You want to see Jesus? Here He is:
Seeing the suffering saints is seeing Jesus.
These suffering saints didn’t draw offensive cartoons, yet so many proudly said “I am Charlie Hebdo” ignoring that Hebdo’s magazine had a Christmas cover, a disgusting image of Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus.
This is the man whom millions said “I am Charlie Hebdo”?
No. I am a Nasrani: Christian.
Strange how seeing Jesus in Africa draws some of the worlds greatest hypocrites. Barack Obama, who proudly says he is an African American, managed to put out a statement not worth repeating on the Garissa College massacre on Friday without mentioning Islam, Christians, Al-Shabaab Islamists or Islamic extremism.
I couldn’t find any statements from ‘reverends’ Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Have you?
The Associated Free Press revealed: “Piles of bodies and pools of blood running down the corridors: survivors of the Kenya university massacre described how laughing gunmen taunted their victims amid scenes of total carnage.”
The Muslim terrorists laughed while the African Jesus was being killed, “even the rulers who were with them laughed at him. They said, ‘He saved others. Let him save himself if he is the Messiah. He is not the one whom God has chosen!’ The soldiers also laughed at him …” (Luke 23:35,36)
One can no longer find Jesus in the White House, which has become harlot and a den of thieves, but in Africa and in Egypt, there He was.
We get tried of writing the stories “Muslims in Bangui, Central Africa, attacked a church on Wednesday, called the Church of Fatima, and slaughtered thirty Christians with bullets and grenades. Rev. Freddy Mboula of Notre Dame de Fatima in Bangui recounted the horror: We were in the church when were heard the shooting outside… There were screams and after 30 minutes of gunfire there were bodies everywhere …” and stories like this goes on and on and on.
We live in a world of hypocrites.
And if you think that you are not Obama, Sharpton and Jackson, the hypocrites, perhaps you should examine yourself since you could be even much worse. There is a different type of hypocrite I run into on a daily basis, one who condemns anyone for fighting back the Muslim extremist.
These hypocrites, who in the name of false love and false peace would fight you intensely for quoting any biblical verses showing the militant nature of Christianity and the right of self-defense. These know nothing about the Spiritual and Temporal combat against evil that has been etched in Scripture from cover to cover or the history of Christianity fighting evil that existed from time immemorial.
Such hypocrites would read the Bible from beginning to end to only abrogate whole sections of wars and struggles between the City of God and the City Of The Devil.
They strike with the ‘pen of a single comment’ using three words, “this is Old Testament”.
They are as Muslims who lie and apply the Muslim rules of abrogation. They follow a similar rule as the Muslim, but in reverse. The Muslim uses a verse called The Verse of The Sword under what they call al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh (the law of abrogation) abrogating Quranic verses on peace. Likewise, this ‘Christian’ hypocrite who is much worse, he abrogates almost the entire Old Testament and even New Testament verses by using few verses he misinterprets as true peace in exchange of sections of Bible to promote an agenda of false piety and peace.
Had Israel served such theology, it would not have been born as a state. These would never dare say that Israel had no right to defend itself or else they would look foolish, yet they are quick to say that Christians cannot do the same. They dare not fight homosexuality and simply love to pass needles and condoms instead of exposing the devil who promoted his agendas in Africa.
And when you bring them New Testament …”rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil … for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Romans 13:1-4)
The hypocrite simply ignores the clear instruction and insisting that rulers must be “secular” and then quote the same few verses about “turning the other cheek” and that “vengeances are God’s” forgetting that this “ruler” Romans speak of is a “minister of God” and an “avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”. They ignore that God does His work at times through man as David was the “avenger” when he killed Goliath and by this ‘vengeance’ was carried out by God.
They want all of us to entrust the secularist and the deist to defend the saints. They insist that these “rulers” cannot be “Christian”. And I ask, since when did the secularist and the non-Christian care about Jesus or the blood of the saints?
These pride themselves claiming they run apologetics ministries, they are all do-gooders and even have missionaries to Africa where it is easy to pass Bibles. Yet when the Muslim encounters them they humble themselves and refer to the Quran to talk about Jesus while calling their method “the Camel Method”.
Even the camel is not as cowardly as they are, for the camel crosses the desert and has the patience of Job.
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. –Matthew 10:34″
Christ is “The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.” (Psalm 24:8)”
So the hypocrites say that we must wait till Jesus comes in order to avenge the blood of the saints. Have these not read what Jesus does to the lazy servant who risked nothing to save the persecuted saints in Matthew 25?
When I first read Christian history, I found out fairly quickly that the Christianity they preach today, resembles so little of the Christianity of yesteryears, in fact, most of today’s Christianity is even foreign to the past.
Who today teaches on the Two Swords, the Spiritual and the Temporal. Both lie in the hands of the Church, and yet they remaine unused, rusted and ignored by hypocrytes. These are the Swords of the Church Militant, who rises, confronts, and destroys the bastions of darkness that advance against the Kingdom of Heaven. It is foreign to you not because it is un-Christian, it is foreign to you because you are foreign to Christianity.
Yet to these same conniving deceivers, whose mouths never cease in gushing forth heretical bile, Christians are the only people who should not influence law while all others, including the Muslim pro-terrorists can.
If a Christian suggests that the death penalty for Muslim terrorists and the deviant would be beneficial, and in accordance to God’s Law, he is mocked and berated, and told that he has no “love”; that everyone should have the “free will” to do what they please and “God will judge them in the end”; and that he has not the “peace” of Christ.
Such people hate the Divine Law, and only wish to use words such as “grace” and “New Covenant” so that society continues “in sin, that grace may abound” (Romans 6:1).
What ruined Christianity today are these hypocrites whose entire trend of using the term “New Covenant” was done in order to halt any discussion on political laws against evil doers which has been used to enable the servants of the devil, and is extremely inadequate to the nature of Scripture and is contrary to the Spirit of Christianity.
In the modern worldview, ideas and beliefs should never be punished, but only actions that physically hurt others. And some so called Christians will use the “New Covenant” argument to justify such an opinion. They always use the phrase “New Testament perspective” … ad nauseam.
Where in the entire New Testament does it say that government laws must no longer punish Islamists and other evil doers, but can only punish murderers, rapists, and any other crime where someone is physically injured? No where. But this is the type of political worldview that they subscribe to.
The Old Testament says that rapists and murderers are to be put to death, should we then throw away these laws because we are no longer under the Old Covenant? Only a madman would say yes. But under the logic of such deceivers, rape and murder should be given license because we are under the “New Covenant.”
Since when are terrorists exempt from the Divine Law? Modern Christians only want to accept the laws that prohibit murder, rape and theft, because it suites today’s moral worldview, and they reject the laws against dangerous cults, heresies and evil doctrines, because it is too intolerant for their present minds.
One does not have to be under the Old Covenant in order to enact laws, through legislation, against homosexuals, abortion rights advocates, and other wicked violent people.
Nebuchadnezzar was not under the Old Covenant, and yet he established a law proscribing blasphemy against God:
Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way. (Daniel 3:29)
Would Charlie Hebdo dare portray Mary the way he did under Nebuchadnezzar?
Nebuchadnezzar was not an Israelite, not under the Mosaic Law, and not under the nation of Israel. He was a Babylonian, and yet he made a law that punished blasphemy against God with the death penalty.
Artaxerxes was not under the Old Covenant, and yet he told the prophet Ezra,
And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. (Ezra 7:26)
Artaxerxes was not an Israelite, he was not under the Mosaic law and nor was he under the nation of Israel, he was a Persian sovereign and yet he decreed that the Law of God must be followed.
Job was not a Hebrew, he was an Arab not under the Old Covenant, and yet he believed infidelity of government punishment:
If mine heart have been deceived by a woman, or if I have laid wait at my neighbour’s door;
Then let my wife grind unto another, and let others bow down upon her.
For this is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges. (Job 31:9-11)
Job also believed that the crime of worshipping the sun and moon also merited punishment:
If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness;
And my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand:
This also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge: for I should have denied the God that is above. (Job 31:26-28)
Abraham was not under the Old Covenant, but under the Order of Melchizedek, and was very militant, executing a war on the conquering pagans who kidnapped Lot and all of Sodom, in order to liberate his nephew and his fellow man:
And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.” (Genesis 14:15-16)
Did Melchizedek, the high priest, condemn Abraham and say “We do not go against flesh and blood”? No. Instead he praised God for the victory:
Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. (Genesis 14:19-20)
Not only was Abraham under the Order of Melchizedek, but Christ is of this same Order as well, as we read in the Psalms:
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Psalm 110:4)
Since Christ is of the Order of Melchizedek, the Church is of the same Order, and therefore Christians can launch and partake in Holy War.
St. Paul was under the New Covenant, and he firmly believed in the state slaying evildoers, saying:
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Romans 13:3-4)
St. Peter was under the New Covenant, and yet he did not say give freedom to terror supporters and homosexuals, but instead believe that rulers are sent by God “for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” (1 Peter 2:14)
In the minds of St. Peter and St. Paul, evil definitely consisted of all sorts of evil, teaching ideologies for the killing of human life, and spreading false doctrine.
If America ever enacted laws punishing Islamists, we would be completely in the right to do it. For the sword that shed the blood of an evildoer, is not of a murderous nature, but is of justice. St. Bernard, inspired by St. Paul’s words from Romans 13, praised the holy warriors of the Crusade when he wrote:
If he fights for a good cause, the outcome of the battle can never be evil… The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and succumb more confidently. When he strikes, he does service to Christ, and to himself when he succumbs. Nor does he bear the sword in vain. He is God’s minister in the punishment of evil doers and the praise of well doers. Surely, if he kills an evil doer, he is not a man-killer, but, if I may put it, an evil-doer. (St. Bernard, In Praise of A New Knighthood, chs. 1.2, 3.4, trans. M. Conrad Greenia, ellipses mine)
Tertullian distinguishes the just sword from the unjust sword,
As for the sword, which is drunk with the blood of the brigand’s victims, who would not banish it entirely from his house, much more from his bed-room, or from his pillow, from the presumption that he would be sure to dream of nothing but the apparitions of the souls which were pursuing and disquieting him for lying down with the blade which shed their own blood? …The sword also which has received honourable stains in war, and has been thus engaged in a better manslaughter, will secure its own praise by consecration.” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch. xvi, ANF, vol. 3, ellipses mine)
The passage from Tertullian is more significant, because Tertullian lived before Constantine, and it is a common myth that before Constantine Christians were pacifist, and that it wasn’t until Constantine that Christians began to change their theology to fit for war. This passage proves that before Christians began conducting war, the theology of militancy and holy war was already being developed.
It is completely of the Spirit of Christianity to slay evil doers under the state, and it is completely of the Spirit of the Antichrist to believe in freedom for the wicked.