Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Once upon a time, not far from where baby Jesus was born, there was a village called Iqrit. It was filled with people who loved Jesus more than anyone in the world. Specifically, ninety percent of them did. The other ten percent also loved Jesus, but not the same way.
The villagers of Iqrit were expelled by an army of Jews in 1948, and despite being told they could return within two weeks they were kept out indefinitely. In July 1951, the villagers took their case before the Israeli Supreme Court. They could do this, because they were supposedly Israeli citizens.
They won this case. However, the government came up with another reason to keep them out, and so the villagers chose to appeal yet again. This was scheduled for 6 February 1952.
However, in December 1951, Israeli soldiers took the leader of Igrit onto a hill.
There, on Christmas Day, they forced him to watch as Israeli troops demolished every home in the village.
In 1972, after various attempts by inhabitants and their descendants, the government recognized the right to return yet refused to allow it in principle. One Israeli politician, Golda Meir, said why:
"It is not only consideration of security preventing an official decision regarding Bi'rim and Igrit, but the desire to avoid a precedent. We cannot allow ourselves to become more and more entangled and to reach a point from which we are unable to extricate ourselves."
In short, they could not allow the return, because if they did, it would set a precedent to allow the return of countless others who were displaced.
Iqrit wasn't the only thing the Jews destroyed. They destroyed the narrative of it being Muslim verses Jew, because the villagers of Iqrit were and are Christian. It destroys the narrative that Palestinians all abandoned their land so other countries could invade, because they did not, they were occupied and expelled.
It destroys the idea that Israel is somehow special and unique for being 'democratic' and having western institutions. The army ignored the court, and made the villagers watch as they destroyed their homes.
To this day, the Israeli government prevents them or their descendants from rebuilding. Note, Israel has not themselves colonized the land, they have not built their own town. They simply prevent its rightful inhabitants from doing so.
This coming twenty fifth (tomorrow) of December is the 74rd anniversary of the destruction of the Christian Village of Iarit, by Israel. They did this, despite the Supreme Court of Israel itself ruling that those who lived there and owned the land were entitled to return to their land.
And I hope maybe you will remember its story, on this, the anniversary of its destruction, on the day we celebrate the birth of our Savior.
Merry Christmas and God bless the resistance.
Mike
The villagers of Iqrit were expelled by an army of Jews in 1948, and despite being told they could return within two weeks they were kept out indefinitely. In July 1951, the villagers took their case before the Israeli Supreme Court. They could do this, because they were supposedly Israeli citizens.
They won this case. However, the government came up with another reason to keep them out, and so the villagers chose to appeal yet again. This was scheduled for 6 February 1952.
However, in December 1951, Israeli soldiers took the leader of Igrit onto a hill.
There, on Christmas Day, they forced him to watch as Israeli troops demolished every home in the village.
In 1972, after various attempts by inhabitants and their descendants, the government recognized the right to return yet refused to allow it in principle. One Israeli politician, Golda Meir, said why:
"It is not only consideration of security preventing an official decision regarding Bi'rim and Igrit, but the desire to avoid a precedent. We cannot allow ourselves to become more and more entangled and to reach a point from which we are unable to extricate ourselves."
In short, they could not allow the return, because if they did, it would set a precedent to allow the return of countless others who were displaced.
Iqrit wasn't the only thing the Jews destroyed. They destroyed the narrative of it being Muslim verses Jew, because the villagers of Iqrit were and are Christian. It destroys the narrative that Palestinians all abandoned their land so other countries could invade, because they did not, they were occupied and expelled.
It destroys the idea that Israel is somehow special and unique for being 'democratic' and having western institutions. The army ignored the court, and made the villagers watch as they destroyed their homes.
To this day, the Israeli government prevents them or their descendants from rebuilding. Note, Israel has not themselves colonized the land, they have not built their own town. They simply prevent its rightful inhabitants from doing so.
This coming twenty fifth (tomorrow) of December is the 74rd anniversary of the destruction of the Christian Village of Iarit, by Israel. They did this, despite the Supreme Court of Israel itself ruling that those who lived there and owned the land were entitled to return to their land.
And I hope maybe you will remember its story, on this, the anniversary of its destruction, on the day we celebrate the birth of our Savior.
Merry Christmas and God bless the resistance.
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
They charge people $50-70 a pop to go see this show.
Keep in mind…This is a “501c3” organization, WHICH DOES NOT PAY TAXES.
Clearly, there is absolutely NOTHING Biblical about this place, so I won’t call it a church.
Jesus would burn this abominable den of vipers and thieves to the ground.
Mike
Keep in mind…This is a “501c3” organization, WHICH DOES NOT PAY TAXES.
Clearly, there is absolutely NOTHING Biblical about this place, so I won’t call it a church.
Jesus would burn this abominable den of vipers and thieves to the ground.
Mike
Mike
Mike
The modern Christian concept of forgiveness is reversed. Jesus said to repent. If a violent criminal repents he may ask his victim(s) for forgiveness. It is always up to the victim(s) to decide whether or not to forgive. However, if the assailant does not repent the victim(s) can never forgive him for his misdeeds. Forgiveness must always be asked for first by the perpetrator in completely humility and it is never a given. It's a reversal of power, in that the victim(s) may or not be able to forgive. What Erika Kirk did after Charlie's death is a total farce. Whoever killed Charlie must ask for forgiveness first before he can be forgiven. It starts with the one committing the crime, not the victim(s).
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mariaverering = satanisch. Daarom is de moderne samenleving ook gefeminiseerd. Satan is ern VROUW.
Mike
What Jesus is saying in John 20:23 is that if you decide to let go of other people's sins they will no longer stay with you as a resentment. But if you retain their sins you will continue to resent the sinners. In Matthew 6:14 the message is the same. You can make a personal decision to no longer resent a person who harmed you. God can't live where resentment resides, so in order to let God in you must let go of any and all resentments. I don't dispute this at all. However, true forgiveness is ultimately up to God, not Man. Let go and let God.
That's the ROMAN concept of Trinitarian Christianity. Early Christianity was predominantly Unitarian. The early American Christian tradition was Unitarian too, look it up. While you're at it, look up Arianism. Do you believe early Christians who believe Jesus is the Son of God or later Trinitarians who believe Jesus is God the Son?
That's the best Trinitarians can do, John 1. This is very weak evidence that God is Jesus in the flesh. Ever heard of cymatics? Look into it. It's tbe science of how aural frequencies can materialize into geometric patterns and can even form letters and numbers. This is the story of material creation, which is also why each of us must be very careful with our own words. It's no reference to Jesus whatsoever.
Another weak proof which is often cited by Trinitarians is Psalm 110:1. Read the KJV and tell me what you see.
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
The term 'Lord' was commonly used back then to refer to any earthly ruler. Hence in the KJV a distinction is made between LORD in all caps to refer to God as a heavenly ruler. "Lord" is used to refer to Christ Jesus, who was a man annointed by God. Once again, this is not evidence that Jesus is God the Son. Ask yourself also why this is not all over the Bible if it's so important.
Mike
Deze pastoor legt perfect uit dat joden altijd al satanisten zijn geweest en dat hier reeds in de bijbel voor wordt gewaarschuwd.
Mike
Mike
Forum statistieken
