I had a vision of my own death in October 1983 and I know I am going to Heaven, no matter what. Why do you think I am so brazen? I am God's servant and messenger. I believe I will have a dream before VWD Day happens. That is the first Day of the Lord and stands for Vengeance, Wrath, and Destruction. All of the Messiah's enemies will burst into flames. Psalm 37:20, Psalm 97:3. Numbers 12:6 "...If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream". I do not twist the scriptures. I am a fundamentalist and I take the scriptures at their plain, literal meaning. I am also not a Christian, they are the enemy.

There is no end to the understanding of these things. As such, on the highest levels, I do not know. However, on a more basic level it is the letting go of the old nature so the new nature can shine through. In reality, this is the essence of several religions around the world, especially Daoism and Buddhism, at least in its purest forms. Did Jesus die for our sins? I think that this is true. I think there is a lot of evidence that such happened through the "shroud of Turin" which has been studied anew lately, with some astonishing results.

One thing I do know for sure. There is Christianity and other religions, and there are also secret societies in the world who worship Lucifer, whom they consider the true bringer of the light. As such God becomes the villain. This is the biggest danger the world faces as the operate in secret, they promise liberty but delivery absolute tyranny. These societies are real and the routinely infiltrate the Churches, the government, and societies such as the FreeMasons, and others. Our founding fathers were very aware of this, and warned us of it. Most people laugh at this anymore. But this is real. The main thing to do is give up our lives to that which is higher than us, and true Christianity, (as opposed to false) is the way to do this. It doesn't matter which religion you belong to or what you believe, as long as you have had that conversion experience. Doctrine has its place, but is not nearly as important as a change of heart.

The book of Revelations is written on many such levels. As such, I hear people saying, well, this refers to the Roman Catholic Church. They may be right, but only on one level of the story. The Bible is written in such a way as it has many different meanings for different levels. Is the R.C. the Babylonian belief system? Well, in a lot of ways yes, but then, so is the entire world system.

All governments are based on control. The constitution allows us more freedom than most. But even within that freedom there is law and structure. We cannot get away from it. It is only through law and structure that we get freedom. In school we have to subject ourselves to a certain system, a structure, but that structure will lead to, at least in a limited sense, a freedom later, when we finally understand and are able to contribute to a business or to society. People make the argument, "well, if God exists, why does he allow suffering?" The problem with this argument is that they are just assuming that God is as much a control freak as we are. In the same way, secret societies that worship Lucifer promise freedom but deliver tyranny. The true way is that tyranny, (structure) comes first, then true liberty. I believe, (no time to check it out) that it is in 1 Peter where it is said, "whereas they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption." This is the real issue, which side will you choose? That of those who promise liberty (falsely) or the side of truth and integrity? "Choose this day whom ye will serve. Either (the Lord God), or the gods on the other side of the river." It is the service that counts. Believing that Jesus died for our sins is simply a starting point, and has minor meaning of itself without the followup.

There are a lot of things that could be said about this. First off, if we take things literally, which I don't, it would truly indicate the Messiah would have to be female. But is that really such an important point? I regret that I do not know much about the Hebrew, although I do at times study Hebrew letters. I would have to know the import of the verse here. Because, the text speaks of a lamb, then says "bring IT a female." This makes the text in English very unclear and very mystical. According to R.C. doctrine, Mary becomes as important as Jesus. Mary is one of the few people that stay at the foot of the cross. (There is another play on situations here because there are two, and actually three Mary's in the gospel story. One is his mother and the other his "wife" according to a lot of tradition.) As such, when Jesus dies on the cross, there is a female in a sense brought to him.

This in itself is a minor point however. The real meaning of these stories are allegorical. And the death on the cross is an allegory for each person dying to the old self, and to the ego, and living in the spirit. Also, each person, within themselves, has both male and female properties. We all have a mixture. Therefore it becomes to a certain extent a mute point. If anyone looks at the scriptures, Tanach or New Covenant, as only literal, is not understanding the story at a very high level. (Incidentally, the Roman Catholic Church tends to teach the laity only the literal, which at the higher level they understand well that it is allegorical.) The New Covenant says that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins," (and people might be wise to study how around the world there were in the past, ritual shedding of blood of innocents on a regular basis.) There is something going on here that is beneath the surface. It is also said that "God was fed up with their sacrifices." He wanted reality, truth, not sacrifice. What is really going on here? The story in a way contradicts itself unless we go beyond the literal.

There is no question in my mind that the Roman Empire, after embracing Christianity, changed it to work to its own purposes. The reality of the situation is lost in history. We can only study as deeply as possible to get as close to the truth as possible.

There are several stories in the Torah about the sacrifice for sins. In one, there are two goats. One goat is let go to wonder in the wilderness, the other is sacrificed. (where we get the term 'scapegoat') As such in the gospel story the Jews are asked, "which one will you have me release? Either Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Barabbas?" Most people are not aware that Barabbas, (bar Abbas) means "Son of the Father." Which Jesus was really crucified? The story is much deeper than most people imagine, but so is the Torah.

All in all, we have to be careful about looking at things too literally. The story is deep, and few, if anybody, understands it in its entirety.

My Hebrew is very limited and I only read the KJV. I can quote entire chapters verbatim and from memory. If I read other versions it would just confuse things. There are only about 5000 words in the Hebrew language and each word can have several different meanings. I think that is the main reason there are so many different English versions of the Bible. If something doesn't make sense to me, I look at the Hebrew and ask a Rabbi. In the Kingdom of God, the world will all speak the same language, English. It is the most widely spoken second language in the world. Zephaniah 3:9. "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent".

Don't try to get me on that Convention of States until you can show me how the delegates who go are selected and by whom. I am afraid of that thing in that I know what happened to our constitution (Articles of Confederation) when those who attended that convention decided to write a new Constitution as the first thing they did. I have been very happy with what they did, but were there any left leaners hanging around back then? People keep saying they want that convention to propose one or two new amendments but how about that Philadelphia Convention? I fear that too many leaners may get appointed and they would probably try to do what was done back there at Philadelphia. I sure don't want to get stuck with something like that.

I vote HELL NO about that Convention of States. Anybody who gives any real thought to that will have to join me.