youtube says it was removed, wonder why?

Naw Sodom because of all the Sodomy that goes on there. Gomorrah is full of k**lers and thieves. It was once related to me that the cities of the Plain, Sodom, Gomorrah, etc..., the five cities represented five of the seven deadly sins.

To add to your statement which is very, very well written let me remind your readers that The Church "holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" is the way catholics, (greek "catholic" means universal) still believes in the teachings of Christ Jesus. The Roman, Greek, and Orthodox Catholics have adopted this as part of their Creed.

Now, for the Protestant brothers and sisters, this does not omit you, for you too are blessed with the Holy Spirit as the Catholics are, so take no offense. For St. John foresaw the division the church would have in time. So his writings to the seven Churches in Revelations applies to you, the Catholics and to you, the Protestants. There now with that handled, to show that there is no division, let me continue.

"Christendom" is not part of the Church but rather, the Church was seduced by Satan due to lack of Courage within the faith. This is what brought forth Christians with the philosophy of the Sword and Bible. Which appeared in its glory during the Crusades against the very people we are fighting today.

It took many years to accomplish, but through the faith in Christ, all christians for the most part are being united under Christ.

However, we are witnesses to the division of the Muslim faith. For a true believer in Muhammad k**ls, where a true Christian forgives. For muslims k**l those who leave the faith, and Christians try to convince those who have fallen away to return to the faith.

We must show this. For this is the Evolution of faith and like the title says, "God vs EVIL"ution.

Now in every organization there are those who want power, those who want control. There are those who just want to belong and there are those who want to expel members. Therefore there are two types of Christians. Those who love God and those who don't.

Those of us who love God, like myself, and AuntiE, may not fully agree on the teachings of Christ, but since we love Christ and know that Christ saves all, we know that Christ also loves variety for He started the Universal Church of Christ.

As St. John and Jesus predicted the Church will undergo many trials and tribulations. Today is no different then yesterday, for Christians survived the Romans, Napoleon, C*******ts, N**is etc.

Muslims did not know the Romans. But the Muslims joined the N**is. Upon further research that I am doing, I am finding that the origin of the Arabs come from the kingdom of Nimrod, who proclaimed himself as the sun god. Known as Baal which is another name for Satan.

St. John speaks of a false prophet, is it possible that this Muhammad is the false prophet?

Let me post one more of the writings of Ann

The one about BRAVERY AND COWARDICE
This is the piece I referenced in my latest interview with Elijah. It is now permanently added to “The one about…” page.

Preface:
I originally wrote and posted this on March 29, ARSH 2010. This was fully a year before I went v***l for the first time after my koran burning. I had a little bit of a non-agricultural readership, but nothing like now. I began screaming and yelling about politics and broad-market economics in 2008 when I saw that the U.S. was in the process of being o*******wn, and lots of agricultural people thought I was nuts, and I doubtless turned a bunch of people off. That’s why I was getting emails from people advising me to watch my mouth and not “get myself crossways with the Powers That Be.”

Getting crossways with The Powers That Be was the making of me. Have I mentioned lately how happy I am in the Van Down By The River? God is good.

Read this until you get it. Unless and until you people man up and stop cowering in fear, unless and until you fully understand that the only way you can possibly win is being willing to lose everything, up to and including your life, the outcome is utterly certain: evil will triumph. You and your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will live and die under satanic totalitarian rule. Yes, Christ will win in the end, but as billions of human beings before you would happily remind you, Jesus Christ returning in glory to grease all of the bad guys before you die IS NOT A GIVEN.

Cowardice is a sin. Courage is a virtue. Man up and take care of business. For the love of God.

———————————–
“Ann,

Why do you write stuff and make videos like that? Why don’t you lay low? If this gets serious you’re going to be in big trouble. You might be in trouble already.”

Because bravery and cowardice are a zero-sum game. When a man cowers, he isn’t just merely shielding himself from danger and nothing more. What he is doing is shirking off on to some other man his share of bravery that justice demands. Because the good German people cowered and failed to stand up and stop what they clearly saw happening in the mid-to-late 1930s, their collective failure in courage cumulated and compounded. Where their failure in courage all eventually ended up was on the shoulders of these guys:



Company E, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division

See how that works? Good will always prevail, but there is no limit to the amount of suffering that will be required for that victory to occur. If men stand up early on, the suffering will be minimized because it will be spread over many people. The worst that might happen is that some folks go to bed scared for a while, but widespread bravery will allow good to prevail without much suffering. If, however, there is a decided lack of courage displayed by a large group or society early on in an advance by the powers of evil, that aggregated courage requirement will be borne by a relative few at a later time. The longer this goes on, the worse it will be for the few who have to bear the weight of the cowardice of the broad society.

So, why am I so mouthy right now? Simply put, because I don’t want your son to end up sprawled on some city street with his legs blown off by a Marxist-Islamist-Obamaist RPG bleeding to death because he had to shoulder my personal failure in courage. Got it? That is all.

Reaffirmed in perpetuity,
Ann Barnhardt
From the Van Down By the River

I want to post this here if you don't mind AuntiE, this is a work by Ann Barnhardt,

The One About JESUS and GUNS
Originally penned and posted on November 27, AD 2010.

We need to have a frank discussion about Christianity, war and pacifism, because we may all be making direct decisions about these huge questions in our own lives before long. Some scripture popped into my mind earlier this week, and I was able to really dig into it yesterday. I was taken aback by what I found but in a good way. I hope that this will help bring some clarity, or at the very least start some discussions.

First, a small but necessary sidetrack. I have been asked many times about which Bible t***slation I use or think is best. I used to hemm and haw and say something non-committal about the King James version. I now know beyond a shadow of a doubt what t***slation we need to be using. We need to be using the Douay-Rheims t***slation which was begun in 1582 and completed in 1610. It is only two steps removed from the original texts. The Douay-Rheims is the direct t***slation of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. St. Jerome was commissioned to t***slate the entire canon of scripture into Latin in the year ARSH 382 in pr********n for the Church Councils which finally set and canonized the Bible, particularly the Council of Carthage in ARSH 397. St. Jerome worked from ORIGINAL texts as much as possible, and t***slated from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The Douay-Rheims is the direct t***slation from St. Jerome’s t***slation of the original texts into modern English.

Remember, English as we recognize it today, has only been around for 550 years or so. If you were to be dropped into England earlier than the year ARSH 1450, you would have a very, very difficult time communicating. So, the Douay-Rheims has between it and the original texts only St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. I personally use a Bible that is Douay-Rheims side-by-side with the Latin Vulgate. As I pick up more and more Latin, I find myself reading the Latin, and using the English as a cross-check. There is an online version of the Douay-Rheims side-by-side with the Latin Vulgate at www.DRBO.org . You’re about to see that this is all very, very important.

Let’s go to Luke 22, The Last Supper.

Christ has just instituted the Eucharist and the Mass. By doing this in anticipation of His death on the Cross the next day, He has made Calvary the centerpoint of time. He has drawn the Old Testament forward to the Cross, and He has pulled the time after Calvary backward. Every moment in time will now pass through and be reconciled to Calvary.

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself.” John 12:32

What I want you to appreciate is the enormousness of the occasion. This is one of the most important things that has ever or will ever happen. This isn’t just a farewell meal. The entire world and everyone who ever has been or will be in it is utterly piv****g on what is happening in this room.

Let’s go to verse 35 through 38. Jesus has just told Peter that he will deny Him three times.

“When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want anything? But they said: Nothing. Then said He unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword. For I say to you that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in Me. And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning Me have an end. But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them: It is enough.”

FYI: “scrip” means money. What He is telling them is that they are about to encounter evil, and in pr********n for this they need to do wh**ever they need to do in order to prepare. He is saying that they need to reallocate their assets and “buy a sword”. In Latin, “emat gladium”.

Emat = buy, purchase, acquire, procure.

Gladium = sword.

Wow. I can hear the c*******ts and homosexualists screaming from here. “He didn’t really mean it! He wasn’t speaking literally! He was speaking figuratively!”

He was speaking, as God Almighty almost always does, on multiple levels, INCLUDING THE LITERAL. Oh, yes. I’ll concede that we should take from this scripture His call to reject materialism and gird ourselves for spiritual battle. No doubt. But if we delude ourselves into thinking that this is the ONLY sense in which He is speaking, we are missing something huge. Look at the last verse:

“But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them: It is enough.”

Okay. Stop, stop, stop. Hold the phone. Put out the cat. First of all, this proves that He was speaking in the literal sense in addition to the figurative sense. But more importantly, do you realize what this means? At least two of the apostles arrived at the Upper Room wearing side arms, which they then took off so they could sit on the floor around the low table that was used in those days. What this also means is that there were side arms present, in the room, at the Last Supper.

Now here is where all of the C*******t-homosexualists are going to absolutely lose it. What is the contemporary, technological equivalent of a sword? What is considered a “side arm” today? That’s right. A gun. A sword, in first century Judea was, without any doubt or question, an “assault weapon”. Now you can scream and spit and stomp and rage and retch all you want, but you know I’m right. The apostles report that they have two swords, and Jesus says, “It is enough.”

I saw in my research that some “scholars” try to paint Jesus as snapping at the apostles, trying to t***slate “Satis est (It is enough)” as “Oh, enough already!” I don’t hear that at all. I hear Him simply saying that two swords will be enough. This is where we get into huge problems with modern quasi-Christian “scholars” projecting their own agendas onto their t***slation of the Bible. Here are a couple of examples of bad, agenda-driven t***slations:

“Enough of that!” (Holman Christian Standard)

“Enough of that; no more sword talk!” (The Message – not a joke, they completely fabricated that second phrase. Evil.)

Even if you go with these false t***slations, you’re still stuck with the fact that there were side arms, assault weapons, IN THE ROOM at the Last Supper. What, are you going to argue that Jesus didn’t KNOW that there were swords in the room? Who is Jesus? He’s God Almighty. He knows EVERYTHING.

Further, if this was just a horrible mistake or coincidence, why would Jesus make specific reference to swords (which are assault weapons, remember) and arming one’s self, thus leading the apostles to inventory the weapons arsenal in the room?

FURTHER, why would the Holy Spirit, through Luke, put all of this down in writing? Why are we all sitting in front of our respective computer screens, poring through our Bibles, reading and discussing this 1980 years after the fact? Dude. It is not sufficient at this point to simply declare me a bloodthirsty, gun-toting war monger and then walk away. You have to refute and rebut the logical progression I just laid out. Good luck with that.

Now, let’s go to verse 49. They’re in the Garden, and Jesus has gone through His agony. Now Judas, with the Jewish guards, approaches. Judas kisses Jesus to show the guards which man they should arrest. The apostles see this and ask, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?”

Dude, they’re STILL ARMED. With ASSAULT WEAPONS. If Jesus was disgusted with the swords back in the Upper Room, why are the apostles wearing SWORDS (which are assault weapons, remember) in the Garden? Don’t you think that hippie, pacifist Jesus would have told them to LEAVE THE SWORDS BEHIND? And then scolded them? He didn’t do that. They put on their swords (which are assault weapons) and walked to the Garden. You know why? Because Jesus is neither a hippie nor a pacifist.

Next, Peter (and we know it was Peter from John 18) struck one of the guards and cut off his ear.

“And they that were about Him, seeing what would follow, said to Him: Lord, shall we strike with the sword? And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.”

So just to make certain that we are all appreciating this, Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is carrying a side arm and knows what to do with it. Now this next verse is the one that really surprised me:

“But Jesus answering, said: Suffer ye thus far. And when He had touched his ear, He healed him.”

Huh? What does “Suffer ye thus far” mean? Hmmm. Let’s look at some contemporary t***slations and see what they say:

“Stop! No more of this.” (New American Standard)

“Let them be. Even in this.” (The Message)

“No more of this!” (Holman Christian Standard)

Uh-oh. Facepalm. This is not good. These modern t***slations aren’t anywhere close to the Douay-Rheims. The words “stop” and “no” were obviously part of the English lexicon when the Douay-Rheims was made, and they are not used in this verse. Something is wrong here. In order to figure this out, let’s go to the Latin. “Sinite usque huc.”

Sinite: second person plural active imperative of “sino”
Sino: let, permit

Okay, so sinite means “you all let” or “you all permit” in the imperative case, which means a command.

(That makes sense! Like “suffer the little children to come unto Me” means “permit the little children . . . “)

Usque: adverb meaning “all the way”

Huc: adverb meaning here, hence, to this place, to this point

You all permit + all the way + here.

Our Lord isn’t scolding them. Our Lord isn’t saying “no more of this!” and barking at them to stop. Our Lord is giving them the command to hold and stand down.

“You all permit all the way here.”

You all permit all the way here.
You all permit all the way here.

This is a HUGE distinction. If a military commander gives his men the order to hold fire and stand down, is he criticizing them? Is he attacking and rebuking their use of weaponry? Is he communicating that they should be pacifists? Is he rejecting their vocations as soldiers? No! He is simply telling them to hold their fire and stand down because there is, at the moment, a tactical reason to do so. That is EXACTLY what is going on here. Our Lord isn’t rebuking the apostles because they are doing exactly what they should do – they are defending their Beloved Friend.

If your spouse, or your child, or your best friend, or whoever you love most in this world was being physically attacked and seized, what would you do? What would every fiber of your being be screaming out for you to do? Come to their defense and aid. This is called the Natural Law. God MADE us this way. God made us with the instinctual drive to physically fight to defend those we love. Failure to do so is the sin of cowardice. Cowardice is a violation of both of the Great Commandments: to love God above all else, and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Cowardice places the self above both neighbor and God. And in the case of the apostles, they were engaging both commandments (God and neighbor) directly in the person of Jesus.

This is why Our Lord had to give the order to hold and stand down. He had to specifically release them from the Great Commandments in that moment. Why? Two reasons: Obviously, it was the will of the Triune Godhead that Jesus be arrested and crucified. These things had to happen. The apostles couldn’t be expected to understand this at the time, so there was no expectation for them to quietly sit and watch as Jesus was arrested.

Remember who Jesus is. Jesus is God. He knows everything and everyone. Jesus knew every one of the men who came to arrest Him. Not only did He know them, He loved them all infinitely. He MADE every one of them. He wove them together in their mothers’ wombs. He knew every detail of their lives, every thought, every deed. And He loved them. Every single one of them. He also had a plan for every one of them. Like, oh I dunno, CONVERSION? Can you imagine the amount of grace those guards were exposed to? They got to TOUCH Him. They got to look right at Him, and speak to Him. He probably locked eyes with every one of them at some point. Don’t discount that. Even though they were absolutely horrible to Him, they were primed for conversion. We know that Malchus, the guy who got his ear cut off, and then was healed by Our Lord, converted. We don’t know about the other guards, but we do know that thousands and thousands of Jews were converted in the first years after the Resurrection. We also know who the first Gentile convert was. It was the Roman Centurion Longinus. Longinus was the Roman soldier who drove the spear into Jesus’ side to make certain He was dead, instead of breaking His legs. When the spear went in, it burst the cardiac edema, or the water that had built up around Our Lord’s Sacred Heart as He died of asphyxia and heart failure. Longinus, standing beside and below Jesus, was sprayed with that water. Baptism. When the all of the water had come out, Our Lord’s Precious Blood sprayed out. Eucharist.

Calvary IS the Mass. The Mass IS Calvary. The Last Supper was an ANTICIPATORY MASS that instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist AND ratified and elevated all of the previous licit, yet woefully inadequate sacrifices of mankind which were in accordance with the Natural Law. Calvary, and thus the Mass, reaches out through time in BOTH DIRECTIONS, like the crossbeam of the Cross itself, pulling all of time, both before and after, THROUGH the temporal centerpoint of Calvary.

And so, the first Gentile convert was a man who had just spent the past nine hours participating in the torture and execution of Jesus. Grace. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some of the Jewish guards in the garden were converted too. So we can see an additional reason, beyond the obvious, why Jesus told the apostles to stand down. It was His will that some or all of the guards survive and convert, not die in battle in that moment.

Finally, some might reference Jesus’ words in Matthew’s gospel:

“Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

Do you know what I think Jesus is doing here, in part? I think this may be a veiled prophecy about islam. Islam teaches that the way to convert people to the islamic political system is to put a sword to their neck and give them a choice: convert or die. This is referred to as “the Sword of islam”. This is how all other evil, satanic political systems operate as well. Marxism leaps to mind. In Marxist tyranny, people are arrested and imprisoned, given the choice to “learn the new system” and be “re-educated”, or die.

In addition to a veiled prophecy, Jesus is telling Peter that Christianity does not and will not convert with the sword. It converts only with love. AND, He is telling Peter and us that Christians do not and will not punish apostates (people who leave the faith, like Judas) with the sword. Both islam and Marxism execute apostates. But the second phrase, “shall perish with the sword” is very telling. Jesus is saying that those who “take the sword” and try to convert people to, and hold people in their evil systems by force will in the end be k**led WITH THE SWORD. Who will be wielding that sword? Christ will be victorious, so doesn’t it stand to reason that the Army of Christ will be the one wielding the sword in the second phrase? Boy, this sure sounds like a ratification of self-defense and just war, doesn’t it? Tours, Lepanto, Belgrade and Vienna leap to mind.

So there you go. Like I said, I’m no authority. I’m just a chick with a Douay-Rheims/Vulgate Bible and a Latin dictionary. I hope you find this interesting, and I hope it spurs thought and discussion. I also hope it drives home the point that the t***slation of the Bible that we use is utterly critical. It isn’t a mere “detail”. It is the difference between the T***h and a lie. I think my exegesis is rooted in Scripture, logic and love. I don’t think I’m simply fabricating things that aren’t there in order to support my own personal philosophical leanings, but then, I’m not a “theologian”. I guess we’ll all find out, someday.

God a good one for you all, by Ann Barnhardt

The One About JESUS and GUNS
Originally penned and posted on November 27, AD 2010.

We need to have a frank discussion about Christianity, war and pacifism, because we may all be making direct decisions about these huge questions in our own lives before long. Some scripture popped into my mind earlier this week, and I was able to really dig into it yesterday. I was taken aback by what I found but in a good way. I hope that this will help bring some clarity, or at the very least start some discussions.

First, a small but necessary sidetrack. I have been asked many times about which Bible t***slation I use or think is best. I used to hemm and haw and say something non-committal about the King James version. I now know beyond a shadow of a doubt what t***slation we need to be using. We need to be using the Douay-Rheims t***slation which was begun in 1582 and completed in 1610. It is only two steps removed from the original texts. The Douay-Rheims is the direct t***slation of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. St. Jerome was commissioned to t***slate the entire canon of scripture into Latin in the year ARSH 382 in pr********n for the Church Councils which finally set and canonized the Bible, particularly the Council of Carthage in ARSH 397. St. Jerome worked from ORIGINAL texts as much as possible, and t***slated from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The Douay-Rheims is the direct t***slation from St. Jerome’s t***slation of the original texts into modern English.

Remember, English as we recognize it today, has only been around for 550 years or so. If you were to be dropped into England earlier than the year ARSH 1450, you would have a very, very difficult time communicating. So, the Douay-Rheims has between it and the original texts only St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. I personally use a Bible that is Douay-Rheims side-by-side with the Latin Vulgate. As I pick up more and more Latin, I find myself reading the Latin, and using the English as a cross-check. There is an online version of the Douay-Rheims side-by-side with the Latin Vulgate at www.DRBO.org . You’re about to see that this is all very, very important.

Let’s go to Luke 22, The Last Supper.

Christ has just instituted the Eucharist and the Mass. By doing this in anticipation of His death on the Cross the next day, He has made Calvary the centerpoint of time. He has drawn the Old Testament forward to the Cross, and He has pulled the time after Calvary backward. Every moment in time will now pass through and be reconciled to Calvary.

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself.” John 12:32

What I want you to appreciate is the enormousness of the occasion. This is one of the most important things that has ever or will ever happen. This isn’t just a farewell meal. The entire world and everyone who ever has been or will be in it is utterly piv****g on what is happening in this room.

Let’s go to verse 35 through 38. Jesus has just told Peter that he will deny Him three times.

“When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want anything? But they said: Nothing. Then said He unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword. For I say to you that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in Me. And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning Me have an end. But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them: It is enough.”

FYI: “scrip” means money. What He is telling them is that they are about to encounter evil, and in pr********n for this they need to do wh**ever they need to do in order to prepare. He is saying that they need to reallocate their assets and “buy a sword”. In Latin, “emat gladium”.

Emat = buy, purchase, acquire, procure.

Gladium = sword.

Wow. I can hear the c*******ts and homosexualists screaming from here. “He didn’t really mean it! He wasn’t speaking literally! He was speaking figuratively!”

He was speaking, as God Almighty almost always does, on multiple levels, INCLUDING THE LITERAL. Oh, yes. I’ll concede that we should take from this scripture His call to reject materialism and gird ourselves for spiritual battle. No doubt. But if we delude ourselves into thinking that this is the ONLY sense in which He is speaking, we are missing something huge. Look at the last verse:

“But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them: It is enough.”

Okay. Stop, stop, stop. Hold the phone. Put out the cat. First of all, this proves that He was speaking in the literal sense in addition to the figurative sense. But more importantly, do you realize what this means? At least two of the apostles arrived at the Upper Room wearing side arms, which they then took off so they could sit on the floor around the low table that was used in those days. What this also means is that there were side arms present, in the room, at the Last Supper.

Now here is where all of the C*******t-homosexualists are going to absolutely lose it. What is the contemporary, technological equivalent of a sword? What is considered a “side arm” today? That’s right. A gun. A sword, in first century Judea was, without any doubt or question, an “assault weapon”. Now you can scream and spit and stomp and rage and retch all you want, but you know I’m right. The apostles report that they have two swords, and Jesus says, “It is enough.”

I saw in my research that some “scholars” try to paint Jesus as snapping at the apostles, trying to t***slate “Satis est (It is enough)” as “Oh, enough already!” I don’t hear that at all. I hear Him simply saying that two swords will be enough. This is where we get into huge problems with modern quasi-Christian “scholars” projecting their own agendas onto their t***slation of the Bible. Here are a couple of examples of bad, agenda-driven t***slations:

“Enough of that!” (Holman Christian Standard)

“Enough of that; no more sword talk!” (The Message – not a joke, they completely fabricated that second phrase. Evil.)

Even if you go with these false t***slations, you’re still stuck with the fact that there were side arms, assault weapons, IN THE ROOM at the Last Supper. What, are you going to argue that Jesus didn’t KNOW that there were swords in the room? Who is Jesus? He’s God Almighty. He knows EVERYTHING.

Further, if this was just a horrible mistake or coincidence, why would Jesus make specific reference to swords (which are assault weapons, remember) and arming one’s self, thus leading the apostles to inventory the weapons arsenal in the room?

FURTHER, why would the Holy Spirit, through Luke, put all of this down in writing? Why are we all sitting in front of our respective computer screens, poring through our Bibles, reading and discussing this 1980 years after the fact? Dude. It is not sufficient at this point to simply declare me a bloodthirsty, gun-toting war monger and then walk away. You have to refute and rebut the logical progression I just laid out. Good luck with that.

Now, let’s go to verse 49. They’re in the Garden, and Jesus has gone through His agony. Now Judas, with the Jewish guards, approaches. Judas kisses Jesus to show the guards which man they should arrest. The apostles see this and ask, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?”

Dude, they’re STILL ARMED. With ASSAULT WEAPONS. If Jesus was disgusted with the swords back in the Upper Room, why are the apostles wearing SWORDS (which are assault weapons, remember) in the Garden? Don’t you think that hippie, pacifist Jesus would have told them to LEAVE THE SWORDS BEHIND? And then scolded them? He didn’t do that. They put on their swords (which are assault weapons) and walked to the Garden. You know why? Because Jesus is neither a hippie nor a pacifist.

Next, Peter (and we know it was Peter from John 18) struck one of the guards and cut off his ear.

“And they that were about Him, seeing what would follow, said to Him: Lord, shall we strike with the sword? And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.”

So just to make certain that we are all appreciating this, Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is carrying a side arm and knows what to do with it. Now this next verse is the one that really surprised me:

“But Jesus answering, said: Suffer ye thus far. And when He had touched his ear, He healed him.”

Huh? What does “Suffer ye thus far” mean? Hmmm. Let’s look at some contemporary t***slations and see what they say:

“Stop! No more of this.” (New American Standard)

“Let them be. Even in this.” (The Message)

“No more of this!” (Holman Christian Standard)

Uh-oh. Facepalm. This is not good. These modern t***slations aren’t anywhere close to the Douay-Rheims. The words “stop” and “no” were obviously part of the English lexicon when the Douay-Rheims was made, and they are not used in this verse. Something is wrong here. In order to figure this out, let’s go to the Latin. “Sinite usque huc.”

Sinite: second person plural active imperative of “sino”
Sino: let, permit

Okay, so sinite means “you all let” or “you all permit” in the imperative case, which means a command.

(That makes sense! Like “suffer the little children to come unto Me” means “permit the little children . . . “)

Usque: adverb meaning “all the way”

Huc: adverb meaning here, hence, to this place, to this point

You all permit + all the way + here.

Our Lord isn’t scolding them. Our Lord isn’t saying “no more of this!” and barking at them to stop. Our Lord is giving them the command to hold and stand down.

“You all permit all the way here.”

You all permit all the way here.
You all permit all the way here.

This is a HUGE distinction. If a military commander gives his men the order to hold fire and stand down, is he criticizing them? Is he attacking and rebuking their use of weaponry? Is he communicating that they should be pacifists? Is he rejecting their vocations as soldiers? No! He is simply telling them to hold their fire and stand down because there is, at the moment, a tactical reason to do so. That is EXACTLY what is going on here. Our Lord isn’t rebuking the apostles because they are doing exactly what they should do – they are defending their Beloved Friend.

If your spouse, or your child, or your best friend, or whoever you love most in this world was being physically attacked and seized, what would you do? What would every fiber of your being be screaming out for you to do? Come to their defense and aid. This is called the Natural Law. God MADE us this way. God made us with the instinctual drive to physically fight to defend those we love. Failure to do so is the sin of cowardice. Cowardice is a violation of both of the Great Commandments: to love God above all else, and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Cowardice places the self above both neighbor and God. And in the case of the apostles, they were engaging both commandments (God and neighbor) directly in the person of Jesus.

This is why Our Lord had to give the order to hold and stand down. He had to specifically release them from the Great Commandments in that moment. Why? Two reasons: Obviously, it was the will of the Triune Godhead that Jesus be arrested and crucified. These things had to happen. The apostles couldn’t be expected to understand this at the time, so there was no expectation for them to quietly sit and watch as Jesus was arrested.

Remember who Jesus is. Jesus is God. He knows everything and everyone. Jesus knew every one of the men who came to arrest Him. Not only did He know them, He loved them all infinitely. He MADE every one of them. He wove them together in their mothers’ wombs. He knew every detail of their lives, every thought, every deed. And He loved them. Every single one of them. He also had a plan for every one of them. Like, oh I dunno, CONVERSION? Can you imagine the amount of grace those guards were exposed to? They got to TOUCH Him. They got to look right at Him, and speak to Him. He probably locked eyes with every one of them at some point. Don’t discount that. Even though they were absolutely horrible to Him, they were primed for conversion. We know that Malchus, the guy who got his ear cut off, and then was healed by Our Lord, converted. We don’t know about the other guards, but we do know that thousands and thousands of Jews were converted in the first years after the Resurrection. We also know who the first Gentile convert was. It was the Roman Centurion Longinus. Longinus was the Roman soldier who drove the spear into Jesus’ side to make certain He was dead, instead of breaking His legs. When the spear went in, it burst the cardiac edema, or the water that had built up around Our Lord’s Sacred Heart as He died of asphyxia and heart failure. Longinus, standing beside and below Jesus, was sprayed with that water. Baptism. When the all of the water had come out, Our Lord’s Precious Blood sprayed out. Eucharist.

Calvary IS the Mass. The Mass IS Calvary. The Last Supper was an ANTICIPATORY MASS that instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist AND ratified and elevated all of the previous licit, yet woefully inadequate sacrifices of mankind which were in accordance with the Natural Law. Calvary, and thus the Mass, reaches out through time in BOTH DIRECTIONS, like the crossbeam of the Cross itself, pulling all of time, both before and after, THROUGH the temporal centerpoint of Calvary.

And so, the first Gentile convert was a man who had just spent the past nine hours participating in the torture and execution of Jesus. Grace. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some of the Jewish guards in the garden were converted too. So we can see an additional reason, beyond the obvious, why Jesus told the apostles to stand down. It was His will that some or all of the guards survive and convert, not die in battle in that moment.

Finally, some might reference Jesus’ words in Matthew’s gospel:

“Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

Do you know what I think Jesus is doing here, in part? I think this may be a veiled prophecy about islam. Islam teaches that the way to convert people to the islamic political system is to put a sword to their neck and give them a choice: convert or die. This is referred to as “the Sword of islam”. This is how all other evil, satanic political systems operate as well. Marxism leaps to mind. In Marxist tyranny, people are arrested and imprisoned, given the choice to “learn the new system” and be “re-educated”, or die.

In addition to a veiled prophecy, Jesus is telling Peter that Christianity does not and will not convert with the sword. It converts only with love. AND, He is telling Peter and us that Christians do not and will not punish apostates (people who leave the faith, like Judas) with the sword. Both islam and Marxism execute apostates. But the second phrase, “shall perish with the sword” is very telling. Jesus is saying that those who “take the sword” and try to convert people to, and hold people in their evil systems by force will in the end be k**led WITH THE SWORD. Who will be wielding that sword? Christ will be victorious, so doesn’t it stand to reason that the Army of Christ will be the one wielding the sword in the second phrase? Boy, this sure sounds like a ratification of self-defense and just war, doesn’t it? Tours, Lepanto, Belgrade and Vienna leap to mind.

So there you go. Like I said, I’m no authority. I’m just a chick with a Douay-Rheims/Vulgate Bible and a Latin dictionary. I hope you find this interesting, and I hope it spurs thought and discussion. I also hope it drives home the point that the t***slation of the Bible that we use is utterly critical. It isn’t a mere “detail”. It is the difference between the T***h and a lie. I think my exegesis is rooted in Scripture, logic and love. I don’t think I’m simply fabricating things that aren’t there in order to support my own personal philosophical leanings, but then, I’m not a “theologian”. I guess we’ll all find out, someday.

Here's one for you guys.

This is by Ann Barnhardt,

The One About JESUS and GUNS
Originally penned and posted on November 27, AD 2010.

We need to have a frank discussion about Christianity, war and pacifism, because we may all be making direct decisions about these huge questions in our own lives before long. Some scripture popped into my mind earlier this week, and I was able to really dig into it yesterday. I was taken aback by what I found but in a good way. I hope that this will help bring some clarity, or at the very least start some discussions.

First, a small but necessary sidetrack. I have been asked many times about which Bible t***slation I use or think is best. I used to hemm and haw and say something non-committal about the King James version. I now know beyond a shadow of a doubt what t***slation we need to be using. We need to be using the Douay-Rheims t***slation which was begun in 1582 and completed in 1610. It is only two steps removed from the original texts. The Douay-Rheims is the direct t***slation of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. St. Jerome was commissioned to t***slate the entire canon of scripture into Latin in the year ARSH 382 in pr********n for the Church Councils which finally set and canonized the Bible, particularly the Council of Carthage in ARSH 397. St. Jerome worked from ORIGINAL texts as much as possible, and t***slated from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The Douay-Rheims is the direct t***slation from St. Jerome’s t***slation of the original texts into modern English.

Remember, English as we recognize it today, has only been around for 550 years or so. If you were to be dropped into England earlier than the year ARSH 1450, you would have a very, very difficult time communicating. So, the Douay-Rheims has between it and the original texts only St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. I personally use a Bible that is Douay-Rheims side-by-side with the Latin Vulgate. As I pick up more and more Latin, I find myself reading the Latin, and using the English as a cross-check. There is an online version of the Douay-Rheims side-by-side with the Latin Vulgate at www.DRBO.org . You’re about to see that this is all very, very important.

Let’s go to Luke 22, The Last Supper.

Christ has just instituted the Eucharist and the Mass. By doing this in anticipation of His death on the Cross the next day, He has made Calvary the centerpoint of time. He has drawn the Old Testament forward to the Cross, and He has pulled the time after Calvary backward. Every moment in time will now pass through and be reconciled to Calvary.

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself.” John 12:32

What I want you to appreciate is the enormousness of the occasion. This is one of the most important things that has ever or will ever happen. This isn’t just a farewell meal. The entire world and everyone who ever has been or will be in it is utterly piv****g on what is happening in this room.

Let’s go to verse 35 through 38. Jesus has just told Peter that he will deny Him three times.

“When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want anything? But they said: Nothing. Then said He unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword. For I say to you that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in Me. And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning Me have an end. But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them: It is enough.”

FYI: “scrip” means money. What He is telling them is that they are about to encounter evil, and in pr********n for this they need to do wh**ever they need to do in order to prepare. He is saying that they need to reallocate their assets and “buy a sword”. In Latin, “emat gladium”.

Emat = buy, purchase, acquire, procure.

Gladium = sword.

Wow. I can hear the c*******ts and homosexualists screaming from here. “He didn’t really mean it! He wasn’t speaking literally! He was speaking figuratively!”

He was speaking, as God Almighty almost always does, on multiple levels, INCLUDING THE LITERAL. Oh, yes. I’ll concede that we should take from this scripture His call to reject materialism and gird ourselves for spiritual battle. No doubt. But if we delude ourselves into thinking that this is the ONLY sense in which He is speaking, we are missing something huge. Look at the last verse:

“But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them: It is enough.”

Okay. Stop, stop, stop. Hold the phone. Put out the cat. First of all, this proves that He was speaking in the literal sense in addition to the figurative sense. But more importantly, do you realize what this means? At least two of the apostles arrived at the Upper Room wearing side arms, which they then took off so they could sit on the floor around the low table that was used in those days. What this also means is that there were side arms present, in the room, at the Last Supper.

Now here is where all of the C*******t-homosexualists are going to absolutely lose it. What is the contemporary, technological equivalent of a sword? What is considered a “side arm” today? That’s right. A gun. A sword, in first century Judea was, without any doubt or question, an “assault weapon”. Now you can scream and spit and stomp and rage and retch all you want, but you know I’m right. The apostles report that they have two swords, and Jesus says, “It is enough.”

I saw in my research that some “scholars” try to paint Jesus as snapping at the apostles, trying to t***slate “Satis est (It is enough)” as “Oh, enough already!” I don’t hear that at all. I hear Him simply saying that two swords will be enough. This is where we get into huge problems with modern quasi-Christian “scholars” projecting their own agendas onto their t***slation of the Bible. Here are a couple of examples of bad, agenda-driven t***slations:

“Enough of that!” (Holman Christian Standard)

“Enough of that; no more sword talk!” (The Message – not a joke, they completely fabricated that second phrase. Evil.)

Even if you go with these false t***slations, you’re still stuck with the fact that there were side arms, assault weapons, IN THE ROOM at the Last Supper. What, are you going to argue that Jesus didn’t KNOW that there were swords in the room? Who is Jesus? He’s God Almighty. He knows EVERYTHING.

Further, if this was just a horrible mistake or coincidence, why would Jesus make specific reference to swords (which are assault weapons, remember) and arming one’s self, thus leading the apostles to inventory the weapons arsenal in the room?

FURTHER, why would the Holy Spirit, through Luke, put all of this down in writing? Why are we all sitting in front of our respective computer screens, poring through our Bibles, reading and discussing this 1980 years after the fact? Dude. It is not sufficient at this point to simply declare me a bloodthirsty, gun-toting war monger and then walk away. You have to refute and rebut the logical progression I just laid out. Good luck with that.

Now, let’s go to verse 49. They’re in the Garden, and Jesus has gone through His agony. Now Judas, with the Jewish guards, approaches. Judas kisses Jesus to show the guards which man they should arrest. The apostles see this and ask, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?”

Dude, they’re STILL ARMED. With ASSAULT WEAPONS. If Jesus was disgusted with the swords back in the Upper Room, why are the apostles wearing SWORDS (which are assault weapons, remember) in the Garden? Don’t you think that hippie, pacifist Jesus would have told them to LEAVE THE SWORDS BEHIND? And then scolded them? He didn’t do that. They put on their swords (which are assault weapons) and walked to the Garden. You know why? Because Jesus is neither a hippie nor a pacifist.

Next, Peter (and we know it was Peter from John 18) struck one of the guards and cut off his ear.

“And they that were about Him, seeing what would follow, said to Him: Lord, shall we strike with the sword? And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.”

So just to make certain that we are all appreciating this, Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is carrying a side arm and knows what to do with it. Now this next verse is the one that really surprised me:

“But Jesus answering, said: Suffer ye thus far. And when He had touched his ear, He healed him.”

Huh? What does “Suffer ye thus far” mean? Hmmm. Let’s look at some contemporary t***slations and see what they say:

“Stop! No more of this.” (New American Standard)

“Let them be. Even in this.” (The Message)

“No more of this!” (Holman Christian Standard)

Uh-oh. Facepalm. This is not good. These modern t***slations aren’t anywhere close to the Douay-Rheims. The words “stop” and “no” were obviously part of the English lexicon when the Douay-Rheims was made, and they are not used in this verse. Something is wrong here. In order to figure this out, let’s go to the Latin. “Sinite usque huc.”

Sinite: second person plural active imperative of “sino”
Sino: let, permit

Okay, so sinite means “you all let” or “you all permit” in the imperative case, which means a command.

(That makes sense! Like “suffer the little children to come unto Me” means “permit the little children . . . “)

Usque: adverb meaning “all the way”

Huc: adverb meaning here, hence, to this place, to this point

You all permit + all the way + here.

Our Lord isn’t scolding them. Our Lord isn’t saying “no more of this!” and barking at them to stop. Our Lord is giving them the command to hold and stand down.

“You all permit all the way here.”

You all permit all the way here.
You all permit all the way here.

This is a HUGE distinction. If a military commander gives his men the order to hold fire and stand down, is he criticizing them? Is he attacking and rebuking their use of weaponry? Is he communicating that they should be pacifists? Is he rejecting their vocations as soldiers? No! He is simply telling them to hold their fire and stand down because there is, at the moment, a tactical reason to do so. That is EXACTLY what is going on here. Our Lord isn’t rebuking the apostles because they are doing exactly what they should do – they are defending their Beloved Friend.

If your spouse, or your child, or your best friend, or whoever you love most in this world was being physically attacked and seized, what would you do? What would every fiber of your being be screaming out for you to do? Come to their defense and aid. This is called the Natural Law. God MADE us this way. God made us with the instinctual drive to physically fight to defend those we love. Failure to do so is the sin of cowardice. Cowardice is a violation of both of the Great Commandments: to love God above all else, and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Cowardice places the self above both neighbor and God. And in the case of the apostles, they were engaging both commandments (God and neighbor) directly in the person of Jesus.

This is why Our Lord had to give the order to hold and stand down. He had to specifically release them from the Great Commandments in that moment. Why? Two reasons: Obviously, it was the will of the Triune Godhead that Jesus be arrested and crucified. These things had to happen. The apostles couldn’t be expected to understand this at the time, so there was no expectation for them to quietly sit and watch as Jesus was arrested.

Remember who Jesus is. Jesus is God. He knows everything and everyone. Jesus knew every one of the men who came to arrest Him. Not only did He know them, He loved them all infinitely. He MADE every one of them. He wove them together in their mothers’ wombs. He knew every detail of their lives, every thought, every deed. And He loved them. Every single one of them. He also had a plan for every one of them. Like, oh I dunno, CONVERSION? Can you imagine the amount of grace those guards were exposed to? They got to TOUCH Him. They got to look right at Him, and speak to Him. He probably locked eyes with every one of them at some point. Don’t discount that. Even though they were absolutely horrible to Him, they were primed for conversion. We know that Malchus, the guy who got his ear cut off, and then was healed by Our Lord, converted. We don’t know about the other guards, but we do know that thousands and thousands of Jews were converted in the first years after the Resurrection. We also know who the first Gentile convert was. It was the Roman Centurion Longinus. Longinus was the Roman soldier who drove the spear into Jesus’ side to make certain He was dead, instead of breaking His legs. When the spear went in, it burst the cardiac edema, or the water that had built up around Our Lord’s Sacred Heart as He died of asphyxia and heart failure. Longinus, standing beside and below Jesus, was sprayed with that water. Baptism. When the all of the water had come out, Our Lord’s Precious Blood sprayed out. Eucharist.

Calvary IS the Mass. The Mass IS Calvary. The Last Supper was an ANTICIPATORY MASS that instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist AND ratified and elevated all of the previous licit, yet woefully inadequate sacrifices of mankind which were in accordance with the Natural Law. Calvary, and thus the Mass, reaches out through time in BOTH DIRECTIONS, like the crossbeam of the Cross itself, pulling all of time, both before and after, THROUGH the temporal centerpoint of Calvary.

And so, the first Gentile convert was a man who had just spent the past nine hours participating in the torture and execution of Jesus. Grace. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some of the Jewish guards in the garden were converted too. So we can see an additional reason, beyond the obvious, why Jesus told the apostles to stand down. It was His will that some or all of the guards survive and convert, not die in battle in that moment.

Finally, some might reference Jesus’ words in Matthew’s gospel:

“Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

Do you know what I think Jesus is doing here, in part? I think this may be a veiled prophecy about islam. Islam teaches that the way to convert people to the islamic political system is to put a sword to their neck and give them a choice: convert or die. This is referred to as “the Sword of islam”. This is how all other evil, satanic political systems operate as well. Marxism leaps to mind. In Marxist tyranny, people are arrested and imprisoned, given the choice to “learn the new system” and be “re-educated”, or die.

In addition to a veiled prophecy, Jesus is telling Peter that Christianity does not and will not convert with the sword. It converts only with love. AND, He is telling Peter and us that Christians do not and will not punish apostates (people who leave the faith, like Judas) with the sword. Both islam and Marxism execute apostates. But the second phrase, “shall perish with the sword” is very telling. Jesus is saying that those who “take the sword” and try to convert people to, and hold people in their evil systems by force will in the end be k**led WITH THE SWORD. Who will be wielding that sword? Christ will be victorious, so doesn’t it stand to reason that the Army of Christ will be the one wielding the sword in the second phrase? Boy, this sure sounds like a ratification of self-defense and just war, doesn’t it? Tours, Lepanto, Belgrade and Vienna leap to mind.

So there you go. Like I said, I’m no authority. I’m just a chick with a Douay-Rheims/Vulgate Bible and a Latin dictionary. I hope you find this interesting, and I hope it spurs thought and discussion. I also hope it drives home the point that the t***slation of the Bible that we use is utterly critical. It isn’t a mere “detail”. It is the difference between the T***h and a lie. I think my exegesis is rooted in Scripture, logic and love. I don’t think I’m simply fabricating things that aren’t there in order to support my own personal philosophical leanings, but then, I’m not a “theologian”. I guess we’ll all find out, someday.

Now I have a statement against all those for gun control and those against our involvement in the Muslim jihad. Know that the best way to explain this us through Ms. Ann Barnhardt

She writes:

The One About JESUS and GUNS
Originally penned and posted on November 27, AD 2010.

We need to have a frank discussion about Christianity, war and pacifism, because we may all be making direct decisions about these huge questions in our own lives before long. Some scripture popped into my mind earlier this week, and I was able to really dig into it yesterday. I was taken aback by what I found but in a good way. I hope that this will help bring some clarity, or at the very least start some discussions.

First, a small but necessary sidetrack. I have been asked many times about which Bible t***slation I use or think is best. I used to hemm and haw and say something non-committal about the King James version. I now know beyond a shadow of a doubt what t***slation we need to be using. We need to be using the Douay-Rheims t***slation which was begun in 1582 and completed in 1610. It is only two steps removed from the original texts. The Douay-Rheims is the direct t***slation of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. St. Jerome was commissioned to t***slate the entire canon of scripture into Latin in the year ARSH 382 in pr********n for the Church Councils which finally set and canonized the Bible, particularly the Council of Carthage in ARSH 397. St. Jerome worked from ORIGINAL texts as much as possible, and t***slated from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The Douay-Rheims is the direct t***slation from St. Jerome’s t***slation of the original texts into modern English.

Remember, English as we recognize it today, has only been around for 550 years or so. If you were to be dropped into England earlier than the year ARSH 1450, you would have a very, very difficult time communicating. So, the Douay-Rheims has between it and the original texts only St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. I personally use a Bible that is Douay-Rheims side-by-side with the Latin Vulgate. As I pick up more and more Latin, I find myself reading the Latin, and using the English as a cross-check. There is an online version of the Douay-Rheims side-by-side with the Latin Vulgate at www.DRBO.org . You’re about to see that this is all very, very important.

Let’s go to Luke 22, The Last Supper.

Christ has just instituted the Eucharist and the Mass. By doing this in anticipation of His death on the Cross the next day, He has made Calvary the centerpoint of time. He has drawn the Old Testament forward to the Cross, and He has pulled the time after Calvary backward. Every moment in time will now pass through and be reconciled to Calvary.

“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself.” John 12:32

What I want you to appreciate is the enormousness of the occasion. This is one of the most important things that has ever or will ever happen. This isn’t just a farewell meal. The entire world and everyone who ever has been or will be in it is utterly piv****g on what is happening in this room.

Let’s go to verse 35 through 38. Jesus has just told Peter that he will deny Him three times.

“When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want anything? But they said: Nothing. Then said He unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword. For I say to you that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in Me. And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning Me have an end. But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them: It is enough.”

FYI: “scrip” means money. What He is telling them is that they are about to encounter evil, and in pr********n for this they need to do wh**ever they need to do in order to prepare. He is saying that they need to reallocate their assets and “buy a sword”. In Latin, “emat gladium”.

Emat = buy, purchase, acquire, procure.

Gladium = sword.

Wow. I can hear the c*******ts and homosexualists screaming from here. “He didn’t really mean it! He wasn’t speaking literally! He was speaking figuratively!”

He was speaking, as God Almighty almost always does, on multiple levels, INCLUDING THE LITERAL. Oh, yes. I’ll concede that we should take from this scripture His call to reject materialism and gird ourselves for spiritual battle. No doubt. But if we delude ourselves into thinking that this is the ONLY sense in which He is speaking, we are missing something huge. Look at the last verse:

“But they said: Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said to them: It is enough.”

Okay. Stop, stop, stop. Hold the phone. Put out the cat. First of all, this proves that He was speaking in the literal sense in addition to the figurative sense. But more importantly, do you realize what this means? At least two of the apostles arrived at the Upper Room wearing side arms, which they then took off so they could sit on the floor around the low table that was used in those days. What this also means is that there were side arms present, in the room, at the Last Supper.

Now here is where all of the C*******t-homosexualists are going to absolutely lose it. What is the contemporary, technological equivalent of a sword? What is considered a “side arm” today? That’s right. A gun. A sword, in first century Judea was, without any doubt or question, an “assault weapon”. Now you can scream and spit and stomp and rage and retch all you want, but you know I’m right. The apostles report that they have two swords, and Jesus says, “It is enough.”

I saw in my research that some “scholars” try to paint Jesus as snapping at the apostles, trying to t***slate “Satis est (It is enough)” as “Oh, enough already!” I don’t hear that at all. I hear Him simply saying that two swords will be enough. This is where we get into huge problems with modern quasi-Christian “scholars” projecting their own agendas onto their t***slation of the Bible. Here are a couple of examples of bad, agenda-driven t***slations:

“Enough of that!” (Holman Christian Standard)

“Enough of that; no more sword talk!” (The Message – not a joke, they completely fabricated that second phrase. Evil.)

Even if you go with these false t***slations, you’re still stuck with the fact that there were side arms, assault weapons, IN THE ROOM at the Last Supper. What, are you going to argue that Jesus didn’t KNOW that there were swords in the room? Who is Jesus? He’s God Almighty. He knows EVERYTHING.

Further, if this was just a horrible mistake or coincidence, why would Jesus make specific reference to swords (which are assault weapons, remember) and arming one’s self, thus leading the apostles to inventory the weapons arsenal in the room?

FURTHER, why would the Holy Spirit, through Luke, put all of this down in writing? Why are we all sitting in front of our respective computer screens, poring through our Bibles, reading and discussing this 1980 years after the fact? Dude. It is not sufficient at this point to simply declare me a bloodthirsty, gun-toting war monger and then walk away. You have to refute and rebut the logical progression I just laid out. Good luck with that.

Now, let’s go to verse 49. They’re in the Garden, and Jesus has gone through His agony. Now Judas, with the Jewish guards, approaches. Judas kisses Jesus to show the guards which man they should arrest. The apostles see this and ask, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?”

Dude, they’re STILL ARMED. With ASSAULT WEAPONS. If Jesus was disgusted with the swords back in the Upper Room, why are the apostles wearing SWORDS (which are assault weapons, remember) in the Garden? Don’t you think that hippie, pacifist Jesus would have told them to LEAVE THE SWORDS BEHIND? And then scolded them? He didn’t do that. They put on their swords (which are assault weapons) and walked to the Garden. You know why? Because Jesus is neither a hippie nor a pacifist.

Next, Peter (and we know it was Peter from John 18) struck one of the guards and cut off his ear.

“And they that were about Him, seeing what would follow, said to Him: Lord, shall we strike with the sword? And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.”

So just to make certain that we are all appreciating this, Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is carrying a side arm and knows what to do with it. Now this next verse is the one that really surprised me:

“But Jesus answering, said: Suffer ye thus far. And when He had touched his ear, He healed him.”

Huh? What does “Suffer ye thus far” mean? Hmmm. Let’s look at some contemporary t***slations and see what they say:

“Stop! No more of this.” (New American Standard)

“Let them be. Even in this.” (The Message)

“No more of this!” (Holman Christian Standard)

Uh-oh. Facepalm. This is not good. These modern t***slations aren’t anywhere close to the Douay-Rheims. The words “stop” and “no” were obviously part of the English lexicon when the Douay-Rheims was made, and they are not used in this verse. Something is wrong here. In order to figure this out, let’s go to the Latin. “Sinite usque huc.”

Sinite: second person plural active imperative of “sino”
Sino: let, permit

Okay, so sinite means “you all let” or “you all permit” in the imperative case, which means a command.

(That makes sense! Like “suffer the little children to come unto Me” means “permit the little children . . . “)

Usque: adverb meaning “all the way”

Huc: adverb meaning here, hence, to this place, to this point

You all permit + all the way + here.

Our Lord isn’t scolding them. Our Lord isn’t saying “no more of this!” and barking at them to stop. Our Lord is giving them the command to hold and stand down.

“You all permit all the way here.”

You all permit all the way here.
You all permit all the way here.

This is a HUGE distinction. If a military commander gives his men the order to hold fire and stand down, is he criticizing them? Is he attacking and rebuking their use of weaponry? Is he communicating that they should be pacifists? Is he rejecting their vocations as soldiers? No! He is simply telling them to hold their fire and stand down because there is, at the moment, a tactical reason to do so. That is EXACTLY what is going on here. Our Lord isn’t rebuking the apostles because they are doing exactly what they should do – they are defending their Beloved Friend.

If your spouse, or your child, or your best friend, or whoever you love most in this world was being physically attacked and seized, what would you do? What would every fiber of your being be screaming out for you to do? Come to their defense and aid. This is called the Natural Law. God MADE us this way. God made us with the instinctual drive to physically fight to defend those we love. Failure to do so is the sin of cowardice. Cowardice is a violation of both of the Great Commandments: to love God above all else, and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Cowardice places the self above both neighbor and God. And in the case of the apostles, they were engaging both commandments (God and neighbor) directly in the person of Jesus.

This is why Our Lord had to give the order to hold and stand down. He had to specifically release them from the Great Commandments in that moment. Why? Two reasons: Obviously, it was the will of the Triune Godhead that Jesus be arrested and crucified. These things had to happen. The apostles couldn’t be expected to understand this at the time, so there was no expectation for them to quietly sit and watch as Jesus was arrested.

Remember who Jesus is. Jesus is God. He knows everything and everyone. Jesus knew every one of the men who came to arrest Him. Not only did He know them, He loved them all infinitely. He MADE every one of them. He wove them together in their mothers’ wombs. He knew every detail of their lives, every thought, every deed. And He loved them. Every single one of them. He also had a plan for every one of them. Like, oh I dunno, CONVERSION? Can you imagine the amount of grace those guards were exposed to? They got to TOUCH Him. They got to look right at Him, and speak to Him. He probably locked eyes with every one of them at some point. Don’t discount that. Even though they were absolutely horrible to Him, they were primed for conversion. We know that Malchus, the guy who got his ear cut off, and then was healed by Our Lord, converted. We don’t know about the other guards, but we do know that thousands and thousands of Jews were converted in the first years after the Resurrection. We also know who the first Gentile convert was. It was the Roman Centurion Longinus. Longinus was the Roman soldier who drove the spear into Jesus’ side to make certain He was dead, instead of breaking His legs. When the spear went in, it burst the cardiac edema, or the water that had built up around Our Lord’s Sacred Heart as He died of asphyxia and heart failure. Longinus, standing beside and below Jesus, was sprayed with that water. Baptism. When the all of the water had come out, Our Lord’s Precious Blood sprayed out. Eucharist.

Calvary IS the Mass. The Mass IS Calvary. The Last Supper was an ANTICIPATORY MASS that instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist AND ratified and elevated all of the previous licit, yet woefully inadequate sacrifices of mankind which were in accordance with the Natural Law. Calvary, and thus the Mass, reaches out through time in BOTH DIRECTIONS, like the crossbeam of the Cross itself, pulling all of time, both before and after, THROUGH the temporal centerpoint of Calvary.

And so, the first Gentile convert was a man who had just spent the past nine hours participating in the torture and execution of Jesus. Grace. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some of the Jewish guards in the garden were converted too. So we can see an additional reason, beyond the obvious, why Jesus told the apostles to stand down. It was His will that some or all of the guards survive and convert, not die in battle in that moment.

Finally, some might reference Jesus’ words in Matthew’s gospel:

“Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

Do you know what I think Jesus is doing here, in part? I think this may be a veiled prophecy about islam. Islam teaches that the way to convert people to the islamic political system is to put a sword to their neck and give them a choice: convert or die. This is referred to as “the Sword of islam”. This is how all other evil, satanic political systems operate as well. Marxism leaps to mind. In Marxist tyranny, people are arrested and imprisoned, given the choice to “learn the new system” and be “re-educated”, or die.

In addition to a veiled prophecy, Jesus is telling Peter that Christianity does not and will not convert with the sword. It converts only with love. AND, He is telling Peter and us that Christians do not and will not punish apostates (people who leave the faith, like Judas) with the sword. Both islam and Marxism execute apostates. But the second phrase, “shall perish with the sword” is very telling. Jesus is saying that those who “take the sword” and try to convert people to, and hold people in their evil systems by force will in the end be k**led WITH THE SWORD. Who will be wielding that sword? Christ will be victorious, so doesn’t it stand to reason that the Army of Christ will be the one wielding the sword in the second phrase? Boy, this sure sounds like a ratification of self-defense and just war, doesn’t it? Tours, Lepanto, Belgrade and Vienna leap to mind.

So there you go. Like I said, I’m no authority. I’m just a chick with a Douay-Rheims/Vulgate Bible and a Latin dictionary. I hope you find this interesting, and I hope it spurs thought and discussion. I also hope it drives home the point that the t***slation of the Bible that we use is utterly critical. It isn’t a mere “detail”. It is the difference between the T***h and a lie. I think my exegesis is rooted in Scripture, logic and love. I don’t think I’m simply fabricating things that aren’t there in order to support my own personal philosophical leanings, but then, I’m not a “theologian”. I guess we’ll all find out, someday.

This woman did a piece on the Blessed Virgin Mary that is good and I invite everyone to read it. It is awesome. http://www.barnhardt.biz/2013/11/23/the-one-about-the-science-of-the-immaculate-conception-and-assumption-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary/

Who would have thought?

I would really like to know the Muslim response. That is awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

You may be interested in the arguments already fought at this topic, concerning Obama. http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-18698-1.html it is entitled, "God's Work: Arresting Obama and Gang, a Contitutional Crisis. "

If you choose to beat it up there, you are welcome.

Israel is under renewed attack.

With the eyes of the world fixed on ISIS, the jihadists of Hamas launched a barrage of rockets at Israel.

Hamas k**led a four-year-old Israeli child.

Yet the Obama Administration still tries to tie Israel's hands, declaring that it was "appalled" by Israel's acts of self-defense.

What's appalling is the Obama Administration's moral equivalence.

And now there's even news that Hamas wants Israelis tried in the International Criminal Court.

At the ACLJ, we're mobilizing a response. I led an ACLJ team to defeat Hamas in the International Criminal Court once, and we're working to do it again.

But we need your help.

Send a message to the Obama Administration. There is no moral equivalence.

Sign our Petition: Stand with Israel as the Rockets Fall. http://click.email.aclj.org/?qs=b1f48694d898137b5debce97fb56fb299e5ceba4ff5282dc02129474a5a02c314755a22afd3b0f0a

Jay Sekulow
ACLJ Chief Counsel

Let the discussions on the feuding Palestinians and Israel begin. This should be interesting......

Stop the foreign attacks on United States Citizens on our own land. With in the confines of our borders stop all attacks on America and their possessions. Simple, we did it in WWII and previously, why can't we do it now?

Follow and uphold the Constitution. Do not say or do, "I don't believe in this law or that", and not enforce a law passed by Congress. The hypocrisy is in signing into law a law he broke a month later. I would rather he veto that law.



To support and defend the constitution against All enemies foreign and domestic. I believe that was the oath he took and he is failing in doing that.



Again he took an oath to Support and defend, he has not done that yet.



Do you really want me to list everything again? I found 33 points and violations President Obama made against the Constitution and you want me to list them again with explanation. My friend, it would take all day, so I will just highlight a few.

Article I section 9, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind wh**ever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

President Obama has been identified as a "King" or "Imperial President" This is a violation of the above Article and section.

Article II section 1, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

This is a controversial issue. Barrack Obama may or may not be guilty of this. However, an Arizona politician, (I forget his name and position) did however find the proper evidence to conclude that Obama is a citizen of the United States. To this day, I am not 100% sure and neither are many citizens comfortable with the evidence presented.

Article II, section one, "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In various instances, he has not protected nor defended the Constitution. As stated here he has violated the constitution.

Article II section 2, "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

Barack Obama was just found guilty of violating this section of the Constitution by the Supreme Court of the United States. This is a confirmed violation.

Article II section 3, "SECTION. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."

Now this is a big violation. In the case of trading the terrorists, he should have convened Congress in Closed Session and discussed the issue thus notifying Congress of the exchange. He did not do this. Therefore, it was an act of Treason, for he gave comfort and aid to the enemy in time of war.

Another count under this same statute, is he failed to defend the borders and he failed to enforce the Protection of Marriage Act. The Protection of Marriage Act was enacted by Congress and he ignored the enforcement thereof. So does that mean we can ignore the Law known as Obamacare?

Article III section three, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

President Obama released terrorists thus giving aid and comfort to the enemy. This is therefore defined as treason according to the Constitution. Now, according to the testimony of the Secretary of State and the Defense Secretary the trade was completed. This verifies and can be used as witness that the crime was committed whether they believed it was treason or not.

Article IV section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

President Barack Obama has failed to protect the State of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas from the "Invasion of i*****l i*******ts" into the perspective states. This failure to protect the states on this issue lead to the formation of the law known as Arizona SB 1070 which since the Obama Administration, as a representative of the Executive enforcement portion of the Federal Government, failed to not only protect the state of Arizona, but then filed suit against the state for attempting to protecting themselves. This is an act of treason and a violation of their rights guaranteed therein this article and section.

Article VI, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Obama has ignored the authority of the Constitution as Supreme Law of the Land, by attempting to usurp the first Amendment, with the "Individual Mandate" of the Obamacare law making Obamacare more supreme then the Constitution. The Supreme Court however has chastised him for this attempt.

First Amendment, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

President Obama has attacked free speech, religion and the free exercise thereof, by not enforcing the Protection of Marriage Act, and Obamacare's Individual Mandate.

The tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

He attempts to usurp the powers of the States and people, ie, Obamacare and Arizona SB 1070, by ignoring to enforce the law as passed by Congress. Also he says, "I've got a pen and a cell phone" arrogantly abusing his power as chief executive.

So during the Term of Barrack Obama he has violated the Constitution of the United States many times. If there is a mistake here, please let me know. If you can find any other statues within the Constitution or feel that these accusations are not warranted by all means let me know.

I am just a concerned citizen who at one time swore to "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies Foreign and Domestic" and according to actions seen in the newspapers, on the internet, and on tv, whether or not it is ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Fox News or CNN, the conclusions return to the same issue.

President Barack Obama is guilty of infringement of the Constitution.



You must understand the rest of the world is not as open minded as Americans. Obama has failed the American People, but he has another chance to redeem himself. So what is he going to do? He has not strategy, he has no plan, now what?

This paranoia is on the Muslim side, or the extremist side, for Muslims are angered at this ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, thing too.

Been there done that and the USS Cole was attacked, this was after Desert Storm, when we were allied with Saudi Arabia. Are we still friends or subject to?

I can't speak for the rest of the paragraph because that is what I've been preaching all along. Now as far as the Israel/Palestine thing, it would have to be put on hold, until we get rid of ISIS. That is the biggest threat. Then we bring Palestine and Israel back to the diplomatic table.


Him bowing to a Saudi Prince is showing loyalty to the Saudi Prince not America, however I have already answered that one.



Your final thought is a good Idea. See we conservatives and you liberals can work together and find solutions. This I have always said, however, as far as Obama he has a choice to make, because even though he has hurt the Conservatives in reasons already posted, the Conservatives are a ruthless fighter type of people, but they are also a very forgiving type.

As I stated previously, the young adult is liberal and the older adult is conservative. Therefore the young can work with the old, if today's young would be more open minded as the old have been forced to be.

Incidentally, you have done what I requested and brought forth proof of your side and some of it I do agree with, make no mistake, however, the destiny of Obama's administration lies in the hands of Obama. You say he is a good leader, I say he isn't. Through fire gold is tested. Now the fire did not come from the Democrats or the Republicans, but rather ISIS. Therefore, is he going to handle this crisis like he did B******i, or is he going to handle it like Lois Lerner, where congress had to do the job of the Justice Department?

We would have never won the Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican war, Civil War, Spanish-American war, World War I, and World War II, Korea, Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom by fighting the war like we did Vietnam. McCain says that "Obama's strategy sounds a lot like what we did in Vietnam, and I'm against that."

Do you agree? Be Careful, because you asked and I provided.

Know this too, did you ever volunteer at the Firestation? How do you put out a brush fire when you do not have water around?

You have ears and can hear but do not listen to the meaning thereof. That is the modern way of saying you have ears yet you do not hear, you have eyes yet you do not see. Reread that statement, it is not gibberish and if you can't reason it out then you would truly not understand.

Let me ask you this question based upon what was written by me. If I spoke plainly and you did not understand it, it would be expected that you do not understand the analogy either.

I spoke plainly and you asked for an explaination, Then I gave an analogy and you still did not understand. How do I make you understand if you do not listen yet still hear, if you look and still do not see?

What good is bringing up yet once again the laws if no one would listen to them. I have presented the broken constitutional laws, that he has broken, and three Representatives from my state, as well as two senators from my state agreed with it.

It is amazing that the biggest target here in america for ISIS is Senator John McCain not President Obama. So if the enemy of my enemy is my friend, does that mean that ISIS is Democrat?

Sounds foolish doesn't it, but there you go. And if the Democrats are not in league with ISIS, why do the Democrats not do anything about this issue?

I hope I'm wrong. And before everyone condemns me for that statement, I condemn my self what makes you so different. I am trying to prove that statement wrong.

But if I prove the statement wrong, then the statement, of the Enemy of my enemy is not correct. But we know it is correct, therefore what am I missing?