Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I recently had a post taken down. The reason stated was that I was "speaking evil of a leader." In point of fact, I had posted asking for scriptural reasons why a current leader could not be the Antichrist (I confessed that I believed him to be.) No proof of a lack of biblical qualification was offered that this leader could "not" be whom I claimed he was. A few supported me.

Yet, one individual stated that Scripture commands us to respect those in authority -- something I was evidently violating. I was simply wrong "in principle" because I'm not  "allowed" to do that. He went so far as to quote from the TOS: "Disrespectful or threatening comments toward governmental institutions and/or world leaders will not be tolerated. (1 Pet. 2:13-17)"

If the reason for the censor is a violation of the TOS, may I just point out that I did not make a disrespectful or threatening "comment" about this world leader, as the rules specifically state. NOT ONE. I simply expressed a "belief" about him, i.e. that he was the Antichrist. To my recollection, I made no offensive or disparaging comments about him. My tone was very serious and weighty, for the most part.

A Christian forum's "terms of service" should be grounded in Scripture and administered consistently and not hypocritically. I would like to examine 1 Peter 2:13-17, to see what it says, what it doesn't, and what, if any, historical particulars might influence the application of the passage.

"Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:13-17)

The TOS interprets this verse to mean Christians do not have the right to express an opinion on the forum that may be construed as "disrespectful" towards one in authority. My first thought is that this sounds profoundly un-American. This kind of thought control seems more akin to China than the U.S.

Apparently, the implication is this: Since my statement is dishonoring to our leader and the Bible says "Honor the king" ; therefore I'm in sin. But is that really what this passage says? Not at all. 

 
Historical-grammatical interpretation demands that we examine each and every text within its proper "context," both in terms of its historical background and internal grammar.

This passage above lists two groups: 1.) evil-doers 2.) do-gooders

Yes, we are to submit to and honor those in authority. That is not in question. But what is the context of that submission? What is this honor and what does it look like? Is it talking about our theological opinions of a person or even an opinion of a leader's character? Where does it say that in the text? I neither see it in that passage, nor in the Romans 13 passage -- it's not there. Who are these people that do not "honor the king?" Are they Christians with an opinion? We don't have to guess. The text tells us. THEY ARE LAW BREAKERS --  EVIL DOERS. We honor the king by living in accordance to the law of the land. THAT is what the text says. Verse 14 says that authority is sent by God "to punish those who do evil."  Verse 16 says, "Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."  

Clearly, the focus of 1 Peter 2 is living "lawfully" (rightly) in society as a testimony in order to silence men who would unrighteously judge Christ's Church (Christians). It is a call to "live within the law;"  to "live beyond reproof". It is not some mystical power or honor given to a King, but rather an admonishment to live in accordance to the ordinances of civil law. But doesn't verse 17 say "Honor the Emperor (king)?" Yes -- but it also says, "Honor everyone." So, if we cannot call a spade a spade in regards to a king, then contextually, we can never call ANYONE an evil or corrupt or bad person. Charles Manson, Anton Lavey, and Hitler may have done some bad things, but we cannot call them evil, bad or wicked people. This kind of reasoning is absurd and not supported by either passage.

After the post was taken down, I was told: "In the 1st century -- Nero was a type of AC and he persecuted believers in the worst way possible -- and yet you don't read so much about him in the Church Fathers."

This is where the historical context must be closely considered. In the 1st century, an unsavory statement written about the Caesar was considered a crime of treason and punishable by death. Of course they didn't write negative statements regarding his character; not if they valued their life. If you wrote anything disparaging to the emperor, you were, in fact, a law breaker. (In America, we have something called the 1st Amendment which safeguards, in particular, religious free speech.) Even so, the apostle John boldly wrote that: "now many antichrists have come." (1 John 2:18), He did not cower to call a spade a spade. And neither do I.

There does appear to be a degree of inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worse when it comes to the enforcement of this supposed biblical principle. I'll spare you the direct quotes in lieu of suggesting that a mere search for the word, "OBAMA", in this forum will provide a SWATH of comparisons of him to the beast. The Pope also garners a lot of insults. I find it fascinating that my post was removed while those posts were allowed to stay. Recall also that my post was just asking folks to refute my conclusions. The posts on Obama and others were actually providing evidence from Scripture that they were indeed antichrists. According to the administrator (who was very nice, I might add), the post was about to be automatically pulled because of the amount of complaints. Is it just possible that when it comes to a Leftist like Obama, we are quick to "tolerate" moral criticism. Yet, when it comes to someone on our side, well...that's seen as "talking evil" about them.

Let me clear up something. This is not "sport" for me. I was not looking for the Antichrist. I have never considered ANYONE previously as a contender - no one. I am not an "end of the world" fanatic or some conspiracy loon. I don't attend prophecy conferences. In fact, I haven't bought a prophecy book in over 20 years. 

That said, on March 25, 2016 I was t-boned out of nowhere by the Holy Spirit. I sat down at a computer and typed FURIOUSLY for 3 1/2 months with just my index fingers. When I was done, I had what I believe to be the most exhaustive book ever written on the Antichrist. I pulled from nearly 1000 Scripture verses. I am not a "charismatic" but I have seen the power of God -- marvelous things. When I wrote that book, I knew with certainty that a particular man was going to be elected, not once, but twice. And I wrote about it. I repeat, this is not a game. Trust me when I say that my book is not some inane adding up of a person's name to get 666.

Recall, the reason for the post's delete was because I was deemed "speaking evil of a leader." But what is speaking evil of someone? This link may help: https://biblehub.com/topical/e/evil-speaking.htm Is it not meant to do them harm? -- usually through some kind of slander? Again, I was challenging people to dismiss my views from Scripture. Instead, what I  got was, "You're wrong ." I ask, "Why am I wrong?" Answer: "Because you talked evil." Why do you say I was talking evil? Answer: "Because you were wrong." But fact is, I'm only "wrong" if I'm "wrong." In other words, if I'm wrong as in incorrect, then yes, I've committed a serious wrong. But if I'm right, now what? I am certain I am right and have good reason for that certainty.

We are to honor all people, including the king, that we may live in peace. This is practical advice for our comfort -- "so that you may live peaceably." That said, there are times in history when men must forgo comfort to speak up against evil and the men behind it.

If the Peter passage implies that men should just shut up and never point the finger towards unrighteous leaders, how do we explain the great prophets, judges and writers in the Bible that spoke up against evil rulers? The Bible is chalked full of them, from Moses, down through the prophets, to John the Baptist, forward to such men as the Apostles who said, "We must obey God rather than men." How about Nathan pointing his finger at David saying, "YOU ARE THE MAN!" Psalm 26:5 says, "I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked." 

We are to honor men. But we are also to hate evil. Ephesians 5:11 says, "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." Yes, we are called to love our enemies. But the Bible does not say, "Do not consider them your enemies." Someone asked me if I respected this leader (the subject of my deleted post.) My response was, "I would bet that I have a deeper, more profound respect for him than you do." I know who he is and what he'll do. I can have a respect for greatness, whether it be good or evil. I respect the man. I hate the monster, especially the monster that he'll become.

What if I'm wrong? Well, for starters, I stand in good company. In fact, the great men of the faith, from the 1st century, through to the Reformation all had their designated, antichrists. Martin Luther, John Calvin all the way through to people like Jonathan Edwards considered the Pope to be the Antichrist. I have a copy of a Geneva Bible. The marginal notation mentions the antichrist of popery. They didn't refer to him as a type, but called him the Antichrist. Recall, the apostle John said there were antichrists in his day. Even today, sermons are preached calling out the evils of anti-Christian dictators. Some have gone as far as to take up arms to stand up against evil leaders. (I have never called for this.) Did our founding fathers commit evil against King George? Did Dietrich Bonhoeffer commit evil in standing with Christians in Germany to try to take down Hitler?

Some may argue that my present-day antichrist has yet to commit evil acts. My response would be this: 1.) I could argue that he has committed evil. 2.) Because I am certain of this man's role, I know the evil he will commit. In God's eyes (assuming I am correct), he's already guilty of it.

The point I want to make is this: The Bible lays out a Christian standard of living and conduct. But the Antichrist is unique. He is the penultimate embodiment of all the previous wicked leaders in history. He is evil manifest. When it comes to the Antichrist, even the admonitions to honor the ruler will go out the window at some point. I am not saying we've arrived there yet.
 
If claiming someone is the Antichrist amounts to "speaking evil,", what about those who resist him during the tribulation? If they reject the mark, they are rejecting the man. Won't they be speaking evil of him by default? Again, speaking evil has at its center: FALSEHOOD. They won't be speaking evil because they will be speaking truth. And truth is never evil - that is unless it is being spoken for sordid reason e.g. for money, power or slander.

I am solidly convinced that I AM speaking the truth. I am not doing this to hurt the man. My Lord, in my opinion, he's invincible until Christ returns. And from what I know of him, I think he would rather enjoy being called the first dictator of the world, evil or not.

Bottom line
-- I see NO biblical justification to pull my post. 
-- I see a different standard whether the object of our critique represents the political Right versus the Left.
-- I am not an evil doer (law breaker).
-- I am certain my conclusion is true and of the Lord.
-- I will continue to attempt to post on here, as long as the Lord permits.
-- I am convinced that those who mock my conclusion will soon mock no more.
 
 1 Peter 2:15 "For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people." That is what I believe I have done and will continue to do.
 
In my next post -- the profile of a man.
Edited by Jonathan Dane
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't get to read the deleted post.

Are you suggesting DJT is the beast (Antichrist)?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Diaste said:

I didn't get to read the deleted post.

Are you suggesting DJT is the beast (Antichrist)?

 

Yes - I published those findings in a book "written" before the 2016 elections but not published until afterward. The reason for the delay was twofold: 1.) I did not want to get ahead of the Lord's will. 2.) No Christian editor would touch it, so I had to edit it (primarily) by myself. What a nightmare that was. I almost lost my wits. Writing is not my strong suit unless it involves music notation. Not too ironically, I am a professional trumpet player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jonathan Dane said:

Yes - I published those findings in a book "written" before the 2016 elections but not published until afterward. The reason for the delay was twofold: 1.) I did not want to get ahead of the Lord's will. 2.) No Christian editor would touch it, so I had to edit it (primarily) by myself. What a nightmare that was. I almost lost my wits. Writing is not my strong suit unless it involves music notation. Not too ironically, I am a professional trumpet player.

So what evidence do you have?

And don't worry to much about the TOS and mods. Honestly I think sometimes they might just be in bad mood. :)

Twice I got censored; one for calling out a doctrine and another for voicing an opinion about an offer to debate. Seems they took those as personal attacks.

However, when one has detractors it may be you are one the right path. No one ever did anything worthwhile sans opposition.

Just so you know, I'm going to disagree with your conclusion. The disagreement is based on scriptural merit and not what caused your other post to be deleted.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Diaste said:

So what evidence do you have?

And don't worry to much about the TOS and mods. Honestly I think sometimes they might just be in bad mood. :)

Twice I got censored; one for calling out a doctrine and another for voicing an opinion about an offer to debate. Seems they took those as personal attacks.

However, when one has detractors it may be you are one the right path. No one ever did anything worthwhile sans opposition.

Just so you know, I'm going to disagree with your conclusion. The disagreement is based on scriptural merit and not what caused your other post to be deleted.

As far as evidence goes, my book speaks for itself. Honestly, I am a little gun-shy to say too much for fear this post will just get yanked down. I will be soon posting a "profile" that lays what I believe to be an unbreakable connection from "one to another." Again -- I want to pace myself on here. If I let the cat out of the bag too abruptly, there will be a backlash. I have plenty of info on my FB page. A link is provided in my profile. Spend some time poking around on there. I have been releasing full chapters of my book for public viewing. No one has effectively pushed back on me. And trust me when I say, many have tried. Thanks for your comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Diaste said:

So what evidence do you have?

And don't worry to much about the TOS and mods. Honestly I think sometimes they might just be in bad mood. :)

Twice I got censored; one for calling out a doctrine and another for voicing an opinion about an offer to debate. Seems they took those as personal attacks.

However, when one has detractors it may be you are one the right path. No one ever did anything worthwhile sans opposition.

Just so you know, I'm going to disagree with your conclusion. The disagreement is based on scriptural merit and not what caused your other post to be deleted.

Curious where you think "he" is lacking regarding biblical merit. That was exactly the question I posed in my first post. I received very little substantive replies regarding merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jonathan Dane said:

Curious where you think "he" is lacking regarding biblical merit. That was exactly the question I posed in my first post. I received very little substantive replies regarding merit.

Over the centuries just about every world leader has been deemed by some person or group to be the beast. All have been wrong to this point. That's one bit of skepticism about any claim that a world leader of any stripe is the beast. But I would much rather have you present evidence supporting your conclusion so I can answer to that. I don't know what you have in regards to proof and it may be that you are spot on and I need to change my mind.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jonathan Dane said:

As far as evidence goes, my book speaks for itself. Honestly, I am a little gun-shy to say too much for fear this post will just get yanked down. I will be soon posting a "profile" that lays what I believe to be an unbreakable connection from "one to another." Again -- I want to pace myself on here. If I let the cat out of the bag too abruptly, there will be a backlash. I have plenty of info on my FB page. A link is provided in my profile. Spend some time poking around on there. I have been releasing full chapters of my book for public viewing. No one has effectively pushed back on me. And trust me when I say, many have tried. Thanks for your comments.

I'll try the link.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Over the centuries just about every world leader has been deemed by some person or group to be the beast. All have been wrong to this point. That's one bit of skepticism about any claim that a world leader of any stripe is the beast. But I would much rather have you present evidence supporting your conclusion so I can answer to that. I don't know what you have in regards to proof and it may be that you are spot on and I need to change my mind.

 

Fair enough. This excerpt from my book addresses your concern.
------

After sharing this book’s premise with a friend, she responded, “Oh great! Another ‘Boy That Cried Wolf’ book. We have thousands of those.” My friend’s comments align with those of other critics, who point to the many prior incorrect identifications of the Antichrist. However, in all of the prior attempts, I have not found what I consider to be a single thoughtful, systematic and documented work vast enough in scope to fill a large book. Furthermore, the fact that others were incorrect does not alter the fact that the Antichrist will appear at some point. Neither do the prior failures alter the fact that the true Antichrist can and will be recognizable as such when he does appear. I later responded to my friend, “Fact is, the boy eventually saw the wolf, and warned people about it. Nobody believed him.”

A close inspection of the past candidates for the Antichrist reveals that most share only a trivial likeness to the Bible’s depiction of the man; usually amounting to something inane or clownish, e.g. letters in the person’s name adding up to 666. “Hunters” are already on the prowl, claiming that Trump “might” be the Antichrist. The problem with most of these fanatics is that the evidence they present amounts to conspiracy-type sensationalism or emotionally driven, trite statements, i.e. “Trump is mean, racist, etc.” These are the same people that claim practically every world leader is the Antichrist; a phenomenon driven more by paranoia than substance. In contrast, I will provide a thorough profile of the Antichrist from Scripture; a profile that will leave the reader believing they are reading Donald Trump’s biography.

In my opinion, the closest past candidate for Antichrist was Adolph Hitler. But Donald Trump far more resembles the actual picture we see in Scripture. I am not suggesting that Donald Trump’s wickedness currently matches Hitler’s, but in time, he will reduce Hitler to the rank of Junior Varsity.

(Rise of the Little Horn p. 42-43)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see much on the FB page. Don't have FB so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Jonathan Dane
      "I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him." (John 5:43)

      This is an amazing prophecy. Jesus always emphasized His submission to the Father. He was sent to do His will - to represent His Father's name. But the Jewish authority would have none of it -- they rejected Him. Jesus knew a time would come at the end of the age when Israel would turn to a wicked king as their protector. Jesus makes only ONE STATEMENT regarding this coming wicked one -- that he'll "come in his own name." What an odd statement to make. If Christ focused on this issue, it is logical to expect the Antichrist to do likewise. 

      As laid out in my book, I believe the end-time battle is ultimately a battle of names - the name of the Lord versus the name of the Antichrist. Why might Satan desire the Antichrist be consumed with his own name? Because it is at the name of the Lord that every knee shall bow - a name above all names. When Jesus came the first time, He always put the focus on the Father, never Himself.  When Christ comes again, He is coming for that which rightfully belongs to Him, to receive His kingdom. The Antichrist will be just the opposite of Christ. There is no submission but only the repeated mantra of Satan his father, "I WILL. I WILL!!" His focus will be on himself, particularly, on HIS NAME. You want to know what character trait to look for in the Antichrist? Start there. Jesus did.

      (Someone recently asked for Scripture. There you have it. There's plenty more where that came from.)
    • By Jonathan Dane
      (an excerpt from my book, Rise of the Little Horn)
       
      The Emergence
      A man with no military or political experience announces his run for the most powerful seat in the world. His promise? GREATNESS. He controls the flow of money, and is head over a military that is unmatched in the world. He is consumed with winning politically and fortifying his strongholds. Though initially thought of as a minor threat by his associates, he truly towers over them. He demolishes them by means of abusive and slanderous speech, tears down the character of those who oppose him and flatters and elevates those who admire him. He rises up as if by sheer will. He is an alpha male who plots and manipulates anything and everything to take down his opponents. He is seemingly unstoppable. To the utter amazement of the world, he succeeds at nearly everything he does, despite his lack of deep personal conviction on any issue except self-aggrandizement. His narcissistic pride is evident to all as he continually boasts, exaggerating his achievements and financial worth. He is characteristically disingenuous, so deftly twisting the truth that deceit becomes the norm rather than the exception.
      An aura emanates from him that seems to delude people’s thinking; making those―seemingly intelligent―unable to discern truth from falsehood. At some point, these deluded masses begin to view good things as evil and evil things as good. He is untamable, doing whatever he pleases. These characteristics cause other world leaders to fear him. He shows little regard for the support of women, yet boasts of his various adulterous relationships. Despite his inflated claims, he does possess considerable wealth, which he unabashedly flaunts; wealth accumulated through real estate holdings and building projects. Hailed as the consummate praised man of the city, he is a builder of great high towers, bedecked with precious stones and gold. He is obsessed with his name and plasters it on everything he touches.
      He is cunning and shrewd; playing his enemies like a game of cards. He is vicious in his desire to win. The concepts of grace and forgiveness find no place in him. Violence follows him wherever he goes; even to the killing of innocents who stand between him and his goals. His false show of religion gains the trust of people of faith―deluding them. He comes to power through the “simple folk” who have been discarded as insignificant. His supporters are unwavering in their commitment, for they worship the ground he walks on. His rise to power coincides with a political uprising and defection. Many will leave their former political affiliations.
      His ascension comes at a time of worldwide financial, social, religious, military and civil upheaval. But he will promise to restore law and order, and to soon put an end to crime and violence; a few of many extravagant promises he will never keep. He will establish an extreme vetting process to prevent illegals from gaining access. He will seek the wealth of Iraq as Russia shows signs of escalating military aggression towards the Middle East. Known for his ability to make deals, he promises to make a peace deal between Israel and her surrounding enemies. He plans a restructure of the balance of power in Europe in order to fight terror. The earth will be in global flux.
      Who do these paragraphs describe? This portrait was penned thousands of years ago. It is a biblical word picture of the most evil, ruthless killer of all time; a tyrant who will draw the world into the last great mega-battle known as Armageddon. The Bible refers to this man as the Son of Perdition, the Man of Sin, the Wicked One, the Worthless Shepherd, the Beast, the LIE, the Adversary, the Spoiler, the Willful King, the Lawless One, the Desolator, and more. This man’s wickedness grows until, eventually, Satan himself will possess him. He is known to most as the Antichrist. 

      (Copyright 2016 - Jonathan Dane - All Rights Reserved)
    • By Michael37
      If China's Social Credit System continues the way it's going it could mutate and it's technology be implemented by other governments wanting more real-time data on what their citizens are doing. In some respects the whole business of world trade is a social credit system. To date I haven't been bothered about the monitoring of my shopping habits but a ranking system that determines what freedoms or otherwise I have earned is going to get my attention.
       Just writing this on Worthy could be annoying some Chinese official right now, after all, I do have a Huawei Optical Network Terminal providing me with internet connectivity, if you get my drift...
      Huawei - Building A Fully Connected, Intelligent World.
    • By Omegaman 3.0
      Daily Reading 37 If you prefer, you can look up the following verses in your own Bible, of by whatever means and in whatever version you choose. Hebrews 2     Genesis 46:28-47:31 Psalm 37 Audio 2:47              Audio 4:47 Audio 4:21 The above addresses are linked to Bible Gateway. That is an easy way to read (or listen to) the Bible verses, and choose your version.  Personally, I prefer written, that way I can go at my own pace, on think about it, before moving on. Nothing wrong with doing either or both. The Bible says faith comes by hearing. See the picture below to get an idea of what to expect if you follow the above links.

      Note: The audio will not play the exact verses, it will play the whole chapters, in which the verses exist.
      Thank you Lord for making the your word so accessible for us in these times. Amen

    • By Hidden In Him
      I received a troubling dream yesterday from a new friend who has received numerous dreams with warnings that have come to pass.   She sent me four dreams she received before he was even elected about the Trump Presidency, but this one in particular stood out to me, because it suggests he may end up being cast into prison for some form on impropriety by his enemies in Washington.   I will post the dream first and the interpretation afterwards:   "Had a dream that I was in an arena. It looked like a really old ball park that only had dirt on the ground or it could also be a spanish matador arena. Some people were gathered there, I don't know how many, I just remember a few; 20-40 people. At that moment someone announced that Donald won the elections. Trump was in the arena very calm and then said, "ok people, lets start cleaning up". I noticed in the arena there were soda cans all over so the people there started picking them up. I remember seeing my sister and her husband in the back of a car and a man who placed a white duck behind bars, it didn't look like a cage, it looked like a cell; three cement walls and one with bars."   The meaning is this: The arena was/ is "the political arena," and the "old ball park" is likely a play on words for how, in Washington, they "play hard ball" so to speak. The 20-40 people gathered here are sworn enemies of Trump, and when Trump says "Ok people, let's start cleaned up [the arena]," this is a reference to his promise to "clean up the swamp" (i.e. Washington) after he got elected. Not that I am using disparaging terms myself, but the Spirit is actually depicting his enemies here as "soda cans," or in other words the "trash" that society would throw out if they knew the truth.    But the problem is this: The rest of the dream suggests that rather then "clean up" the political arena, Trump is going to get arrested. The sister and husband "in the back[seat] of a car" is suggestive of sexual indiscretion playing a role in his arrest (more on this in a moment)*, and then a man places "a white duck behind bars.. a cell, with three cement walls and one with bars." It means he will be incarcerated. "White duck" here is a play on the Disney character "Donald Duck" (someone not taken seriously) and refers to Donald Trump, with the white referring to the fact that he is actually innocent.   For those who think it not possible, please watch the following video. I realize CNN often exaggerates to paint Trump in a bad light, but this may indeed be serious, and I believe it is a call to prayer for our President.   Hidden In Him    MSNBC's Joy Reid: What If Trump Refuses To Be Arrested By Federal Marshals?   *Since receiving this dream, I have realized that the sexual innuendo of the sister and husband "in the back of a car" is in all likelihood a reference to the affair Trump had with Stormy Daniels, which ultimately will lead to his arrest and indictment. While I believe in intercessory prayer, I'm getting the sense that this prophecy is not going to be averted. Only deep intercession would prevent it, and most of the church isn't paying attention right now. Warnings have gone forth several times to pray for the man in the past, yet at some point you get lulled to sleep, and I sense that's what's happening now.
      And the strategy Trump and Giuliani are now banking on now is weak: It appears they believe a ground swell of public support will somehow oppose the move to potentially have him indicted (it would indeed be unprecedented in the history of US politics at the Presidential level). But these will be legal charges, which would make public support null and void, meaning that they're adopting a plan that doesn't instill a great deal of confidence and in all likelihood will not hold any weight.
      What he needs is divine intervention of some sort to turn things in his favor, so I ask for those who love the current President of the United States to intercede to God on his behalf.
×
×
  • Create New...