net effect of causing decent people to feel shame for something they have not done, while causing other decent people to feel as if they had been victimized. As neither slavery nor discrimination exists as a part our institutional backdrop anymore, this mindset does one thing and one thing only: it sows division within our society, thereby creating an unstable environment for people to live and grow in. If we are unstable and fractured, we are weak in the face of our enemies.

Working against them in this issue is the fact that their supporters have recently desecrated the memorials to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, along with a statue of Frederick Douglass. This hardly counts as continuing the work of their ancestors given that they are actively seeking to destroy their memory. Counterproductive does not begin to cover it.

The Positions They Have Chosen

3. Their position holds as good that which God hates, and they hate that which God holds as good (Isaiah 5:20).

In one of my previous posts, I covered what the Bible has to say regarding homosexuality, but I have not yet covered what the Bible says regarding the transgender issue. I will be covering some of that here, but a full post on the subject will eventually be forthcoming. In either case, it is safe to say that the Bible regards men dressing as women, and women as men, in the same light as homosexuality; as an abomination. We will get to that in just a little bit, but first the quote.

This section begins with the following quote,

“We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.”

The beginning of this quote takes us right back to the previous section, and bearing false witness. They declare that all Black lives matter, and yet, their silence in the recent deaths of young, Black children at the hands of BLM supporters, and other criminal types, seems to tell an entirely different story. Over the course of the last few days, multiple innocent Black children have died from gunshot wounds inflicted by people acting in support of BLM, or around them, and for some reason, BLM leadership cannot even spare the time to acknowledge that it has happened, let alone muster up a lackluster apology.

Since BLM “protesters” seem fond of forcing people to say the names of people they believe to be “victims”, I think it is time for them to do the same. To ALL BLM supporters, say their names:

Secoriea Turner, 8 years old, Atlanta, GA

While you’re saying this child’s name, take a moment and read what her grieving father had to say, and really let it sink in, “They killed my baby because she crossed a barrier and made a U-turn? You killed a child. She didn’t do nothing to nobody. Black Lives Matter? You killing your own. You killed an 8-year-old child. She ain’t did nothing to no one of y’all. She just wanted to get home to see her cousin. That’s all she wanted to do.”

Say. Her. Name.

Davon McNeal, 11 years old, Washington DC

Say. His. Name.

Royta De’Marco Giles, 8 years old, Hoover, AL

Say. His. Name.

Natalia Wallace, 7 years old, Chicago, IL

Say. Her. Name.

Amaria Jones, 13 years old, Chicago, IL

Say. Her. Name.

Mekhi James, 3 years old, Chicago, IL

Say. His. Name.

Say all of their names, and remember that those are just the ones you can say. There are many more who have not been named, either because there are too many, or because they were never afforded the opportunity to have a name. All of them were murdered, in and out of the womb, and all of their lives mattered. Yet, BLM remains silent about these particular lives.

Jesus had much to say about children. In fact, the entire Bible has much to say about children. They are a blessing and inheritance from God (Psalm 127:3). Jesus taught that we need a childlike faith to be granted entry into the Kingdom (Matt. 18:2-5). These are just a couple of examples of how God views children, which means that we can only imagine how He views those who murder children. The fact that the people with BLM have chosen silence on this topic speaks volumes, I think, about where they are with God, and I for one can only imagine what He will have to say to them when they stand before Him in judgment. I also find myself wondering what He will say to the witnesses who have chosen to remain silent about these murders because “snitches get stitches”.

Each name on this list hits me hard, as I have children these ages. My youngest son is 3, I have another son who is 8, a son who is 13, and the loss of any one of them would kill me. I have a daughter who just turned 17, close in age to the young Black man murdered in CHAZ/CHOP before it was finally taken down. In fact, I have six sons and 3 daughters, ranging from 21 to 3, and the thought of burying any one of them brings tears to my eyes, so I cannot fathom how it is that anyone who professes faith in Jesus can willingly support people who are absolutely fine with the murder of children.

The people of BLM cannot find it in themselves to say something? Anything? I thought that all Black lives mattered? Maybe only in sweet, flowery language, but in the real world where actions speak louder than words, it is clear that they simply just do not care. They’ll raise millions to give George Floyd three funerals, but cannot be bothered to help the parents of any of the children I have listed above? Just let that sink in, folks.

Next topic, they state that they support all members of the trans community. What does the Bible have to say on this topic?

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.” (Deut. 22:5, KJV)

Note that תוֹעֲבַ֛ת (toehbat), the word translated as “abomination” in this verse also means “detestable”, and is the same word used to describe how God views homosexuality. If they support what God calls “abomination” and “detestable”, then how can a Christian support them in good conscience?

Ephesians 5:11-13, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. 13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

As for the remainder of the quote, there is little else I can say. When it comes to things like ability, disability, or any of the items I have not addressed, all I can say is that these are things I cannot disagree with them on. While I do wholeheartedly support religious freedom, I am also bound by my faith to evangelize, but evangelizing someone is not the same as denying their freedom of religion.

Next, they say,

“We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege”.

In other words, they wish to dismantle the way that the Lord created our world. You know, someone else wanted to take apart the world God made, and he was cursed to crawl on his belly for it.

Let us linger on this one for a moment. They go on to say,

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure…”.

This family structure is found in virtually every corner of the globe. In virtually every culture, the primary caregivers of the children are the parents, followed by older siblings, older cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. While the extended family plays a major role in the upbringing of the children, it is to the parents that primary responsibility falls, and this is no different in Western civilization.

The family unit described here is what forms the bedrock of society. Without the traditional family unit, no society would long survive, and yet they say that they wish to disrupt this family structure?

While the paragraph this quote came from does go on to affirm extended families, along with the “village”, the reason I focused where I did is that the nuclear family structure they reference in a negative light is actually the family structure they affirm. Where I come from, that is known as an inconsistency.

Finally, we come to,

“We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).”

In other words, they seek to supplant the world as the Lord intended it with a world of their own making. They wish to recreate the world in their own image, rather than acknowledge themselves as possessing the Imago Dei, or the Image of God.

As we arrive at the end of this post, I sincerely hope that you have had the opportunity to really give thought to what I have shared. As a Bible believing Christian, I cannot ever support anything that is antichrist, and these people are about as antichrist as they come. They support beliefs and practices that run entirely counter to the Law of God and His Commandments, and their Social Justice platform goes completely against the Gospel, to say nothing of their blatant moral cowardice. It is up to each and every one of you to decide where you go from here. May the Lord guide you and may you seek Him in all your ways.

Does the Bible Allow Domestic Violence?

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.Proverbs 31:10, KJV

I will begin this lesson by stating that this will not be the place where I fully address love and marriage. The purpose to this lesson is to address the claim that the Bible condones domestic violence. This claim could not be further from the truth, as we shall see in the following materials, so buckle up, it is going to be a bit bumpy.

From time to time, I do encounter non-Christian objectors and anti-Christian bigots who make the claim that the Bible condones domestic violence. It isn’t the most common objection I have encountered, but it does happen often enough that I have had to come up with an answer for it.

The Bible not only does not condone domestic violence, but it actually speaks against it. We will begin in Genesis, when Eve is brought to Adam, and he says, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…” (Gen. 2:23) He calls her bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh. Think of that, in the moment he meets her, he declares that she is literally a part of him.

In the next verse, he brings it home by declaring, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24) One flesh, lebasar echad (לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד), two joined into a singular being, a singular spirit, a complex unity that hints at the complex unity of God. The word rendered as “cleave” is wedabaq (וְדָבַ֣ק) and also translates as “to impinge, cling, adhere, to catch by pursuit”.

What these two verses lay out is the fact that one’s spouse is to be regarded as a part of them, as if they were part of their own body, and that we are to actively pursue unity and intimacy with them. No one in their right mind commits self-abuse, and this is the idea here. If you would not cause physical, emotional, or mental harm to yourself, then you should not do so to your spouse, because they are a part of you.

Furthermore, the Lord declares repeatedly that He hates violence. In Psalm 11, for example, we find, “The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.” (Psalm 11:5)

King Solomon states rather eloquently in Proverbs that violence silences the wicked, “Blessings are upon the head of the just: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked…11 The mouth of a righteous man is a well of life: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked.” (Proverbs 10:6,11)

In both of those verses, he states that blessings and life come from the just and righteous man, but the end result for the violent man is silence. As the righteousness we bear, as followers of Christ, comes solely from Him, this brings on an added dimension, and could not be any clearer. Always be just, and always be righteous, because the Lord Jesus has been righteous and just toward us. Note, too, that there is a reason why the line, “violence covereth the mouth of the wicked“, is said twice. There is emphasis here, which means that we must pay closer attention to what is being said and the meaning behind it.

According to Scripture, the husband is to be the head of his home. He is to provide leadership, stability, security, and instruction. His job is to guide and nurture his family as the High Priest of his home. There is not a single circumstance in which a violent, abusive man will ever be able to accomplish this task. In fact, such a man does the exact opposite by destroying the spirit of his wife and teaching their children to perpetuate his error.

What we, as men, must do is look to the words and example of Jesus, in order to fully understand who and what we are to be. Jesus taught that a leader must be a willing servant, that those who aspire to a higher position must be willing to humble themselves, and that those in headship must not use their position as a way to misuse or abuse the people in their charge (Mark 10:41-45; Matthew 20:26-28). None of this is possible for a man who is consumed by anger, rage, greed, selfishness, narcissism, and/or a total lack of self-control.

To further illustrate the point, I direct you back to the top of the page, and to the quote from Proverbs 31. This passage of the 31st chapter of Proverbs describes the worth and value of a good woman, and begins by describing how it is that a man must treat her. It begins by saying that she is more valuable than rubies, which is to say that the value of precious jewels pale in comparison to her, and the implication is that this is how she is to be treated; with kindness, care, consideration, protection, provision, and love, because she is priceless.

People do not mistreat anything of value. What is important to you will be treated accordingly, and abuse simply does not bear that out. One’s wife must be his best friend, more valuable than any other human being on the planet, so to abuse her is to show contempt for one’s best friend. What’s more is that an abusive man is a wicked man. As God hates violence, and as a husband and wife are to be seen as being one flesh, a man who abuses the gift given to him by God cannot be anything but wicked.

“His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity.” (Psalm 10:7)

These are the fruits of a wicked man, lying, dishonesty, a lack of integrity. The Lord repeatedly states in His Word that He hates this sort of person. If He hates such a person, then how can anyone honestly make the claim that the Bible, God’s Word, in any way condones domestic violence?

Historically speaking, have people in the past used the Bible to justify the oppression of women? Sadly, yes, they have. Does that mean that the Bible makes it acceptable? Most emphatically, NO.

I’ll finish with one final verse, Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;“. We are commanded to love our wives as Christ loved the Church. When you look to His example, you find that we are commanded in that verse to be kind, gentle, loving, honest, direct, and self-sacrificing even unto death. All of this absolutely, 100%, precludes abuse of any kind. Abuse is not love, and loving someone does not involve abuse.

Even more reason to oppose BLM

It seems that I have made more comments on politics in these last few weeks than over the last few years. The thing is, it has become necessary to do so because a lot of people seem to think that there is a problem with systemic racism and police brutality, when the fact is that this could not be further from the truth.

Does this mean that I deny the existence of actual racists, or the occurrence of actual police brutality? No, there are people out there stupid enough to believe in racist ideologies, and there are cops out there evil and corrupt enough to abuse the people that they ought to be serving, but their existence does not constitute the majority of people in the law enforcement profession, and they are not the boogeymen that BLM and AntiFa would have you believe they are.

To any white people reading this, you are not inherently racist. The idea that you are inherently racist is utterly fallacious and demonstrably false. White privilege does not exist, and systemic racism is also demonstrably false. To be blunt, it is ok to be white, and you have not a single thing to feel guilty about. Unless you yourself have committed an actual crime, or adopted some form of racist ideology, you do not have anything to apologize for. Period. Hang on to that, because I am about to make a few more points against BLM, which will further highlight why I am opposed to them.

1. Police are not in fact hunting down young black men.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officer’s Memorial Fund, there are 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the U.S., which the site says is the largest number of law enforcement officers in history. That means that there are nearly 1 million well-armed, well-trained, law enforcement officers spread out across the United States, in a position to get just about anywhere, and into anyone’s home with the right justification and a warrant.

According to, between 2017 and 2020 police have killed 755 black people, and 1,398 white people. That’s an average of 251.6 blacks and 466 whites per year. If you do the math, that’s approximately 1.9 whites killed for every black, so a ratio of about 2 to 1. With 800,000 cops patrolling all over the U.S., how is it that it takes a combined total of three years worth of stats to come anywhere near 1,000 black people killed by cops?

While you are at it, compare those numbers with the total U.S. population, which is estimated to be somewhere North of 330 million people, and you quickly see that there is a bit of a gap in the narrative, given that blacks make up roughly 13% of the population (a whopping 42.9 million people). If 800,000 police officers across this country have made wiping out black folks a priority, then 1) they are failing miserably in that task, and 2) they are hilariously outnumbered and (theoretically speaking) outgunned, especially considering that most white folks in this country would do all that they can to ensure that the police would fail.

To hear BLM tell it, the cops roll out of bed looking for the chance to kill black folks, but the numbers simply do not bear it out, especially when the claim is made that the system is stacked against blacks. This speaks to the BLM claim that the system is geared toward protecting the cops, which is about as ridiculous as things get. If this were the case, then cops would have killed more than 755 people over the course of three years, and the number of whites killed in that time period would be much lower than the number of blacks, not higher.

Take a moment and consider this point. With that many heavily armed people occupying a position of trust that grants them the privilege to gain access to virtually any space in this country, why is the number of blacks killed by cops so low if they are actively hunting them down? Why is the number of whites killed so much higher? Moving on, here is the next point.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, whites are more likely to have contact with the police, however, when police initiated contact, blacks were more likely to encounter threat or use of force. Why might that be? It may have something to do with the fact that blacks are committing more violent crimes than whites.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, whites are arrested more often than blacks, but blacks account for 53% of homicides, 54% of robberies, and 33% of aggravated assaults, which means that whites are committing fewer violent crimes than blacks. Yet, cops shoot and kill more whites than blacks? Something seems a bit off to me. also shows that there were 7,407 black people murdered in 2018. Of those, 6,237 were male, and 1,168 were female. Note that I previously stated that 755 black people were killed by police between 2017 and 2020. There’s a disparity here that I think is being ignored. If the stats for 2018 are in any way consistent with years previous and since, then that means that blacks are 9.8 times more likely to die at the hands of other blacks than cops.

We can credit good cops and the justice system for ensuring that the number is not higher, and blame the black community’s traditional silence in the face of criminal behavior for the reason why that number is not in fact lower. Anyone familiar with the phrase, “Snitches get stitches”? Yeah, that phrase has killed more black people, and prevented justice for their murders, than cops have done at anytime within the last five decades. Why would anyone speak to the cops about a crime committed in their community if they are guaranteed to be injured or killed for it by the perpetrators?

That is not the fault of the cops, that lies squarely on the shoulders of the people in the community who perpetuate that philosophy, and they are the ones who must change it, not the cops! How can anyone expect the cops to do their jobs and bring perpetrators to justice if the primary witnesses refuse to speak to the cops for fear of physical harm?

In light of this, the next question I have is, where is BLM when thugs shoot it out and catch innocent people in the crossfire? If they wish to remain true to their name, what have they done for the black community lately? How much time have they spent cleaning up their neighborhoods, seeking to prevent the conditions that lead to such horrific crime rates, facing the scourge of Planned Parenthood in their communities, and addressing the crap education system they have been saddled with? When was the last time BLM protested the murder of an innocent child caught in the crossfire between rival gangs? It seems that the only time they come out and make noise is when someone who is either white, or looks white, kills someone who’s black. Nor does anyone ever stop to consider whether or not the killing was justified.

For example, Michael Brown beat Officer Darren Wilson to a bloody pulp, and tried to take his weapon, before being shot and killed. Yet, video taken by bystanders at the scene shows people who didn’t even see the incident take place speaking in the background, and making the statement that Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown for no reason. People who saw nothing and knew nothing, made a snap decision about what happened based on the color of someone’s skin, and the city of Ferguson burned for it.

[Warning: foul language throughout the entire video, do not watch it with your kids in the room]

Had this situation been reversed, it would have been regarded as racism, but because the man doing the shooting was white, and the one who lay dead was black, it was given a pass. If Darren Wilson had been black, and if Michael Brown and the bystanders had been white, then the statement that he (Darren Wilson) had killed Michael Brown for no reason would have been interpreted as racist in nature. Yet, when things are reversed, no one bats an eyelash at the blatant prejudice contained in their remarks, and a city burned as a result.

2. Where was BLM when retired St. Louis Police Capt. David Dorn, a black man, was murdered trying to prevent the looting of a friend’s pawn shop?

A young black man shot him in cold blood for a used TV. Where was the public outrage from BLM after his death? Someone used the murder of George Floyd, a well-known criminal, to justify murdering a man who was known for being actively involved in improving his community, and the only response from BLM is either profound silence or justification for his death based upon his previous service to his community as a LEO? Was his case an example of a black life that did not matter? If that is the case, then maybe BLM is due for a name change.

If anyone who supports BLM has an ounce of moral courage in them, please watch this video of Capt. Dorn’s widow speaking out about the murder of her husband, and explain why it is that the mainstream media has been largely silent and uneven in their coverage of this case:

3. There is no systemic racism.

Once upon a time, there was systemic racism in this country. The Jim Crow laws were the prime example of this fact. I am pleased to report, the Jim Crow laws are still dead, and show no signs of being revived, in spite of the best efforts of BLM.

The proof that there is no systemic racism in this nation is in the fact that there are no laws, rules, regulations, and/or ordinances anywhere that specifically target black people for oppression or unequal treatment. If anyone can show me a specific example that proves me wrong, then I will gladly stand with them to bring an end to it. All one simply has to do is provide the specific statute, or other reference, and I’m right there with them. I have my doubts about whether or not anyone will take me up on it, though.

As I have pointed out, the narrative that the police are out to murder blacks, especially black men, is demonstrably false. I have also demonstrated that more whites are killed by cops than blacks, in spite of the fact that blacks commit more violent crimes than whites. If these figures were reversed, then BLM might have a point, however, facts do not lie. The narrative is dead. As the narrative is dead, the idea of systemic racism has absolutely no leg to stand on, and it becomes a dead issue.

What this means is that BLM simply has no raison d’être without actually addressing the real issues within their own communities, and they cannot have that. What we are seeing is not their struggle against an unfair, racist system that allows the abuse and mistreatment of a downtrodden people, but rather their own struggle to remain relevant in the face of their own crippling moral hypocrisy and cowardice.

I will end with this video, in which an African woman makes an impassioned and very brutal point against BLM. Listen carefully to how the BLM supporters respond, and see that they do not have a leg to stand on, and they know it:

Beyond the pale

Earlier today, something was brought to my attention that was deeply upsetting on several levels, and I feel that it is something that needs to be addressed. In my last post, I laid out in detail the reason why I absolutely do not support the Black Lives Matter movement, and today I was handed another reason to add to the list. They defaced the memorial for the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment.

For those who may not know, the 54th Massachusetts was the first all-volunteer black regiment to form after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. More than 1,000 black men, including many former slaves, jumped eagerly at the chance to fight against the Confederacy because they believed in this nation. Included among the young men who signed up to fight for the 54th were Fredrick Douglass’ two sons, with his blessing.

While enduring real discrimination and real oppression, these men plowed their way through training, learning all that they needed to know to survive in combat with their enemy. Their Regimental Commander, Col. Robert Gould Shaw, not only distinguished himself on the battlefield, but also as an example of true leadership.

Upon learning that the Quartermaster Corps was deliberately withholding essential supplies from his Soldiers, he went out of his way to make sure the problem was fixed, making enemies along the way. When he learned that his troops were being paid $3 less per month than their white counterparts (a hefty sum in the 1860s), he joined his entire regiment in refusing their pay in protest. To say that he was a fine officer would be an understatement. I know for a fact that I would have been proud to serve under his command.

During the course of their movements in theater, they encountered multiple issues dealing with the prejudice of Soldiers and Officers in other units, as well as those of the officers above Col. Shaw. In spite of those obstacles, they managed to distinguish themselves as fine Soldiers who worked and fought hard.

Every last one of those men knew that they risked capture and enslavement, or death, by taking the field against Confederate troops, and not a one wavered in his dedication. One of those men, Sgt. William Harvey Carney, was the first black man to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, for actions taken at the assault on Ft. Wagner on 18 July, 1863.

The actions of these men have been immortalized in song, poetry, and even a major Hollywood film entitled, “Glory”, starring Matthew Broderick, Morgan Freeman, and Denzel Washington. To say that they were amazing men, and phenomenal Soldiers is putting it mildly, and it’s worth noting that Col. Shaw, a white man, not only led from the front in the assault on Ft. Wagner, but he died with his men, and was buried in a mass grave with them.

I am proud to declare that those men were fellow Soldiers, and I honor their memories because they fought bravely for this country in spite of the very real discrimination and oppression they had experienced. Some of those men had been slaves, and their bodies still bore the scars of that enslavement, but they still took to the ground and fought so hard that official reports practically glowed. You cannot say enough about the character, strength, and courage of such men, which is why it angers me so deeply to learn that their monument was defaced by BLM activists protesting on Boston Commons.

How amazing is it that these men enlisted into the Union Army the instant they were given the go-ahead to do so? Many of these men had just come off the Underground Railroad, and their first actions upon gaining their freedom was to enlist in the Army and return to the South so that they may fight against the people who had kept them in chains! They had the option to walk away, build a life for themselves, and no one would have faulted them. Yet, they fought.

Fast forward to today, and the monument to these amazing men is defaced by people with the Black Lives Matter movement, thereby cementing the fact that they genuinely do not care one whit about black lives that they cannot use to further their own aims. Here is a monument to men who gave their blood, their sweat, their tears, and their very LIVES to help put an end to slavery and oppression in this nation, and BLM attacks it with spray paint and scribbles ugly words all over it.

To the people involved, you have defaced a monument to people better than you. They fought for you, and died for you, thereby ensuring that you can live free, and you repay their sacrifice by dishonoring their memory. Was their victory perfect and complete? History shows that it wasn’t, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. These men completed the first 500 miles of that journey, and not a one of you has the decency to appreciate it. Not a one of you has the character necessary to recognize who they were and what they did for you. They fought against slavery and oppression that not a one of you has ever actually experienced, and still risked it all for this country. That should have said something to you, but none of you are willing to see it.

Meanwhile, you fight against some amorphous concept of oppression that simply lacks the ring of truth to it, based upon a false narrative, and that is why I say that not a one of you is worthy to shine the boots of those men. Unlike those men, you lionize criminals, celebrate the worst that is found in human nature, and champion a skewed version of history that has never existed. That is why I will never support BLM.

Where I stand…

I am firmly convinced that what I am about to say may either make a lot of people very angry, may encourage people, or both. I’m not sure which way it will go, but we shall see. I do know that I have been called a racist for this opinion, so know that I am prepared to receive all the backlash people can throw my way, and I will do so with a smile and no apologies.

I am absolutely, unabashedly, 100% opposed to the Black Lives Matter movement. No, I don’t actually hate black people, I just don’t believe that they are true to the statement that is their name. If y’all will allow me to explain, I shall clarify on all of that.

1. I am not a Racist.

My stance on racism is that the concept is the most irrational and illogical concept humanity has ever dreamt up. There is only ONE race, the human race, and that is all there is.

That being said, humanity has been divided into different ethnic groups, but the dividing lines have absolutely nothing to do with skin color, or intellectual ability. The dividing lines have to do with language, culture, religion, history, etc. The only difference posed by skin color comes down to how long an individual can be in direct sunlight before their skin burns. That’s it, no more, no less.

2. Race is a social construct.

The concept of race, as we know it today, didn’t exist prior to the 1800s. Before then, ethnicity was what people knew, and no one regarded skin color as a major factor. The idea of race saw its advent with the publication of books like Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

While I’m sure all y’all are familiar with this book, I’d be willing to bet that the second half of the title is a surprise to at least a few. That’s right, Charles Darwin was a white supremacist, but no one seems willing to address that. In fact, he was one of the original white supremacists in history, and his material was used as a basis for eugenics.

[If that’s a new term for you, I recommend doing some research. The idea is insidiously evil, and the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a major proponent of it.]

As race is a social construct, it has no bearing on physical reality. Humanity is not divided into races, there is only one race. I am no more or less human than someone who has white skin, black skin, or some shade in between. This is evidenced by the fact that humans of different colors can reproduce without issue, something that can only happen is we are all the same species.

Furthermore, according to Genesis 1 & 2, we are ALL descendants of Adam and Eve, which makes us all extended family. We are all one in the same. What’s more is, Dr. Voddie Baucham, a preacher I have been known to quote on here, has noted that we are all the same color, just different shades of it. This is an idea I can get behind. The shade we display is determined by our genetics, and the amount of melanin contained within their cells.

I am willing to say, here and now, that the idea of race and racism is an outmoded concept that has been disproved time and time again. It is an ideology that therefore needs to be cast away as useless, pointless, immoral, and unnecessary. The best way to do that is to simply let it die the death it deserves. Stop talking about it. Full stop. Let. It. Die.

3. Ethnicity is a thing.

While race may not be a thing, ethnicity is. Each and every one of us is descended from at least one particular ethnic group, with most of us being multiethnic, and this is where we need to deal with the wounds of the past. Not race, but ethnicity.

In the case of the past uses and abuses of certain ethnic groups, all sides are the end result of thousands of years of a veritable theme park of atrocities, from slavery, to ethnic cleansing, and even genocide. The statement that all ethnicities contained within humanity have taken turns enslaving each other is a verifiably true statement.

For example, in the early 1800s, the United States was drawn into her first international conflict, now known as the Barbary Coast wars, by Muslim slavers based on the Barbary coast of Northern Africa, who were routinely attacking American merchant ships, stealing the vessels and cargo, and enslaving the crews. They would even attempt to extort the families and employers of those crews by demanding a ransom from them.

These slavers were so industrious, there are reports of them overtaking ships and enslaving their crews while ON the River Thames in London, England! Imagine being within sight of the port in London only to be taken captive and hauled back to Northern Africa. They were e’erwhere, not just everywhere, and they didn’t discriminate in who they took. They went after Europeans, Africans, Asians, etc. If the ship wasn’t sufficiently armed or protected by a heavily armed escort vessel, it became their property.

When we examine the history of slavery in America, we need to do so through the lens of human history because slavery in one form or another has been an ever present aspect of humanity for as long as there has been a humanity. In order for that to happen, we need to approach the topic with a cold, dispassionate historical perspective, and with the understanding that this was neither invented by Americans, nor did it end with them. In fact, the last Western nation to outlaw slavery was Brazil in 1888, more than 20 years after the U.S., and nearly a full century before the first Islamic nation (Saudi Arabia in 1962) officially outlawed the institution.

[Note that I said “officially”, slavery persists unofficially in many Islamic countries as it is seen as an Islamic institution by many clerics and scholars]

4. The Black Lives matter movement is a farce, not a force.

Now, we get to the reason why I oppose Black Lives Matter. For one, I was on the ground in Ferguson back in 2014, and had front row seats to the nightmarish debacle that was the protest over the death of Michael Brown. It’s cemented in my memory, and will likely remain there for the remainder of my life.

Upon arrival in downtown Ferguson, I remember hearing a woman’s voice over a bullhorn chanting something that I couldn’t quite make out. I had to stand there and listen for a few minutes before finally figuring out that she was saying, “Burn it down! Burn it down! Burn it down!”, over and over again.

Other chants she called out included, “White cops, black cops, KKK!”, and “Who do we want? Darren Wilson! How do we want him? Dead!”. These people weren’t just encouraging rioting and looting, they were calling for blood. As an ardent constitionalist, I firmly support everyone’s right to speak their minds, but I draw the line where the First Amendment does, which includes speech that encourages violence. To say that this sickened me would be an understatement, but it doesn’t stop there.

There was a point where law enforcement had to move in and take people into custody for repeatedly trying to block the roadway. Of the nine people they took into custody, eight were white, with the woman on the bullhorn being the only black person there. Out of the entire lot, none of them were residents of Ferguson. This means that these people were there encouraging the destruction of a community that wasn’t their own.

As far as I was concerned, that pretty much ensured that I would never support BLM, but it doesn’t end there. In the intervening years, they have repeatedly cemented in my mind the idea that I am right to hold this position.

For one, if they are so concerned with the lives of black people, then why are they silent when black people murder each other? Between gang violence and abortion, untold thousands of black people are outright slaughtered every year. Yet, there doesn’t appear to be any effort on their part to remove the twin scourges of gang violence and Planned Parenthood from black communities anywhere. They only seem to speak up when any black people die at the hands of anyone who is either white, or looks white, regardless of the justification or lack thereof.

This is no more evidenced than by the recent shooting death of retired St. Louis Police Capt. David Dorn. The 77 year old retired police officer attempted to prevent the looting of a friend’s shop, only to be shot by one of the looters. As he lay dying on the sidewalk, the looters ran in and out of the shop, stripping it bare, as they ignored his last moments on this earth. Can anyone tell me how BLM responded, because as near as I can tell it, their silence on the matter is so profound you can hear pins dropping from here to Jupiter.

Their myopic approach to things is so pronounced that many in the communities they claim to represent have spoken out against them because everywhere they go, chaos, panic, and disorder seems to follow. They seem to have made themselves far more dangerous to the black community than they claim the police are, and that is why I don’t support them. They are racist hypocrites who are a far greater threat than the ones they purport to stand against, and I for one am sick of them.