#Jerusalem tax dispute

[zvaigzdelasas]

"Why doesn't Hamas just have elections?'

The result was a victory for Hamas, contesting under the list name of Change and Reform, which received 44.45% of the vote and won 74 of the 132 seats, whilst the ruling Fatah received 41.43% of the vote and won 45 seats.[1][...]

In the lead-up to the elections, on 26 September 2005 Israel launched a campaign of arrests against PLC members. 450 members of Hamas were detained, mostly those involved in the 2006 PLC elections. The majority of them were kept in administrative detention for different periods.[19] In the election period, 15 PLC members were captured and held as political prisoners.[20]

During the elections, the Israeli authorities banned the candidates from holding election campaigns inside Jerusalem. Rallies and public meetings were prohibited. The Jerusalem identity cards of some PLC members were also revoked.[21] The Carter Center, which monitored the elections, criticised the detentions of persons who "are guilty of nothing more than winning a parliamentary seat in an open and honest election".[22][...]

On 21 December 2005, Israeli officials stated their intention to prevent voting in East Jerusalem, which, unlike most of the Palestinian-inhabited areas that are planned to participate in the election, is under Israeli civil and military control. (Israel annexed East Jerusalem in the wake of the Six-Day War; this move has not been recognized by most other governments, or by the PNA, which claims Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital.) Israel's stated motivation was not the argument about sovereignty over the area (Palestinian voters in East Jerusalem had been allowed to vote in previous PNA elections despite the dispute) but concern over Hamas' participation in—and potential victory in—the election.[...]

The Israeli police arrested campaigners of Hamas and closed at least three Hamas election offices in East Jerusalem during the campaign.[26][27][...]

On 29 March 2006 a new government was formed by Hamas leader Ismail Haniya.

After the kidnap of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit on 25 June 2006, Israel launched a series of raids into Gaza and West Bank. Israel destroyed civilian infrastructure and arrested dozens of Hamas supporters, including elected cabinet ministers and members of the PLC. On 28 June overnight, the army invaded Gaza and performed airstrikes, bombing infrastructure such as bridges and an electricity station. On 29 June, the IDF detained from the West Bank 8 ministers and 26 PLC members in addition to many other political leaders.[19][41] By August 2006, Israel had arrested 49 senior Hamas officials, all from the West Bank, including 33 parliamentarians, "because technically they were members of a terrorist organisation although they may not be involved in terrorist acts themselves". Most of the Hamas detainees were moderate members from the West Bank who had been calling on the Gaza leadership to recognise Israel and make the party more acceptable to the international community. Hamas has accused Israel of trying to destroy the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.[42][...]

On 28 January 2006, Israel said it would prevent Hamas leaders, including newly elected PLC deputies, from travelling between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. On 29 January, Ehud Olmert said that after Hamas sets up a Government, Israel would stop transferring to the PA custom duties and taxes it had collected on their behalf until it was satisfied that they would not end up in the hands of "terrorists". US Secretary of State Rice declared that "The United States wants other nations to cut off aid to a Hamas-led Palestinian Government, also ruling out any US financial assistance to a Hamas Government." [45] On 17 February, one day before the new parliament was sworn in, the then Fatah-led government returned $50 million US aid that Washington did not want to come in the hands of the new government. The money had been intended for infrastructure projects in Gaza.[46][...]

Just before the January 2006 elections, and after witnessing Hamas' gains in municipal polls, the House of Representatives passed H.Res. 575 (December 16, 2005), asserting that terrorist groups, like Hamas, should not be permitted to participate in Palestinian elections until such organizations "recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, cease incitement, condemn terrorism, and permanently disarm and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure."[54] The Palestinian Authority chose to ignore this external decision[...]

The New York Times reported in February 2006 that "The United States and Israel are discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again. The intention is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election."[56] Just how much further matters would be taken was revealed in April 2008. Tom Segev (in Ha'aretz) reported:

a "confidential document, a 'talking points' memo,[57] was left by the U.S. consul general in Jerusalem, Jake Walles, on the desk of Mahmoud Abbas . … According to the paper left behind … he wanted to pressure Abu Mazen to take action that would annul the outcome of the elections that had catapulted Hamas to power. … When nothing happened, Walles … warned the Palestinian president that the time had come to act. Instead, Abu Mazen launched negotiations with Hamas on the establishment of a unity government. … At this point the Americans moved to "Plan B." That was a plan to eliminate Hamas by force. In fact, it was to be a deliberately fomented civil war Fatah was supposed to win, with U.S. help."[58][...]

Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America's behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.) Some sources call the scheme "Iran-contra 2.0," recalling that Abrams was convicted (and later pardoned) for withholding information from Congress during the original Iran-contra scandal under President Reagan. There are echoes of other past misadventures as well: the C.I.A.'s 1953 ouster of an elected prime minister in Iran, which set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution there; the aborted 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which gave Fidel Castro an excuse to solidify his hold on Cuba; and the contemporary tragedy in Iraq.[59]

The Jerusalem Post confirmed that the documents cited by Vanity Fair "have been corroborated by sources at the US State Department and Palestinian officials", and added:

The report said that instead of driving its enemies out of power, the US-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. David Wurmser, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney's chief Middle East adviser a month after the Hamas takeover, said he believed that Hamas had no intention of taking over the Gaza Strip until Fatah forced its hand. "It looks to me that what happened wasn't so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was preempted before it could happen," he was quoted as saying. Wurmser said that the Bush administration engaged in a "dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] with victory." Wurmser said he was especially galled by the Bush administration's hypocrisy. "There is a stunning disconnect between the president's call for Middle East democracy and this policy," he said. "It directly contradicts it.".[60][...]

The original article was cited by the Irish Times, the Israeli historian and political analyst, Tom Segev, in an article entitled "Bay of Pigs in Gaza", and also by Suzanne Goldenburg of The Guardian, who added "A state department memo put the cost for salaries, training and weapons at $1.27bn (£640m) over five years."[50]

The 2008 exposé by Vanity Fair (of plans to reverse the democratic 2006 PA parliamentary elections) confirmed a CF Report of January 2007, over a year earlier, by Alistair Crooke:

Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams ... has had it about for some months now that the U.S. is not only not interested in dealing with Hamas, it is working to ensure its failure. In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas elections, last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a "hard coup" against the newly-elected Hamas government — the violent overthrow of their leadership with arms supplied by the United States. While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant — the U.S. had to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that they could fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.

Over the last twelve months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank. A large number of Fatah activists have been trained and "graduated" from two camps — one in Ramallah and one in Jericho. The supplies of rifles and ammunition, which started as a mere trickle, has now become a torrent (Haaretz reports the U.S. has designated an astounding $86.4 million for Abu Mazen's security detail), and while the program has gone largely without notice in the American press, it is openly talked about and commented on in the Arab media. Of course, in public, Secretary Rice appears contrite and concerned with "the growing lawlessness" among Palestinians, while failing to mention that such lawlessness is exactly what the Abrams plan was designed to create."[61]

Voice of America reported that the Bush administration had denied the Vanity Fair report.[62]

In 2016 a 2006 audio tape emerged that contains an interview by Eli Chomsky of the Jewish Press with Hillary Clinton. Clinton opined that pushing for elections "in the Palestinian territories ... was a big mistake", adding "(a)nd if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."[63][...]

In June 2007 the Washington Post reported: "Hamas … leaders have accused Fatah's security services of working on behalf of Israeli and American interests because of a $40 million U.S. aid package to strengthen Abbas's forces. … The Israeli government has openly supported Fatah forces against Hamas, whose tightening control of Gaza alarmed Israeli defense officials.[67]

In a wikileaks cable dated 13 June 2007, Shin Bet security chief Yuval Diskin told U.S. Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones that: "Fatah had thus turned to Israel for help in attack Hamas", which he termed a new and unprecedented development in Jerusalem's relations with the Palestinian Authority.

In the cable sent to Washington, Jones said that Yadlin had been quite satisfied with Hamas' seizure of the Gaza Strip. If Hamas managed to take complete control then the Israel Defense Forces would be able to relate to Gaza as a hostile territory and stop looking at the militant group as an undiplomatic player, Yadlin apparently told Jones."[68]

[dwellordream]

“…In the Early Middle Ages, most French Jewish communities had settled in the southeast, on the shores of the Mediterranean. Although there were few Jews north of the Alps, they were the focus of restrictive laws that limited their freedom of movement and their ability to interact with Christians.

For instance, a mid-fifth-century council held in Troyes, northern France, prohibited Jews from going out of their houses to have any form of communication with Christians during Eastertide – a time celebrating the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, therefore a particularly tense period for the Jewish community who were accused of his murder.

A century later, other councils banned the appointment of Jews to any public office that would put them in a position of superiority over a Christian. Jews were no longer allowed to work on Sundays and were to refrain from eating with Christians. Intermarriage between Jews and Christians was forbidden in early Roman law codes, a prohibition early medieval law codes reiterated.

At that time, the fragile state of Christianity – still a relatively new religion in Europe – fueled the clergy’s anxieties. Clergymen were afraid Jewish people would “pollute” the minds of Christians and turn them away from the Church. They advocated relentlessly for their conversion to Christianity. This project was finally successful in the seventh century when the Merovingian king Dagobert called for the baptism or expulsion of the Jews of his kingdom. More than a century of political unrest followed.

Dagobert’s rule, during which Jewish communities grew again in size. By the end of the year 800, Charlemagne became emperor. Charles’ attitude towards the Jews was ambivalent but more open than before. Carolingian capitularies reiterated certain older restrictions, and the chancery levied heavy taxes on the Jews. Because of these taxes, Jews constituted a reliable source of income for the chancery. Charlemagne, therefore, granted the Jewish communities privileges safeguarding their autonomy and their rights to practice their religion.

For instance, Jews responded to their own laws for all matters concerning “low justice,” such as marriage and business contracts, small offences, and inter-community disputes. Murders, however, were to be tried by the Christian authorities. Until the First Crusade, the lives of medieval French Jews were relatively peaceful – only two episodes of violence were reported in the early eleventh century. But things were about to change.

Set in the context of religious zeal, the Crusades stirred the pot of hate. Pope Urban II came to France in 1095 and preached the First Crusade with tremendous success. The message was clear: Christians should take up arms to fight the enemies of God and Christianity. While the pope clearly laid out that the point was to free Jerusalem, some interpreted it differently. According to chronicler Guibert of Nogent (1055–1124), a group of men from Rouen, Normandy, had decided to leave for the East, but they began questioning their purpose:

“We want to attack the enemies of God in the east after traveling great distances, while before our eyes are the Jews, of all races God’s greatest enemy.”

Pondering their options, the men took their weapons, captured many Jews, and killed them, adults and children alike, only sparing those who accepted conversion. Then they left for Jerusalem.

The Crusades fueled dozens and dozens of pogroms across Western Europe. In the late eleventh and early twelfth century, the pressure to convert was immense, and the risks of refusing to convert were even greater. A mid-twelfth-century Christian chronicler, Richard of Poitiers, acknowledged the great sufferings of the Jewish people at the outset of the early crusades, of which he underlined the unfairness. But the anti-Jewish sentiment in the Christian communities only grew stronger.

In the aftermath of the crusades, European Jews were at the center of rumours propelled by distrust and suspicion. In Blois, France, in 1171, Christians accused members of the Jewish community of having murdered Christian children during religious rituals. Called the “blood libel,” these accusations first appeared in England and were attested across Western Europe from the twelfth century to the modern era. In Blois, the blood libel accusations lead to the dramatic death of more than 30 members of the community. The survivors’ estates were confiscated. Ten years later, King Philippe Augustus expelled the Jews from the royal domain.

Anti-Semitism received the Church’s support in the early thirteenth century at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). The council invited kings and rulers to force the Jews of their kingdoms to wear a distinctive symbol on their clothes or a specific hat that would make them immediately recognizable by Christians. In 1269, Louis IX of France made the symbols mandatory.

The thirteenth century also witnessed the forced segregation of Jews to specific areas. Traditionally, Jews lived together in neighbourhoods often nicknamed juiveries (Jewries). Paris counted four juiveries at that time. When Saint Louis made the distinctive symbols mandatory, he also forced the Jews to live in Jewries. Forced residence in Jewries signalled the birth of “ghettos,” neighbourhoods reserved for the Jewish population of a given town.

In the aftermath of the fourteenth-century plague, many Jewries were equipped with gates locked at night to prevent people from entering or exiting the district. Jewries started to turn into ghettos. The point of the ghettos, some rulers argued, was to protect the Jews from the violence Christians perpetrated against them. But ghettos also functioned as traps and participated in marginalizing the French Jewish communities.

The first decades of the fourteenth century were marked by an economic crisis and recurring food shortages. Anti-Semitism was on the rise again. In 1319 and 1321, Parisians – Christians – manifested their hatred toward Jews by publicly burning the Talmud. The plague signalled a new era of pogroms and violence against the Jews, who became the “scapegoats” of the crisis. The chronicler Jean de Venette witnessed and described the consequences of the plague for the Jews:

Some said that the pestilence was the result of infected air and water… and as a result of this idea, many began suddenly and passionately to accuse the Jews of infecting the wells, fouling the air, and generally being the source of the plague. Everyone rose up against them most cruelly. In Germany and elsewhere – wherever Jews lived – they were massacred and slaughtered by Christian crowds and many thousands were burned indiscriminately.

As Venette states, Christians accused the Jews of having poisoned wells to spread the disease. In Toulon, southern France, 40 Jews were killed by fire right after the epidemic started. In Strasbourg, northeastern France, in 1349, hundreds of Jews who lived in the city’s ghetto were locked up in a building by angry Christians and set on fire. Similar massacres happened in the pontifical city of Avignon, and in Narbonne, Carcassonne, and Toulouse, to cite but a few southern French examples.

Pope Clement VI (1291–1352) issued a bull forbidding the killing of Jews, but to no avail. Distrust and hatred were so intense that the city of Strasbourg, in the Rhine valley, expelled all Jews from its jurisdiction and forbade them from entering the city. This law was only removed from the city’s policies during the French Revolution in the late 1780s.

In many ways, medieval anti-Judaism paved the way for modern anti-Semitism. From accusations of greed and avarice to the blood libel, from the wearing of distinctive symbols to mandatory residence in ghettos, the Middle Ages witnessed the development of a series of stereotypes and a system of repression that had repercussions far into the twentieth century and the modern day.

But the Jewish communities of medieval France did not always live in fear. They enjoyed times of peace and independence and were, usually, relatively integrated into urban communities. Their role in the intellectual renaissance of the twelfth century is especially remarkable and well-marked in historiography.”

- Lucie Laumonier, “Hostility Against the Jews in Medieval France”

[literatureinalibrary]

Richard II

William Shakespeare

The play spans only the last two years of Richard's life, from 1398 to 1400. It begins with King Richard sitting majestically on his throne in full state, having been requested to arbitrate a dispute between Thomas Mowbray and Richard's cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, later Henry IV, who has accused Mowbray of squandering money given to him by Richard for the king's soldiers and of murdering Bolingbroke's uncle, the Duke of Gloucester. Bolingbroke's father, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, meanwhile, believes it was Richard himself who was responsible for his brother's murder. After several attempts to calm both men, Richard acquiesces and it is determined that the matter be resolved in the established method of trial by battle between Bolingbroke and Mowbray, despite the objections of Gaunt.

The tournament scene is very formal with a long, ceremonial introduction, but as the combatants are about to fight, Richard interrupts and sentences both to banishment from England. Bolingbroke is originally sentenced to ten years' banishment, but Richard reduces this to six years upon seeing John of Gaunt's grieving face, while Mowbray is banished permanently. The king's decision can be seen as the first mistake in a series leading eventually to his overthrow and death, since it is an error which highlights many of his character flaws, displaying as it does indecisiveness (in terms of whether to allow the duel to go ahead), abruptness (Richard waits until the last possible moment to cancel the duel), and arbitrariness (there is no apparent reason why Bolingbroke should be allowed to return and Mowbray not). In addition, the decision fails to dispel the suspicions surrounding Richard's involvement in the death of the Duke of Gloucester – in fact, by handling the situation so high-handedly and offering no coherent explanation for his reasoning, Richard only manages to appear more guilty. Mowbray predicts that the king will sooner or later fall at the hands of Bolingbroke.

John of Gaunt dies and Richard seizes all of his land and money. This angers the nobility, who accuse Richard of wasting England's money, of taking Gaunt's money (belonging by rights to his son, Bolingbroke) to fund war in Ireland, of taxing the commoners, and of fining the nobles for crimes committed by their ancestors. They then help Bolingbroke to return secretly to England, with a plan to overthrow Richard. There remain, however, subjects who continue to be faithful to the king, among them Bushy, Bagot, Green and the Duke of Aumerle (son of the Duke of York), cousin of both Richard and Bolingbroke. When King Richard leaves England to attend to the war in Ireland, Bolingbroke seizes the opportunity to assemble an army and invades the north coast of England. Executing both Bushy and Green, Bolingbroke wins over the Duke of York, whom Richard has left in charge of his government in his absence.

Upon Richard's return, Bolingbroke not only reclaims his lands but lays claim to the very throne. Crowning himself King Henry IV, he has Richard taken prisoner to the castle of Pomfret. Aumerle and others plan a rebellion against the new king, but York discovers his son's treachery and reveals it to Henry, who spares Aumerle as a result of the intercession of the Duchess of York while executing the other conspirators. After interpreting King Henry's "living fear" as a reference to the still-living Richard, an ambitious nobleman (Exton) goes to the prison and murders him. King Henry repudiates the murderer and vows to journey to Jerusalem to cleanse himself of his part in Richard's death.

[engelspolitics]

Bethlehem

https://www.grunge.com/620656/the-untold-truth-of-bethlehem/

Aside from Christ's birth, the town is associated with other biblical figures revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.

The original name, which persists today in English, essentially originates from the Hebrew words for "bread" and "house,” so Bethlehem" means "house of bread."

· Interestingly, "Bethlehem" can also mean "house of war" in Hebrew, since both bread and war come from the same root.

· In Arabic, Bethlehem means "house of meat." According to Christianity Today, the name might refer to the importance of animal husbandry and meat production.

Pre-biblical references to Bethlehem are rare. In fact, there may only be one reference to the town in the written record from Egypt.

· The Amarna Letters are a cache of texts found in Egypt that detail the correspondence of Egypt's pharaoh with numerous foreign rulers; Bethlehem is possibly mentioned in these letters, but scientists and historians disagree

However in 2012 that excavations in Jerusalem had unearthed a piece of an administrative seal inscribed with the words "Bethlehem," "seventh," and "king."

· The seal's inscription proved that the artifact was an administrative item used to stamp tax shipments sent to the royal seat in Jerusalem.

o Thus, in the eighth or seventh century B.C., the town was paying tribute to the kings of Judah and was important enough that its officials had their own seals

Bethlehem is mentioned in the Bible well before Jesus. The first mention is in Genesis in the context of the burial of one of Jesus' distant relatives, the matriarch Rachel.

· Her tomb, originally on a lonely roadside in the middle of nowhere, is shrouded in a beautiful tradition and has attracted controversy as of late due to its disputed status.

o According to Jewish tradition, Jacob had a vision of his suffering descendants crying out to her. So when she died, he buried her along the road so her suffering children would pass by and beg for her intercession with God. For this reason, Israel has controversially insisted on retaining control of the tomb.

o The tomb has seen its share of violence because of its centrality to Jewish tradition. According to Chabad, Jordanian forces banned Jewish prayer at the site in 1948. Today, according to the city website, Bethlehem is part of the Palestinian Territories.

The town was also the home of an ancestor of Jesus named David.

· David was selected over his elder brothers to become king of Israel, despite his humble station in life. According to Christian Foundations, he was anointed in Bethlehem

According to tradition, Jesus was born in a stable, but the Church of the Nativity is built over a cave that served as a shelter to shepherds and their flocks

· Used by shepherds to this day

· Justin Martyr, an early Father of the Church, corroborated the tradition of the cave birth.

o As a native of nearby Nablus, he would have known the area and its traditions well, so his testimony should be taken seriously.

Three controlling churches have divided the Church of Nativity among themselves.

· The Greek Orthodox Church holds approximately 80% of the property and is the majority shareholder. The Roman Catholic and Armenian Apostolic Churches own the rest, including the grotto.

o To ensure peace between the three churches and put an end to the squabbles, the Ottoman Empire in 1852 instituted the Status Quo. This balance, which is still in force today, means that the different denominations adhere to a strict schedule, ensure that each other’s services begin on time, and avoid touching each other's stuff

The fight over the church even helped ignite the Crimean War in 1853, a mere year after the Status Quo was enacted.

· France and Russia favored the Catholic and Orthodox churches' claims for primacy and guardianship of the church, forcing the Ottoman Empire to pick sides.

The Church of the Nativity has been burned and looted multiple times. A Jewish-Samaritan revolt against the Byzantines in 529 A.D. damaged the original church so badly that it had to be rebuilt.

Forces of the Persian Empire invaded the Byzantine Empire's territories in 614 A.D, sacking and looting churches for their valuables.

Eventually, they arrived in Bethlehem and prepared to loot the Church of the Nativity, but the commander noticed a mosaic depicting the Magi (Persian Zoroastrian priests), and he spared the church, not wishing to damage the mosaic.

· The mosaic hasn’t survived into modern times

There are fears that the Christian community Bethlehem is in danger of disappearing forever.

· Over 85% of the town's inhabitants were Christians of various denominations in 1950; by 2016, that number had declined precipitously to 12% and probably is less now due to mostly economic factors combined with a tense political situation.

· Economic and educational opportunities are fleeting in the Palestinian Territories but are plentiful in neighbouring Israel and in Western countries.

o Pope Francis has determined that there will be no Middle East without Christians, so steps must be taken to create a safe environment for the world's oldest Christian communities and discourage emigration. Bethlehem's first female mayor, Catholic Vera Baboun, made this a central part of her platform

Despite the collapse of Bethlehem's Christian population, the town is still a place of pilgrimage whose remaining Christians take their faith very seriously.

Christmas is celebrated three times in Bethlehem; on December 24-25 by the Catholic Church, on January 6—7 by the Orthodox and Greek Catholic Churches, which use the Revised Julian Solar Calendar, and on January 19 by the Armenian Apostolic Church, which uses the old Julian Solar Calendar à a month of festivities, processions, and masses/liturgies

Modern Bethlehem is famous for its bridal dresses

famous technique involves couching gold or silver thread onto their base materials to produce beautiful floral and linear patterns

[wannacontribute]

Trump ushered in a major victory

2020/10/28

The U.S. election has entered an unprecedented white-hot stage, but Trump, who is catching up in hardship, ushered in a major victory today. That is, the conservative judge Barrett he nominated successfully passed the vote of the U.S. Senate and became the highest in the United States. Justice of the court, this will be a major event that will affect the United States in the next few decades, and it will have a greater impact on the United States than the United States presidential campaign. This may become the most important watershed for the United States.

The U.S. Senate voted against Barrett with 52 votes in favor and 48 votes against. All Democrats voted against, and only one Republican voted against because the Republican Party occupied the majority of seats in the U.S. Senate, leading to Barrett. Without any suspense, he became a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States.

This has also set a historical record. This is the first time in the United States in 151 years that the President of the United States has successfully appointed a justice without the approval of any minority party senator. This shows how fierce the US party dispute is now. It is really black. That is white, you die and you live.

Despite the continuous protests of the Democratic Party and the constant demonstrations outside the White House, the appointment of a justice was finally completed. This is the current situation in the United States. It is very ironic. In this way, the conservative judges of the U.S. Supreme Court have There are 6 judges, and there are only 3 liberal judges. This is a victory for the Republican Party, but a regression for the United States.

Because the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are lifelong, except for death, resignation, voluntary retirement, impeachment, and conviction, they will die. This means that the three conservative justices appointed by Trump during his tenure will affect the United States. In the judiciary for decades, as a result, the national atmosphere in the United States will become more conservative.

It can be said that Trump was also very lucky at this point, and even appointed three conservative justices during his tenure. However, he also broke a common practice, that is not to appoint justices before the US general election. Once this historical convention is broken, the Democratic Party will no longer make concessions in the future. Trump broke this historical tradition because he himself reached the edge of the cliff and had to do so at the most dangerous moment.

If the U.S. election is caught in a state of anxiety and the losing party does not accept the results of the election, the U.S. election will eventually fall into legal proceedings, and the U.S. Supreme Court will finally decide. At this time, if the conservative judges of the U.S. Supreme Court dominate. Most of the words, then it is very beneficial to Trump, so Trump and the Republican Party, regardless of how strong the Democrats and the American people are opposed, must break the historical tradition to appoint justices before the election.

Moreover, according to the situation in the US election this year, this election will definitely fall into huge controversy. As long as Trump loses, he will eventually inevitably appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the end, it will depend on the conservative justices of the Supreme Court. If the judge also backed Trump against his will for political reasons, the United States would really be over.

Of course, there may also be a situation, that is, the three conservative justices appointed by Trump may also make rulings against Trump. After all, Trump’s treason and separation from his relatives may lead to the maintenance of Trump. Impeachment by the U.S. Congress. For example, some important officials appointed by Trump have also turned against them. For example, the US Secretary of Defense Esper appointed by Trump often fails to implement Trump's orders, as well as the US FBI Director and the US Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary also often failed to implement Trump's orders, and the subsequent US election was caught in litigation. The conservative judges of the Supreme Court did not rule out not supporting Trump.

Regardless of the future, on the surface, Trump ushered in an important victory, which boosted the morale of Trump’s side. In addition to the possibility that the U.S. election may fall into litigation and ultimately require the Supreme Court to decide, there is another reason Trump must break The historical tradition appoints conservative justices before the general election, that is, once Trump loses in the general election, in order to avoid being liquidated and sent to prison, Trump must do the same.

If Trump loses in the general election and eventually enters the White House and becomes the President of the United States, then the Democratic Party will definitely do everything possible to send Trump to jail. After all, Trump and his gang have done too many illegal and criminal things. For example, through Russia, there are tax evasion, abuse of power, interference in judicial justice, deliberately concealing crimes against humanity that the new crown pneumonia epidemic has caused a large number of Americans to die, etc. The heinous crimes committed by Trump, the Democratic Party will not let go, the United States The people will not let it go. As long as Trump steps down, it is normal to be liquidated and sent to prison.

Once Trump is liquidated and prosecuted, the lawsuit is likely to go to the Supreme Court of the United States. Therefore, Trump desperately appoints conservative justices before the election, but also for his defeat or expiration from the throne of the US president. Later, he added a life saver to himself, after all, he appointed three conservative justices.

In addition to a major victory for Trump, the successful appointment of Barrett as a judge of the U.S. Supreme Court also ushered in a failure. That is, Trump’s cadre and Secretary of State Pompeo were investigated. This person is a fighter in the scum and a public enemy of mankind. In order to please and cater to Trump, he has done too many bad things all over the world. It is simply a shame to the United States, but such a person is proud of being around Trump.

But this time Pompeo was investigated. Trump lost his left and right arms. The U.S. Congress investigated whether Pompeo used the political resources of the U.S. State Department to conduct improper activities. For example, Pompeo was the Republican party during his visit to Jerusalem. The conference platform and delivering a speech violated the American Hatch Act. And Pompeo often uses American tax resources to pay for some of his and his wife’s entertainment, and uses American government resources to pave the way for future elections for the US president, and so on.

Pompeo once publicly admitted to lying, theft, robbery, etc., a person with such a bad character, but has very big ambitions, just like Trump, participate in the US presidential election and become the White House, this Man is a typical careerist. He has Trump’s illness, but he may not have Trump’s life.

In just one day, Trump ushered in a major victory, paving the way for himself, but also ushered in a defeat. The cadres around him were cut off one by one, and now he is basically left alone. After fighting, the Republican Party would have abandoned him if it weren't for the life-and-death party struggle in the United States, but such a person will not admit defeat until the last moment, and may also perform miracles. It is really fate.

[lawrenceop]

HOMILY for 29th December

The Feast of St Thomas of Canterbury

Today’s celebration is unique to England. For only in England, in the extraordinary form calendar, is today’s feast of St Thomas of Canterbury ranked as a first class feast, and so allowed to be celebrated in the Octave of Christmas, and even on a Sunday. However, there is a fittingness to this since the Christmas Octave is, we’ll have noticed, a time of martyrs. For the liturgy draws our attention to the many different ways in which people have witnessed to Christ, even to the point of death. The Liturgy thus teaches us that because of the Incarnation of Christ, and by his saving work on the Cross, the martyrs bear witness to a new transformed reality for mankind: that henceforth those who die in Christ and particularly for the martyrs, the day of one’s death becomes one’s birthday, one’s day of entry into heaven. Hence the protomartyr St Stephen said as he was stoned to death at the gates of Jerusalem: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.” Thus, the martyr went in through the gates of the new Jerusalem to share in the victory of Christ.

So, on this day in 1170, a poor-born Londoner who became an Archbishop, in his own Cathedral of Christ Church at Canterbury, ordered that the doors of the cathedral be thrown open to admit the four knights and one subdeacon who would consequently murder him. Thus the doors of heaven were also thrown open to admit the new martyr of Christ, St Thomas Becket.

In T.S. Eliot’s magnificent dramatisation of this day’s events, Murder in the Cathedral, St Thomas says: “Unbar the door!… I give my life/ to the Law of God above the Law of Man… Unbar the door! unbar the door! We are not here to triumph by fighting, by stratagem, or by resistance. Not to fight with beasts as men. We have fought the beast/ And have conquered. We have only to conquer/ Now, by suffering. This is the easier victory. / Now is the triumph of the Cross, now/ Open the door! I command it. open the door!” The authoritative account of St Thomas’s last words likewise says: “It is not right to turn the house of prayer, the church of Christ, into a fortress… we will triumph over the enemy not by fighting but by suffering, for we have come to suffer, not to resist… See I am ready to suffer in the name of Him who redeemed me with His blood.”

The martyr, therefore, is one who is ready to suffer for Christ and with Christ. For he is infused with the virtue of fortitude. After his death, St Thomas was found wearing a hair-shirt, and it was said that during his years of exile to the Cistercian monastery of Pontigny in France he lived a life that exceeded the austerity of the monks. This is unsurprising for one is prepared for the grace of martyrdom by acts of penance and self-discipline which fortifies the soul. So fortified in himself by these acts of devotion and prayer, St Thomas thus had the courage to say: “The church is not a fortress but the house of prayer.” 

So, if we wish, in our time, to defend the faith, to stand up for the Church, and to witness to Christ’s truth, then the Church puts before us today the example of St Thomas of Canterbury. We are called to pray, and to be ready to suffer for Christ. Victory belongs to Christ and has already been won, but we may not see this temporal triumph in our own lifetimes, nor in our own political and social struggles. Rather, Christ promises only that, if we are faithful in prayer and penance, that we will see the triumph of his grace in our lives; that he will give us heavenly gifts and virtues that will enable us to endure to the end. Strikingly, T.S. Eliot calls this the “easier victory”. Why? Because we have only to conquer our own selves. Granted, it is the hard work of a lifetime to conquer our fears, our sins, our pride, our disordered desires, and to submit in humility to the Cross. But nevertheless, this is the gentle yoke of grace, which Christ rightly says is a burden that is “easy and light”. 

However, why was St Thomas killed? What exactly did he die for? It’s often said that he died for the rights of the Church, and this is true. In 1164, King Henry II had put forward legal claims for the Crown that would have restricted the independence of the clergy, and weakened their connection with the Papacy. St Thomas resisted, and fled into Exile rather than submit to the king, and he threatened spiritual sanctions such as excommunication. 

Among the rights demanded by the king were disputes over land and taxes. However, there was also a claim by the king to the right to put clerics on trial for secular crimes. In our time, this issue remains lively and relevant. For the Church in England is currently being investigated by the State for historical crimes against minors and the vulnerable committed by her clerics, her priests. And this, I believe, is just. For St Thomas Becket did not die so that accused clerics could be protected from the Law, nor so that the Church could shield her priests from the temporal judgement and punishments that their crimes rightly deserve. Rather, St Thomas died for the independence of the Church so that she could stand up for the truth. The right of the Church, for which St Thomas and other martyrs of this land have died, therefore, is essentially this: the right to freely preach and proclaim the truth of the Gospel. 

Sadly, the suspicion – all too often confirmed – that members of the Church in this land, including high-ranking clerics, have hidden the truth of the crimes of certain clerics and religious, has hindered the preaching of the Gospel. It is now harder, because of a vainglorious concern to defend the “rights of the Church”, for us to be seen as preachers of the truth. I think this is because it had been forgotten that the only right we need as a Church is to be free to preach the truth, that is, free to witness to the person of Jesus Christ who is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” (Jn 14:6) St Thomas of Canterbury knew this. Thus he embraced the suffering of the Cross; embraced his martyrdom for Christ; and so he died with Christ. We too, as a Church in England, need to know this. We need to turn to God in prayer and penance, and be prepared to suffer for Christ and with Christ as St Thomas had been ready. For, as our Lord said, only the truth will set us free (Jn 8:32). Our current situation, therefore, is a call by the Holy Spirit for the whole Church in these lands to be truthful, and to stand up once more for the truth, for the fullness of the Gospel. 

Happily, yesterday, I saw a sign of hope. A Bishop, in his own diocese of Portsmouth, spoke on the national radio (BBC 4) asking for forgiveness for “the wrongs committed in the past” against children and vulnerable adults. But he also proclaimed the Gospel of Life, and had the pastoral courage to ask: “How do we safeguard the most vulnerable creature of all: the unborn child in its mother’s womb – innocent, dependent, defenceless?” Something of the fortitude of St Thomas of Canterbury lives on! Therefore, may St Thomas intercede for us, and especially for the pastoral clergy in England and Wales, whose patron he is. 

[orthodoxydaily]

Saints&Reading: Sat., Aug 15, 2020

Commemorated on August 2_Julian calendar

The Transfer from Jerusalem to Constantinople of the Relics of the Holy FirstMartyr (protomartyr) Stephen (428)

     The Transfer from Jerusalem to Constantinople of the Relics of the Holy FirstMartyr Stephen occurred in about the year 428.      After the holy FirstMartyr Archdeacon Stephen was pelted with stones by the Jews, they threw his holy body without burial for devouring by the beasts and birds. The reknown Jewish law-teacher Gamaliel, having begun to be inclined towards faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and also defending the Apostles at the Sanhedrin (Acts 5: 34-40), on the second night sent people devoted to him to take up the body of the Firstmartyr. Gamaliel gave him burial on his own grounds, in a cave, not far from Jerusalem. When in turn there died the secret disciple of the Lord, Nicodemus, who had come to Christ at night (Jn. 3: 1-21; 7: 50-52; 19: 38-42), Gamaliel likewise buried him nearby the grave of Archdeacon Stephen. Afterwards Gamaliel himself, having accepted holy Baptism together with his son Habib, was buried near the grave of the FirstMartyr Stephen and Saint Nicodemus. In the year 415 the relics of the saint were uncovered in a miraculous manner and solemnly transferred to Jerusalem by the archbishop John together with the bishops Eleutherios of Sebasteia and Eleutherios of Jericho. From that time began healings from the relics.      Afterwards, during the reign of holy nobleborn emperor Theodosius the Younger (408-450), the relics of the holy FirstMartyr Stephen were transferred from Jerusalem to Constantinople and placed in a church in honour of the holy Deacon Laurentius, and after the construction of a temple in honour of the FirstMartyr Stephen the relics were transferred there on 2 August. The right hand of the FirstMartyr is preserved in the Serapionov chamber of the Troitsky-Sergiev Lavra.

© 1996-2001 by translator Fr. S. Janos.

Acts 6:8-15; 7:1-5, 47-60 (Protomartyr)

8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.

9 Then there arose some from what is called the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from Cilicia and Asia), disputing with Stephen.

10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke.

11 Then they secretly induced men to say, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God."

12 And they stirred up the people, the elders, and the scribes; and they came upon him, seized him, and brought him to the council.

13 They also set up false witnesses who said, "This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law;

14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.

15 And all who sat in the council, looking steadfastly at him, saw his face as the face of an angel.

1 Then the high priest said, "Are these things so?"

2 And he said, "Brethren and fathers, listen: The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran,

3 and said to him, 'Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you.'

4 Then he came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran. And from there, when his father was dead, He moved him to this land in which you now dwell.

5 And God gave him no inheritance in it, not even enough to set his foot on. But even when Abraham had no child, He promised to give it to him for a possession, and to his descendants after him.

47But Solomon built Him a house.

48 However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:

49 Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the LORD, Or what is the place of My rest?

50Has My hand not made all these things?'

51You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

52Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers,

53who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.

54When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.

55But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,

56and said, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"

57Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord;

58and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

60Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not charge them with this sin." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Matthew 17:24-18:4

24When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, "Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?"

25He said, "Yes." And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?"

26Peter said to Him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.

27Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

2Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them,

3and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

4Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

[araitsume]

The Desire of Ages, pp. 432-442: Chapter (48) Who Is the Greatest?

This chapter is based on Matthew 17:22-27; Matthew 18:1-20; Mark 9:30-50; Luke 9:46-48.

On returning to Capernaum, Jesus did not repair to the well-known resorts where He had taught the people, but with His disciples quietly sought the house that was to be His temporary home. During the remainder of His stay in Galilee it was His object to instruct the disciples rather than to labor for the multitudes.

On the journey through Galilee, Christ had again tried to prepare the minds of His disciples for the scenes before Him. He told them that He was to go up to Jerusalem to be put to death and to rise again. And He added the strange and solemn announcement that He was to be betrayed into the hands of His enemies. The disciples did not even now comprehend His words. Although the shadow of a great sorrow fell upon them, a spirit of rivalry found a place in their hearts. They disputed among themselves which should be accounted greatest in the kingdom. This strife they thought to conceal from Jesus, and they did not, as usual, press close to His side, but loitered behind, so that He was in advance of them as they entered Capernaum. Jesus read their thoughts, and He longed to counsel and instruct them. But for this He awaited a quiet hour, when their hearts should be open to receive His words.

Soon after they reached the town, the collector of the temple revenue came to Peter with the question, “Doth not your Master pay tribute?” This tribute was not a civil tax, but a religious contribution, which every Jew was required to pay annually for the support of the temple. A refusal to pay the tribute would be regarded as disloyalty to the temple,—in the estimation of the rabbis a most grievous sin. The Saviour's attitude toward the rabbinical laws, and His plain reproofs to the defenders of tradition, afforded a pretext for the charge that He was seeking to overthrow the temple service. Now His enemies saw an opportunity of casting discredit upon Him. In the collector of the tribute they found a ready ally.

Peter saw in the collector's question an insinuation touching Christ's loyalty to the temple. Zealous for his Master's honor, he hastily answered, without consulting Him, that Jesus would pay the tribute.

But Peter only partially comprehended the purpose of his questioner. There were some classes who were held to be exempt from the payment of the tribute. In the time of Moses, when the Levites were set apart for the service of the sanctuary, they were given no inheritance among the people. The Lord said, “Levi hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren; the Lord is his inheritance.” Deuteronomy 10:9. In the days of Christ the priests and Levites were still regarded as especially devoted to the temple, and were not required to make the annual contribution for its support. Prophets also were exempted from this payment. In requiring the tribute from Jesus, the rabbis were setting aside His claim as a prophet or teacher, and were dealing with Him as with any commonplace person. A refusal on His part to pay the tribute would be represented as disloyalty to the temple; while, on the other hand, the payment of it would be taken as justifying their rejection of Him as a prophet.

Only a little before, Peter had acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God; but he now missed an opportunity of setting forth the character of his Master. By his answer to the collector, that Jesus would pay the tribute, he had virtually sanctioned the false conception of Him to which the priests and rulers were trying to give currency.

When Peter entered the house, the Saviour made no reference to what had taken place, but inquired, “What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?” Peter answered, “Of strangers.” And Jesus said, “Then are the children free.” While the people of a country are taxed for the maintenance of their king, the monarch's own children are exempt. So Israel, the professed people of God, were required to maintain His service; but Jesus, the Son of God, was under no such obligation. If priests and Levites were exempt because of their connection with the temple, how much more He to whom the temple was His Father's house.

If Jesus had paid the tribute without a protest, He would virtually have acknowledged the justice of the claim, and would thus have denied His divinity. But while He saw good to meet the demand, He denied the claim upon which it was based. In providing for the payment of the tribute He gave evidence of His divine character. It was made manifest that He was one with God, and therefore was not under tribute as a mere subject of the kingdom.

“Go thou to the sea,” He directed Peter, “and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for Me and thee.”

Though He had clothed His divinity with humanity, in this miracle He revealed His glory. It was evident that this was He who through David had declared, “Every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains; and the wild beasts of the field are Mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is Mine, and the fullness thereof.” Psalm 50:10-12.

While Jesus made it plain that He was under no obligation to pay the tribute, He entered into no controversy with the Jews in regard to the matter; for they would have misinterpreted His words, and turned them against Him. Lest He should give offense by withholding the tribute, He did that which He could not justly be required to do. This lesson would be of great value to His disciples. Marked changes were soon to take place in their relation to the temple service, and Christ taught them not to place themselves needlessly in antagonism to established order. So far as possible, they were to avoid giving occasion for misinterpretation of their faith. While Christians are not to sacrifice one principle of truth, they should avoid controversy whenever it is possible to do so.

When Christ and the disciples were alone in the house, while Peter was gone to the sea, Jesus called the others to Him, and asked, “What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?” The presence of Jesus, and His question, put the matter in an entirely different light from that in which it had appeared to them while they were contending by the way. Shame and self-condemnation kept them silent. Jesus had told them that He was to die for their sake, and their selfish ambition was in painful contrast to His unselfish love.

When Jesus told them that He was to be put to death and to rise again, He was trying to draw them into conversation in regard to the great test of their faith. Had they been ready to receive what He desired to make known to them, they would have been saved bitter anguish and despair. His words would have brought consolation in the hour of bereavement and disappointment. But although He had spoken so plainly of what awaited Him, His mention of the fact that He was soon to go to Jerusalem again kindled their hope that the kingdom was about to be set up. This had led to questioning as to who should fill the highest offices. On Peter's return from the sea, the disciples told him of the Saviour's question, and at last one ventured to ask Jesus, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

The Saviour gathered His disciples about Him, and said to them, “If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.” There was in these words a solemnity and impressiveness which the disciples were far from comprehending. That which Christ discerned they could not see. They did not understand the nature of Christ's kingdom, and this ignorance was the apparent cause of their contention. But the real cause lay deeper. By explaining the nature of the kingdom, Christ might for the time have quelled their strife; but this would not have touched the underlying cause. Even after they had received the fullest knowledge, any question of precedence might have renewed the trouble. Thus disaster would have been brought to the church after Christ's departure. The strife for the highest place was the outworking of that same spirit which was the beginning of the great controversy in the worlds above, and which had brought Christ from heaven to die. There rose up before Him a vision of Lucifer, the “son of the morning,” in glory surpassing all the angels that surround the throne, and united in closest ties to the Son of God. Lucifer had said, “I will be like the Most High” (Isaiah 14:12, 14); and the desire for self-exaltation had brought strife into the heavenly courts, and had banished a multitude of the hosts of God. Had Lucifer really desired to be like the Most High, he would never have deserted his appointed place in heaven; for the spirit of the Most High is manifested in unselfish ministry. Lucifer desired God's power, but not His character. He sought for himself the highest place, and every being who is actuated by his spirit will do the same. Thus alienation, discord, and strife will be inevitable. Dominion becomes the prize of the strongest. The kingdom of Satan is a kingdom of force; every individual regards every other as an obstacle in the way of his own advancement, or a steppingstone on which he himself may climb to a higher place.

While Lucifer counted it a thing to be grasped to be equal with God, Christ, the Exalted One, “made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:7, 8. Now the cross was just before Him; and His own disciples were so filled with self-seeking—the very principle of Satan's kingdom—that they could not enter into sympathy with their Lord, or even understand Him as He spoke of His humiliation for them.

Very tenderly, yet with solemn emphasis, Jesus tried to correct the evil. He showed what is the principle that bears sway in the kingdom of heaven, and in what true greatness consists, as estimated by the standard of the courts above. Those who were actuated by pride and love of distinction were thinking of themselves, and of the rewards they were to have, rather than how they were to render back to God the gifts they had received. They would have no place in the kingdom of heaven, for they were identified with the ranks of Satan.

Before honor is humility. To fill a high place before men, Heaven chooses the worker who, like John the Baptist, takes a lowly place before God. The most childlike disciple is the most efficient in labor for God. The heavenly intelligences can co-operate with him who is seeking, not to exalt self, but to save souls. He who feels most deeply his need of divine aid will plead for it; and the Holy Spirit will give unto him glimpses of Jesus that will strengthen and uplift the soul. From communion with Christ he will go forth to work for those who are perishing in their sins. He is anointed for his mission; and he succeeds where many of the learned and intellectually wise would fail.

But when men exalt themselves, feeling that they are a necessity for the success of God's great plan, the Lord causes them to be set aside. It is made evident that the Lord is not dependent upon them. The work does not stop because of their removal from it, but goes forward with greater power.

It was not enough for the disciples of Jesus to be instructed as to the nature of His kingdom. What they needed was a change of heart that would bring them into harmony with its principles. Calling a little child to Him, Jesus set him in the midst of them; then tenderly folding the little one in His arms He said, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The simplicity, the self-forgetfulness, and the confiding love of a little child are the attributes that Heaven values. These are the characteristics of real greatness.

Again Jesus explained to the disciples that His kingdom is not characterized by earthly dignity and display. At the feet of Jesus all these distinctions are forgotten. The rich and the poor, the learned and the ignorant, meet together, with no thought of caste or worldly preeminence. All meet as blood-bought souls, alike dependent upon One who has redeemed them to God.

The sincere, contrite soul is precious in the sight of God. He places His own signet upon men, not by their rank, not by their wealth, not by their intellectual greatness, but by their oneness with Christ. The Lord of glory is satisfied with those who are meek and lowly in heart. “Thou hast also given me,” said David, “the shield of Thy salvation: ... and Thy gentleness”—as an element in the human character—“hath made me great.” Psalm 18:35.

“Whosoever shall receive one of such children in My name,” said Jesus, “receiveth Me: and whosoever shall receive Me, receiveth not Me, but Him that sent Me.” “Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool: ... but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My word.” Isaiah 66:1, 2.

The Saviour's words awakened in the disciples a feeling of self-distrust. No one had been specially pointed out in the reply; but John was led to question whether in one case his action had been right. With the spirit of a child he laid the matter before Jesus. “Master,” he said, “we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us.”

James and John had thought that in checking this man they had had in view their Lord's honor; they began to see that they were jealous for their own. They acknowledged their error, and accepted the reproof of Jesus, “Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in My name, that can lightly speak evil of Me.” None who showed themselves in any way friendly to Christ were to be repulsed. There were many who had been deeply moved by the character and the work of Christ, and whose hearts were opening to Him in faith; and the disciples, who could not read motives, must be careful not to discourage these souls. When Jesus was no longer personally among them, and the work was left in their hands, they must not indulge a narrow, exclusive spirit, but manifest the same far-reaching sympathy which they had seen in their Master.

The fact that one does not in all things conform to our personal ideas or opinions will not justify us in forbidding him to labor for God. Christ is the Great Teacher; we are not to judge or to command, but in humility each is to sit at the feet of Jesus, and learn of Him. Every soul whom God has made willing is a channel through which Christ will reveal His pardoning love. How careful we should be lest we discourage one of God's light bearers, and thus intercept the rays that He would have shine to the world!

Harshness or coldness shown by a disciple toward one whom Christ was drawing—such an act as that of John in forbidding one to work miracles in Christ's name—might result in turning the feet into the path of the enemy, and causing the loss of a soul. Rather than for one to do this, said Jesus, “it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” And He added, “If thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire. And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell.” Mark 9:43-45, R. V.

Why this earnest language, than which none can be stronger? Because “the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” Shall His disciples show less regard for the souls of their fellow men than the Majesty of heaven has shown? Every soul has cost an infinite price, and how terrible is the sin of turning one soul away from Christ, so that for him the Saviour's love and humiliation and agony shall have been in vain.

“Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling! for it must needs be that the occasions come.” Matthew 18:7, R. V. The world, inspired by Satan, will surely oppose the followers of Christ, and seek to destroy their faith; but woe to him who has taken Christ's name, and yet is found doing this work. Our Lord is put to shame by those who claim to serve Him, but who misrepresent His character; and multitudes are deceived, and led into false paths.

Any habit or practice that would lead into sin, and bring dishonor upon Christ, would better be put away, whatever the sacrifice. That which dishonors God cannot benefit the soul. The blessing of heaven cannot attend any man in violating the eternal principles of right. And one sin cherished is sufficient to work the degradation of the character, and to mislead others. If the foot or the hand would be cut off, or even the eye would be plucked out, to save the body from death, how much more earnest should we be to put away sin, that brings death to the soul!

In the ritual service, salt was added to every sacrifice. This, like the offering of incense, signified that only the righteousness of Christ could make the service acceptable to God. Referring to this practice, Jesus said, “Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.” “Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.” All who would present themselves “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God” (Romans 12:1), must receive the saving salt, the righteousness of our Saviour. Then they become “the salt of the earth,” restraining evil among men, as salt preserves from corruption. Matthew 5:13. But if the salt has lost its savor; if there is only a profession of godliness, without the love of Christ, there is no power for good. The life can exert no saving influence upon the world. Your energy and efficiency in the upbuilding of My kingdom, Jesus says, depend upon your receiving of My Spirit. You must be partakers of My grace, in order to be a savor of life unto life. Then there will be no rivalry, no self-seeking, no desire for the highest place. You will have that love which seeks not her own, but another's wealth.

Let the repenting sinner fix his eyes upon “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); and by beholding, he becomes changed. His fear is turned to joy, his doubts to hope. Gratitude springs up. The stony heart is broken. A tide of love sweeps into the soul. Christ is in him a well of water springing up unto everlasting life. When we see Jesus, a Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief, working to save the lost, slighted, scorned, derided, driven from city to city till His mission was accomplished; when we behold Him in Gethsemane, sweating great drops of blood, and on the cross dying in agony,—when we see this, self will no longer clamor to be recognized. Looking unto Jesus, we shall be ashamed of our coldness, our lethargy, our self-seeking. We shall be willing to be anything or nothing, so that we may do heart service for the Master. We shall rejoice to bear the cross after Jesus, to endure trial, shame, or persecution for His dear sake.

“We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.” Romans 15:1. No soul who believes in Christ, though his faith may be weak, and his steps wavering as those of a little child, is to be lightly esteemed. By all that has given us advantage over another,—be it education and refinement, nobility of character, Christian training, religious experience,—we are in debt to those less favored; and, so far as lies in our power, we are to minister unto them. If we are strong, we are to stay up the hands of the weak. Angels of glory, that do always behold the face of the Father in heaven, joy in ministering to His little ones. Trembling souls, who have many objectionable traits of character, are their special charge. Angels are ever present where they are most needed, with those who have the hardest battle with self to fight, and whose surroundings are the most discouraging. And in this ministry Christ's true followers will co-operate.

If one of these little ones shall be overcome, and commit a wrong against you, then it is your work to seek his restoration. Do not wait for him to make the first effort for reconciliation. “How think ye?” said Jesus; “if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.”

In the spirit of meekness, “considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted,” (Galatians 6:1), go to the erring one, and “tell him his fault between thee and him alone.” Do not put him to shame by exposing his fault to others, nor bring dishonor upon Christ by making public the sin or error of one who bears His name. Often the truth must be plainly spoken to the erring; he must be led to see his error, that he may reform. But you are not to judge or to condemn. Make no attempt at self-justification. Let all your effort be for his recovery. In treating the wounds of the soul, there is need of the most delicate touch, the finest sensibility. Only the love that flows from the Suffering One of Calvary can avail here. With pitying tenderness, let brother deal with brother, knowing that if you succeed, you will “save a soul from death,” and “hide a multitude of sins.” James 5:20.

But even this effort may be unavailing. Then, said Jesus, “take with thee one or two more.” It may be that their united influence will prevail where that of the first was unsuccessful. Not being parties to the trouble, they will be more likely to act impartially, and this fact will give their counsel greater weight with the erring one.

If he will not hear them, then, and not till then, the matter is to be brought before the whole body of believers. Let the members of the church, as the representatives of Christ, unite in prayer and loving entreaty that the offender may be restored. The Holy Spirit will speak through His servants, pleading with the wanderer to return to God. Paul the apostle, speaking by inspiration, says, “As though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.” 2 Corinthians 5:20. He who rejects this united overture has broken the tie that binds him to Christ, and thus has severed himself from the fellowship of the church. Henceforth, said Jesus, “let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” But he is not to be regarded as cut off from the mercy of God. Let him not be despised or neglected by his former brethren, but be treated with tenderness and compassion, as one of the lost sheep that Christ is still seeking to bring to His fold.

Christ's instruction as to the treatment of the erring repeats in more specific form the teaching given to Israel through Moses: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in anywise rebuke thy neighbor, that thou bear not sin for him.” Leviticus 19:17, margin. That is, if one neglects the duty Christ has enjoined, of trying to restore those who are in error and sin, he becomes a partaker in the sin. For evils that we might have checked, we are just as responsible as if we were guilty of the acts ourselves.

But it is to the wrongdoer himself that we are to present the wrong. We are not to make it a matter of comment and criticism among ourselves; nor even after it is told to the church, are we at liberty to repeat it to others. A knowledge of the faults of Christians will be only a cause of stumbling to the unbelieving world; and by dwelling upon these things, we ourselves can receive only harm; for it is by beholding that we become changed. While we seek to correct the errors of a brother, the Spirit of Christ will lead us to shield him, as far as possible, from the criticism of even his own brethren, and how much more from the censure of the unbelieving world. We ourselves are erring, and need Christ's pity and forgiveness, and just as we wish Him to deal with us, He bids us deal with one another.

“Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” You are acting as the ambassadors of heaven, and the issues of your work are for eternity.

But we are not to bear this great responsibility alone. Wherever His word is obeyed with a sincere heart, there Christ abides. Not only is He present in the assemblies of the church, but wherever disciples, however few, meet in His name, there also He will be. And He says, “If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of My Father which is in heaven.”

Jesus says, “My Father which is in heaven,” as reminding His disciples that while by His humanity He is linked with them, a sharer in their trials, and sympathizing with them in their sufferings, by His divinity He is connected with the throne of the Infinite. Wonderful assurance! The heavenly intelligences unite with men in sympathy and labor for the saving of that which was lost. And all the power of heaven is brought to combine with human ability in drawing souls to Christ.

[newstfionline]

Jerusalem tax spat pits heaven against earth

By Michele Chabin, Religion News Service, March 12, 2018

JERUSALEM (RNS)--An ethereal city graced with sunlight so bright it turns the white stone skyline gold at sunset, Jerusalem is also an earthbound city whose teachers must be paid and whose garbage must be collected.

Finding a balance between the Holy City’s earthly needs, amid ongoing financial woes, and the needs of the numerous institutions that form its rich religious heritage is no easy task.

That balance was upset last month, leaders of the Holy Land’s Christian churches say, when they received property tax bills totaling millions of dollars, applicable to all church properties that are not actual houses of worship.

The levying of those bills was spearheaded by Mayor Nir Barkat, who wants to shore up the city’s small tax base.

“It is absurd for Jerusalem residents to fund municipal services for the churches … on their own, and for the municipality to be prevented from collecting enormous sums that could significantly improve the city’s development and services,” Barkat said.

But the move was unprecedented: For five centuries, successive rulers of the Holy Land--including Israel--have exempted all church holdings from property taxes.

When Israel was established in 1948, the government worried that allowing all religion-linked properties to be tax-free would be financially untenable, but continued the church exemption as a courtesy.

Christian officials, angered by the recent tax bills and the belief that Israel is trying to change the religious status quo in the contested city, decided to shutter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for three days in protest.

Two days later, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu temporarily defused the controversy by ordering Barkat to suspend the tax bills and appointing a committee of church leaders and Israeli officials to negotiate.

Undeterred, the mayor said the municipality “is determined to settle past debts” totaling $188 million “and future municipal tax payments, according to the law, on behalf of the residents of Jerusalem.”

Almost half of the city’s residents, including predominantly ultra-Orthodox Jews and Muslim and Christian Arabs, are exempt from property taxes because they live below the poverty line, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics and National Insurance Institute.

Although the national government helps support Jerusalem’s infrastructure, the mayor says that what the city gets is insufficient, so taxing church properties is necessary to fill the gap. The city also sent bills last month to another tax-exempt landowner, the United Nations.

The municipality ultimately hopes to collect taxes from 887 properties belonging to various churches and the U.N.

But because the city’s Christian denominations--most notably the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate--own vast swaths of land in Jerusalem and elsewhere, tax policy has both religious and practical implications, said David Kroyanker, an expert on Jerusalem’s multicultural architecture.

“Mainly since the 19th century, different Christian churches have acquired a huge number of properties,” Kroyanker said. “The Jerusalem municipality is asking to tax only buildings that aren’t churches, and they own much more than the churches.”

Kroyanker questioned why the churches should be exempt from paying taxes on commercial property when comparable Jewish- and Muslim-owned property is not.

“Why shouldn’t a building like the Notre Dame Center,” a Catholic-owned complex that contains a church, a pilgrims’ hotel, a restaurant and a gift shop, “pay tax at least for the areas that are purely commercial?”

But precedent also has an important place in the discussion, the architect noted.

Since Israel’s founding in 1948 the Israeli government hasn’t charged tax, “so why start claiming it now? Once you take a stand it’s difficult to change it.”

In fact, representatives from the Israeli government and the Holy See have been negotiating taxation and other issues for two decades, but have failed to reach an agreement.

Rabbi David Rosen, the director of the American Jewish Committee’s Department of Interreligious Affairs, called the exemptions Israel has given the churches “an act of magnanimity” by a government “that recognizes the special place of the churches in Jerusalem and the Holy Land.

“Israel has been under no legal obligation to do so,” he said.

Although church leaders have officially taken an uncompromising stance, accusing the Israeli government of trying to spur the emigration of Holy Land Christians, who constitute about 2 percent of the Israeli population, Farid Jubran, general counsel for the Custody of the Holy Land, the body that oversees the property of the Catholic Church, indicated some flexibility.

“We never pretended to ask for an exemption in hotels and halls,” Jubran said, adding that “it is very rare that a church has a hotel. I can think of only five or six (cases). We never said we won’t pay taxes.”

Jubran said the Notre Dame Center, which is located just across the street from the Christian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, “has a chapel, a church and a monastery. If you go there you will see it is full of pilgrims.”

Jubran said that if the municipality wants to tax certain church properties, “it should be done through negotiations and not in a unilateral way. And certainly not retroactively.”

[girlactionfigure]

IS JERUSALEM A SACRED ISLAMIC CITY?

There is a big difference between a city being sacred in the eyes of God and it being a sacred Islamic city.

BY IMAM TAWHIDI 

Jerusalem is home to around 400,000 Muslims, but is it a sacred city according to Islam? This is a question the majority of Muslims within the political and academic world try to avoid, simply because it opens a rather uncomfortable discussion. In fact, a Muslim asking such a question could face serious consequences; such as society doubting in his/her faith.

Until 2014, I was an Islamist who abhorred Jewish people and was open to waging war against them. Today, however, I am friends with many Jewish faith leaders. This transition wasn’t political, it was rather theological. In brief, I started to question certain claims taught to me by my teachers and Muslim community. I began by asking myself the question, does Jerusalem really belong to Islam and Muslims? To answer this vitally important question, we need to inquire how cities become sacred according to Islam. Sacred cities in Islam Throughout human history, every religion has been associated with an area that has been sanctified, respected and revered. Islam is no different. There are tens of sacred cities in Islam, such as Mecca, Medina, Qum, Karbala and Najaf – due to clear verses of the Koran acknowledging their glory or sayings of Prophet Mohammad assuring Muslims of their exaltation. There is a big difference between a city being sacred in the eyes of God and it being a sacred Islamic city. For example, all prophetic tombs, birthplaces and areas where miracles took place are considered sacred in Islam, but they are not specifically Islamic locations. A sacred Islamic location is a location wherein a significant Islamic event has taken place by either Allah or Prophet Mohammad. Jerusalem in Islamic scripture The Holy Koran states very clearly that the Holy Land, Jerusalem, belongs to the Jewish nation of Moses, the Israelites: “And [mention, O Muhammad], when Moses said to his people, “O my people, remember the favor of Allah [God] upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the world” (Koran: 5:20 onwards). The above verse also makes it clear that God “had not given (this land to) anyone among the world” other than the Jewish nation. From this verse, and others of similar context, we understand that Jerusalem is a sacred city according to God, but it is not a sacred Islamic city, due to the fact that its sacredness was established before the existence of Islam. After the emergence of Islam, in the year 621 CE, it is believed that Prophet Mohammad took a miraculous and spiritual night journey to Al-Aqsa Mosque (the Farthest Mosque). This event is reported in the Koran in the following verse: “Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from the Sacred Mosque (Mecca) to al-Masjid al- Aqsa (the Farthest Mosque), whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs…” (Quran 17:1). Two vital matters need to be addressed regarding the above verse: 1. Prophet Mohammad traveling to a location does not make that location “Islamic.” 2. There is little evidence that “Al-Aqsa Mosque” is actually in Jerusalem, and there are a large number of Muslims who believe that “the Farthest Mosque” is a reference to a mosque in the heavens, not on earth; due to the fact that the current Al-Aqsa Mosque did not exist during the lifetime of Prophet Mohammad, making it impossible for him to have visited it. Messengers of both Judaism and Christianity had arrived in Jerusalem to preach their scriptures centuries before Prophet Mohammad. Therefore, it cannot be historically accurate to say that Mohammad brought Islam to Jerusalem before them. Up until the migration of Mohammad to Medina in 622 CE and the official establishment of Islam therein, Islam was a minority religion when compared to the two well-established religions of Judaism and Christianity. Besides, the citizens of Jerusalem who converted to Islam merely changed their own faith, not the entire history of Jerusalem. Thus, neither Islamic scripture nor history  claim that Jerusalem is a sacred Islamic city. Jerusalem meets Islam In May 632 CE, Prophet Mohammad appointed Usama ibn Zaid as the commander of his army to respond to the Romans in an agreed-upon battle within Palestine. The next day Usama set out for his expedition, but he then learnt that Mohammad had died and therefore he returned to Medina. Caliph Abu Bakr then ordered Usama to increase his army to 3,000 men and to attack the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Moab and Byzantine-held Darum, to kill or capture as many as he could and Usama did so. This event proves that up until the demise of Prophet Mohammad, there were no Muslims in what is today known as Palestine, and that it was inhabited by the Romans of the Byzantine. Also, Prophet Mohammad would not wage war against a city full of Muslims. In reality, Islam as a religion officially came to Palestine in the year 636 CE, four years after Mohammad’s death and during the reign of the second caliph of Islam, Omar. The Islamic caliphate conducted an attack on Jerusalem, which was ruled by the Byzantine Romans. The city was placed under a four-month siege commencing in November of that year. After four months of hardship and butchery, the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, surrendered Jerusalem to Caliph Omar in 637 CE. When Caliph Omar realized that Islam was still a minority religion in the region, he adopted the jizyah system, forcing Christians and Jewish people to pay tax to the Islamic caliphate. After conducting a massacre of the citizens of Jerusalem, our Caliph Omar came to Jerusalem to appoint his governors. He then built what is known today as “the Aqsa Mosque,” which many Muslims mistakenly think was built by Prophet Mohammad. The mosque in Jerusalem with its golden dome is known to Muslims as “Qubbat al-Sakhrah” (Dome of the Rock), and it was completed in 691 CE by the Umayyad Dynasty, the following Islamic caliphate. It is arguably not permissible for Muslims to pray within Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Qubbat al-Sakhrah, as they are built upon occupied and invaded land. By the ninth century, the Fatimid Dynasty, a Shia Islamic caliphate, ruled a large area of north Africa. They were also terrorists who invaded Palestine and massacred Christians in Jerusalem for siding with the Romans of the Byzantine, who had attempted to regain their conquered land. The notorious caliph of the Fatimid Caliphate, Al-Hakim, caused much damage to the entire region, even killing John VII, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, a provocative act that laid the groundwork for the First Crusade. Due to the defeat of the Crusaders, Muslims became the majority, by the sword and not by the pen. By this time, the entire Mediterranean coast of Palestine had been captured, followed by a series of massacres of the Christian people and a genocide that spread all the way to Damascus and Beirut. Islam became the established religion of Palestine by the ninth century, and became the majority religion of the region throughout the Mamluk Era, between 1250 and 1516. Therefore, we Muslims did not enter Palestine as preachers and convert its nation into Muslims. We murdered their leaders and conducted serial massacres led by both Sunni and Shia terrorist Islamic caliphs. The citizens of Palestine may convert to Islam, but in no way can Palestine be considered Muslim land. Of course, many may dispute this position, but the fact is that the Jews were in this land long before even Christianity arose. Their ancient cultural links remain unbroken, as in the saying each Passover, “Next year in Jerusalem.” Our Arab-Muslim ancestors came out of their deserts as conquerors and not as learners, and as guiders who do not seek the guidance of others. They believed that they had sufficient knowledge and wisdom, and that they did not need to learn anything from others. This delusion of my co-religionists persists to this day, despite the fact that the world has changed. Disturbing events in Islamic history On the other hand, I do not understand the Muslim struggle for Jerusalem. Islamic laws strictly prohibit relieving oneself while facing Mecca, in fact, toilets in all Islamic countries and most Muslim homes do not face Mecca, out of respect to the holy city. Yet Bukhari reports that our Prophet Mohammad used to deliberately and repeatedly relieve himself while facing Jerusalem, even though he could have faced another direction instead. Does it make sense that Palestinians are dying for Jerusalem when their own beloved Prophet used to prefer defecating toward it? Whether Palestine is Jewish land or whether Israel is a state are two completely different debates. A Muslim may reject Israel being a state, but cannot deny the fact that the entire region, including Palestine, is in fact Jewish land.   The writer, an Iranian-born Australian Shia Muslim Imam, is president of the Islamic Association of South Australia.

Imam Mohamad Tawhidi

[pamphletstoinspire]

Gospel Reading and Commentary for Sunday, December 30, 2018 - Roman Catholic - Luke 2: 41 - 52 (Feast of The Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph)

41. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.

BEDE; Luke has omitted in this place what he knew to have been sufficiently set forth by Matthew, that the Lord after this, for fear that He should be discovered and put to death by Herod, was carried by His parents into Egypt, and at Herod’s death, having at length returned to Galilee, came to dwell in His own city Nazareth. For the Evangelists individually are wont to omit certain things which they either know to have been, or in the Spirit foresee will be, related by others, so that in the connected chain of their narrative, they seem as it were to have omitted nothing, whereas by examining the writings of another Evangelist, the careful reader may discover the places where the omissions have been. Thus after omitting many things, Luke says, And when they had accomplished all things, &c. THEOPHYL. Bethlehem was indeed their city, their paternal city, Nazareth the place of their abode. AUG. Perhaps it may strike you as strange that Matthew should say that His parents went with the young Child into Galilee because they were unwilling to go to Judea for fear of Archelaus, when they seem to have gone into Galilee rather because their city w as Nazareth in Galilee, as Luke in this place explains it. But we must consider, that when the Angel said in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Rise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel, it was at first understood by Joseph as a command to go into Judea, for so at first sight the land of Israel might have been taken to mean. But when afterwards he finds that Herod’s son Archelaus was king, he was unwilling to be exposed to that danger, seeing the land of Israel might also be understood to include Galilee also as a part of it, for there also the people of Israel dwelt. GREEK EX. Or again, Luke is here describing the time before the descent to Egypt, for before her purification Joseph had not taken Mary there But before they went down into Egypt, they were not told by God to go to Nazareth but as living more freely in their own country, thither of their own accord they went; for since the going up to Bethlehem was for no other reason but the taxing, when that was accomplished they go down to Nazareth. THEOPHYL. Now our Lord might have come forth from the womb in the stature of mature age, but this would seem like something imaginary; therefore His growth is gradual, as it follows, And the child grew, and waxed strong. BEDE; We must observe the distinction of words, that the Lord Jesus Christ in that He w as a child, that is, had put on the condition of human weakness, was daily growing and being strengthened. ATHAN. But if as some say the flesh was changed into a Divine nature, how did it derive growth? for to attribute growth to an uncreated substance is impious. CYRIL; Rightly with the A growth in age, St. Luke has united increase in wisdom, as he says, And he was strengthened, (i.e. in spirit.) For in proportion to the measure of bodily growth, the Divine nature developed its own wisdom. THEOPHYL. For if while yet a little child, He had displayed His wisdom, He would have seemed a miracle, but together with the advance of age He gradually showed Himself, so as to fill the whole world. For not as receiving wisdom is He said to be strengthened in spirit. For that which is most perfect in the beginning, how can that become any more perfect. Hence it follows, Filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was in him. BEDE; Wisdom truly, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, but grace, because it was in great grace given to the man Christ Jesus, that from the time He began to be man He should be perfect man and perfect God. But much rather because He was the word of God, and God needed not to be strengthened, nor was in a state of growth. But while He was yet a little child He had the grace of God, that as in Him all things were wonderful, His childhood also might be wonderful, so as to be filled with the wisdom of God. It follows, And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the feast of the Passover. CHRYS. At the feast of the Hebrews the law commanded men not, only to observe the time, but the place, and so the Lord’s parents wished to celebrate the feast of the Passover only at Jerusalem. AUG. But it may be asked, how did His parents go up all the years of Christ’s childhood to Jerusalem, if they were prevented from going there by fear of Archelaus? This question might be easily answered, even had some one of the Evangelists mentioned how long Archelaus reigned. For it were possible that on the feast day amid so great a crowd they might secretly come, and soon return again, at the same time that they feared to remain there on other days, so as neither to be wanting in religious duties by neglecting the feast, nor leave themselves open to detection by a constant abode there. But now since all have been silent as to the length of Archelaus’ reign, it is plain that when Luke says, They were accustomed to go up every year to Jerusalem, we are to understand that to have been when Archelaus was no longer feared.

42. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

43. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

44. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.

45. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.

46. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

47. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

48. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said to him, Son, why have you thus dealt with us? behold, your father and I have sought your sorrowing.

49. And he said to them, How is it that you sought me? wist you not that I must be about my Father’s business?

50. And they understood not the saying which he spoke to them.

CYRIL; The Evangelist having said before that the Child grew and waxed strong, verifies his own words when he relates, that Jesus with the holy Virgin went up to Jerusalem; as it is said, And when he was twelve years old, &c.

GREEK EX. His indication of wisdom did not exceed the measure of His age, but at the time that with us the powers of discernment are generally perfected, the wisdom of Christ shows itself. AMBROSE; Or the twelfth year was the commencement of our Lord’s disputation with the doctors, for this was the number of the Evangelists necessary to preach the faith. BEDE; We may also say, that as by the seventh number, so also by the twelfth, (which consists of the parts of seven multiplied alternately by one another,) the universality and perfection of either things or times is signified, and therefore rightly from the number twelve, the glory of Christ takes its beginning, being that by which all places and times are to be filled. BEDE; Now that the Lord came up every year to Jerusalem at the Passover, betokens His humility as a man, for it is, man’s duty to meet together to offer sacrifices to God, and conciliate Him with prayers. Accordingly the Lord as man, did among men what God by angels commended c men to do. Hence it is said, According to the custom of the feast day. Let us follow then the journey of His mortal life, if we delight to behold the glory of His divine nature. GREEK EX. The feast having been celebrated, while the rest returned, Jesus secretly tarried behind. As it follows, And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew not of it. It is said, When the days were accomplished, because the feast lasted seven days. But the reason of His tarrying behind in secret was, that His parents might not be a hindrance to His carrying on the discussion with the lawyers; or perhaps to avoid appearing to despise his parents by not obeying their commands. He remains therefore secretly, that he might neither be kept away nor be disobedient. ORIGEN; But we must not wonder that they are called His parents, seeing the one from her childbirth, the other from his knowledge of it, deserved the names of father and mother. BEDE; But some one will ask, how was it that the Son of God, brought up by His parents with such care, could be left behind from forgetfulness? To which it is answered, that the custom of the children of Israel while assembling at Jerusalem on the feast days, or returning to their homes, was for the women and men to go separately, and the infants or children to go with either parent indiscriminately. And so both Mary and Joseph each thought in turn that the Child Jesus, whom they saw not with them, was returning with the other parent. Hence it follows, But they, supposing him to have been in the company, &c. ORIGEN; But as when the Jews plotted against Him He escaped from the midst of them, and was not seen; so now it seems that the Child Jesus remained, and His parents knew not where He was. As it follows, And not finding him, they returned to Jerusalem seeking for him. GLOSS. They were on their way home, one day’s journey from Jerusalem; on the second day they seek for Him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance, and when they found Him not, they returned on the third day to Jerusalem, and there they found Him. As it follows, And it came to pass, after three days they found him. ORIGEN; He is not found as soon as sought for, for Jesus was not among His kinsfolk and relations, among those who are joined to Him in the flesh, nor in the company of the multitude can He be found. Learn where those who seek Him find Him, not every where, but in the temple. And do you then seek Jesus in the temple of God. Seek Him in the Church, and seek Him among the masters who are in the temple. For if you wilt so seek Him, you shall find Him. They found Him not among His kinsfolk, for human relations could not comprehend the Son of God; not among His acquaintance, for He passes far beyond all human knowledge and understanding. Where then do they find Him? In the temple! If at any time you seek the Son of God, seek Him first in the temple, thither go up, and verily shall you find Christ, the Word, and the Wisdom, (i.e. the Son of God.)

AMBROSE; After three days He is found in the temple, that it might be for a sign, that after three days of victorious suffering, He who was believed to be dead should rise again anti manifest Himself to our faith, seated in heaven with divine glory.

GLOSS. Or because the advent of Christ, which was looked for by the Patriarchs before the Law, was not found, nor again, that which was sought for by prophets and just men under the Law, but that alone is found which is sought for by Gentiles under grace. ORIGEN; Because moreover He was the Son of God, He is found in the midst of the doctors, enlightening and instructing them. But because He was a little child, He is found among them not teaching but asking questions, as it is said, Sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. And this He did as a duty of reverence, that He might set us an example of the proper behavior of children, though they be wise and learned, rather to hear their masters than teach them, and not to vaunt themselves with empty boasting. But He asked not that He might learn, but that asking He might instruct. For from the same source of learning is derived both the power of asking and answering wisely, as it follows, All who heard him were astonished at his wisdom. BEDE; To show that He was a man, He humbly listened to the masters; but to prove that He was God, He divinely answered those who spoke. GREEK EX. He asks questions with reason, He listens M with wisdom, and answers with more wisdom, so as to cause astonishment. As it follows, And they who saw it were astonished. CHRYS. The Lord truly did no miracle in His childhood, yet this one fact St. Luke mentions, which made men look with wonder upon Him. BEDE; For from His tongue there went forth divine wisdom, while His age exhibited man’s helplessness, and hence the Jews, amid the high things they hear and the lowly things they see, are perplexed with doubts and astonishment. But we can in no wise wonder, knowing the words of the Prophet, that thus unto us a Is Child is born, that He abides the mighty God. GREEK EX. But the ever-wonderful mother of God, moved by a mother’s feelings, as it w were with weeping makes her mournful inquiry, in every thing like a mother, with confidence, humility, and affection. As it follows, And his mother said to him, Son, what have you done? ORIGEN; The holy Virgin knew that He was not the Son of Joseph, and yet calls her husband His father according to the belief of the Jews, who thought that He was conceived in the common way. Now to speak generally we may say, that the Holy Spirit honored Joseph by the name of father, because he brought up the Child Jesus; but more technically, that it might not seem superfluous in St. Luke, bringing down the genealogy from David to Joseph. But why sought they Him sorrowing? Was it that he might have perished or been lost? It could not be. For what should cause them to dread the loss of Him whom they knew to be the Lord? But as whenever you read the Scriptures you search out their meaning with pains, not that you suppose them to have erred or to contain any thing incorrect, but that the truth which they have inherent in them you are anxious to find out; so they sought Jesus, lest perchance leaving them he should have returned to heaven, thither to descend v hen He would. He then who seeks Jesus must go about it not carelessly and idly, as many seek Him who never find Him, but with labor and sorrow. GLOSS. Or they feared lest Herod who sought Him in His infancy, now that He was advanced to boyhood might find an opportunity of putting Him to death. GREEK EX. But the Lord Himself sets every thing at rest, and correcting as it were her saying concerning him who was His reputed father, manifests His true Father, teaching us not to walk on the ground, but to raise ourselves on high, as it follows, And he says to them, What is it that you ask of me? BEDE; He blames them not that they seek Him as their son, but compels them to raise the eyes of their mind to what was rather due to Him whose eternal Son He was. Hence it follows, Knew you not? &c. AMBROSE; There are two generations in Christ, one from His Father, the other from His mother; the Father’s more divine, the mother’s that which has come down for our use and advantage. CYRIL; He says this then by way of showing that He surpasses all human standards, and hinting that the Holy Virgin was made the handmaid of the work in bringing His flesh unto the world, but that He Himself was by nature and in truth God, and the Son of the Father most high Now from this let the followers of Valentinus, healing that the temple was of God, be ashamed to say that the Creator, and the God of the law and of the temple, is not also the Father of Christ.

EPIPHAN. Let Ebion know that at twelve years old, not thirty, Christ is found the astonishment of all men, wonderful and mighty in the words of grace. We can not here fore say, that after that the Spirit came to Him in Baptism He was made the Christ, that is, anointed with divinity, but from His very childhood He acknowledged both the temple and His Father. GREEK EX. This is the first demonstration of the and power of the Child Jesus. For as to what are called you acts of His childhood, we can not but suppose them to be the work not only of a childish but even of a devilish mind and perverse will, attempting to revile those things which are contained in the Gospel and the sacred prophecies. But should one desire to receive only such things as are generally believed, and are not contrary to our other declarations, but accord also with the words of prophecy, let it suffice that Jesus was distinguished in form above the sons of men; obedient to His mother, gentle in disposition; in appearance full of grace and dignity; eloquent in words, kind and thoughtful of the wants of others, known among all for a power and energy, as of one who was filled with all wisdom; and as in other things, so also in all human conversation, though above man, Himself the rule and measure. But that which most distinguished Him was His meekness, and that a razor had never come upon His head, nor any human hand except His mother’s. But from these words we may derive a lesson; for when the Lord reproves Mary seeking Him among His relations, He most aptly points to the giving up of all fleshly ties, showing that it is not for him to attain the goal of perfection who is still encompassed by and walks among the things of the body, and that men fall from perfection through love of their relations. BEDE; It follows, And they understood him not, that is, the word which He spoke to them of His divinity. ORIG. Or they knew not whether when He said about my Father’s business, He referred to the temple, or something higher and more edifying; for every one of us who does good, is the seat of God the Father; but whoever is the seat of God the Father, has Christ in the midst of him.

51. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

52. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

GREEK EX. All that time of the life of Christ which He passed between His manifestation in the temple and His baptism being devoid of any great public miracles or teaching, the Evangelist sums up in one word’ saying, And he went down with them. ORIGEN; Jesus frequently went down with His disciples, for He is not always dwelling on the mount, for they who were troubled with various diseases were not able to ascend the mount. For this reason now also He went down to them who were below. It follows: And he was subject to them, &c. GREEK EX. Sometimes by His word He first institutes laws, and He afterwards confirms them, by His work, as when He says, The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. For shortly after seeking our salvation He poured out His own life. But sometimes He first sets forth in Himself an example, and afterwards, as far as words can go, draws therefrom rules of life, as He does here, showing forth by His work these three things above the rest, the love of God, honor to parents, but the preferring God also to our parents. For when He was blamed by His parents, He counts all other things of less moment than those which belong to God; again, He gives His obedience also to His parents. BEDE; For what is the teacher of virtue, unless he fulfill his duty to his parents? What else did He do among us, than what He wished should be done by us? ORIGEN; Let us then also ourselves be subject to our parents. But if our fathers are not let us be subject to those who are our fathers. Jesus the Son of God is subject to Joseph and Mary. But I must be subject to the Bishop who has been constituted my father. It seems that Joseph knew that Jesus was greater than he, and there fore in awe moderated his authority. But let every one see, that oftentimes he who is subject is the greater. Which if they who are higher in dignity understand they will not be elated with pride, knowing that their superior is subject to them. GREG. NYSS. Further, since the young have not yet perfect understanding, and have need to be led forward by those who have advanced to a more perfect state; therefore when He arrived at twelve years, He is obedient to His parents, to show that whatever is made perfect by moving forward, before that it arrives at the end profitably embraces obedience, (as leading to good.)BASIL; But from His very first years being obedient to His parents, He endured all bodily labors, humbly and reverently. For since His parents were honest and just, yet at the same time poor, and ill supplied with the necessaries of life, (as the stable which administered to the holy birth bears witness,) it is plain that they continually underwent bodily fatigue in providing for their daily wants. But Jesus being obedient to them, as the Scriptures testify, even in sustaining labors, submitted Himself to a complete subjection. AMBROSE; And can you wonder if He who is subject to His mother, also submits to His Father? Surely that subjection is a mark not of weakness but of filial duty. Let then the heretic so raise his head as to assert that He who is sent has need of other help; yet why should He need human help, in obeying His mother’s authority? He was obedient to a handmaid, He was obedient to His pretended father, and do you wonder whether He obeyed God; Or is it a mark of duty to obey man, of weakness to obey God. BEDE; The Virgin, whether she understood or whether she could not yet understand, equally laid up all things in her heart for reflection and diligent examination. Hence it follows, And, his mother laid up all these things, &c. Mark the wisest of mothers, Mary the mother of true wisdom, becomes the scholar or disciple of the Child. For she yielded to Him not as to a boy, nor as to a man, but as unto God. Further, she pondered upon both His divine words and works, so that nothing that was said or done by Him was lost upon her, but as the Word itself was before in her womb, so now she conceived the ways and words of the same, and in a manner nursed them in her heart. And while indeed she thought upon one thing at the time, another she wanted to be more clearly revealed to her; and this was her constant rule and law through her whole life. It follows, And Jesus increased in wisdom. THEOPHYL. Not that He became wise by making progress, but that by degrees He revealed His wisdom. As it was when He disputed with the Scribes, asking them questions of their law to the astonishment of all who heard Him. You see then how He increased in wisdom, in that He became known to many, and caused them to wonder, for the showing forth of His wisdom is His increase. But mark how the Evangelist, having interpreted what it is to increase in wisdom, adds, and in stature, declaring thereby that an increase or growth in age is an increase in wisdom. CYRIL; But the Eunomian Heretics say, “How can He be equal to the Father in substance, who is said to increase, as if before imperfect.” But not because He is the Word, but because He is made man, He is said to receive increase. For if He really increased after that He was made flesh, as having before existed imperfect, why then do we give Him thanks as having thence become incarnate for us? But how if He is the true wisdom can He be increased, or how can He who gives grace to others be Himself advanced in grace. Again, if bearing that the Word humbled Himself, no one is offended (thinking slightingly of the true God,) but rather marvels at His compassion, how is it not absurd to be offended at hearing that He increases? For as He was humbled for us, so for us He increased, that we who have fallen through sin might increase in Him. For whatever concerns us, Christ Himself has truly undertaken for us, that He might restore us to a better state. And mark what He says, not that the Word, but Jesus, increases, that you should not suppose that the pure Word increases, but the Word made flesh; and as we confess that the Word suffered in the flesh, although the flesh only suffered, because of the Word the flesh was which suffered, so He is said to increase, because the human nature of the Word increased in Him. But He is said to increase in His human nature, not as if that nature which was perfect from the beginning received increase, but that by degrees it was manifested. For the law of nature brooks not that man should have higher faculties than the age of his body permits. The Word then (made man) was perfect, as being the power and wisdom of the Father, but because something was to be yielded to the habits of our nature, lest He should be counted strange by those who saw Him, He manifested Himself as man with a body, gradually advancing in growth, and was daily thought wiser by those who saw and heard Him. GREEK EX. He increased then in age, His body growing to the stature of man; but in wisdom through those who were taught divine truths by Him; in grace, that is, whereby we are advanced with joy, trusting at last to obtain the promises; and this indeed before God, because having put on the flesh, He performed His Father’s work, but before men by their conversion from the worship of idols to the knowledge of the Most High Trinity. THEOPHYL. He says before God and men, because we must first please God, then man. GREG NYSS. The word also increases in different degrees in those who receive it; and according to the measure of its increase a man appears either an infant, grown up, or a perfect man.

[romancatholicreflections]

21st November >> Daily Reflection/Commentary on Today’s Gospel Reading for Roman Catholics on Wednesday, Thirty-Third Week in Ordinary Time (Luke 19:11-28): Immediately following the story of the tax collector Zacchaeus comes a parable about the use of what God has given to us.

Jesus and his disciples are near Jerusalem “where they thought the reign of God was about to appear”. How right they were! It was indeed going to appear in Jerusalem but not at all in the way they expected – with the political and military defeats of enemies. As the beginning of the Acts reveals, they “were hoping” that Jesus was about to restore the political kingdom of Israel. In time, they would learn that a kingdom of far greater significance was coming into being and that they would play an important part in its inauguration.

The parable which follows differs significantly from a similar one of the talents in Matthew (25:14-30). In Luke, too, there may be two parables fused into one – that of the coins and that of a disputed claimant to a royal throne (symbolising Jesus himself).

Jesus begins the parable by saying that a man of noble birth went to a far country to have himself appointed king and then return. This may have reminded his hearers of Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great, who went to Rome in the year 4 BC to get himself appointed king. On his return, he succeeded his father. It may seem a rather unusual procedure but the Herods used to go to Rome in order to get appointed as rulers over the Jews.

Similarly, Jesus is soon to depart and in the future will return as king. During his absence, his servants are entrusted with their master’s affairs.

In the parable, the king, before leaving, gives ten units of money to each of ten servants and tells them to invest the money until his return. The coins are called ‘minas’ and were each worth about 100 drachmas, where a drachma was the equivalent of one day’s wages. Each coin then was the equivalent of about three months’ wages. This is a much smaller sum than those in Matthew’s parable. The other difference is that there are ten people and each one gets the same amount. (In Matthew’s parable there are three people who get respectively 10, 5 and 1 talents.)

In the parable, we are told that the people despised this man and did not want him as their king. In fact, a Jewish delegation had gone to Rome protesting at the idea of Archelaus becoming king. In the same way, Jesus was soon to go away and return some day as King and Judge. While he is ‘away’, his ‘servants’ will be entrusted to take care of their Master’s affairs. But others will reject him completely.

When he returned, the new king asked each of his servants to give an account of their trading, as Jesus will do at the Judgement. One had made another ten units on his capital of ten and he was rewarded by being put in charge of ten towns. Another had made five and was rewarded with five towns. But a third came along with just the capital he had been given. He had not traded the money for fear of losing it but kept it in a safe place. He was afraid of the king who, he said, took what he had not deposited, reaped what he had not sown.

The king was angry. He did not dispute his ruthlessness but he said that the man could at least have lent the money and got some interest. He ordered the ten units be taken from him and given to the one who had already made ten. This man was obviously good at business. The lesson of the parable is spelt out by Jesus: whoever has will be given more, but the one who has not will lose the little he has.

The last sentence of the parable, in a way, describes a third set of people in the story. The first set consists of those who used their coin well and profitably. The second is the one who kept his one coin and carefully guarded it. But finally, there are those who did not want this man as king and these are executed. “Now about those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king, bring them in and slay them in my presence.”

They are the greatest losers of all and it probably points to those Jews who rejected Jesus as King and had their city destroyed, referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD. The punishment of those who rebelled and actively opposed the king was much more severe than that of the over-cautious servant.

The context of the whole parable is emphasised by the last sentence of today’s reading: “Having spoken thus Jesus went ahead with his ascent to Jerusalem.” We are coming near the end of our story and the climax to which it is headed.

The parable points to all those who are being called by Christ. It is the final part of one large unit (Luke 18:18-19:28) which includes the story of a rich man with good intentions but not able to respond to Jesus’ call, a prediction of Jesus’ passion not understood by the disciples, the story of a blind man who, after having his vision restored, becomes a follower of Christ, the story of another rich man who was willing generously to share his wealth with the poor and ending with the parable of the proper use of what we have.

The first rich man claimed to follow the commandments (the Law) but wanted to keep his money safely in his own possession. He is like the man who buried his money and did not invest it in the love and service of his brothers and sisters, especially those in need. The other, Zacchaeus, generously shared his wealth with the poor. He had invested his money well. He had learned to see. Any one who can really see where Jesus is has no alternative but to go his Way.

Finally, there are those who totally reject Christ and all that he stands for. Their blindness is total.

Today we are asked to reflect on the special gifts that God has given to each one of us and how we are using them for the benefit of brothers and sisters in need. What are our attitudes to money, to property, to professional status, academic or other qualifications or other gifts with which we are endowed? Where do we invest our gifts, our talents both inborn and acquired?

The message is clear: the more we invest, the more we will gain. We cannot stand still or just cling to what we have. The only way to gain is to let go, to give and to share. Good examples of this would be St Francis of Assisi or Mother Teresa. It is an attitude very foreign to many people’s way of thinking, who feel that life consists of amassing more and more, that security is in having.

But the Gospel way is really the only way that makes sense. It is not collecting but sharing that generates wealth, the wealth that really matters – freedom, security and peace.

[johnhardinsawyer]

Not Far from the Kingdom

John Sawyer

Bedford Presbyterian Church

10 / 31 / 21 – Reformation and All Saints Sunday

Mark 12:28-34

“Not Far from the Kingdom”

(Pathways to Generosity – Part 1)

When I was a child, I had the most difficult time learning how to tie my shoes.  I tried, time and time again, to make a loop with one side of the shoelace, and then wrap the other side around the loop, and pull it through, but it just kept falling apart.  And I kept falling apart, too.  And then, my daddy showed me another way:  you make a loop with each side of the shoelace and then you tie the loops together.  It’s kind of the same maneuver that you would make to tie a double knot in your shoelaces.  As soon as Daddy showed this to me, it just clicked, and I’ve been tying my shoes in this way ever since.  

In educational circles, the experts call this a “teachable moment,” in which the timing is just right for a skill or concept to be learned easily.[1]  It may have been difficult up until that teachable moment, but in the moment, something clicks – a lightbulb goes off, someone shouts “Eureka!” and it all makes sense.  

There are so many teachable moments in life – we all have had them, whether we were learning how to tie our shoes or balance differential equations.  That which was complex and hard to understand – just a moment ago – becomes clear.  

We see this at work in today’s scripture passage from the Gospel of Mark, which finds Jesus and his disciples in Jerusalem at the Temple – the holiest site in all the land.  It is here, at the Temple, where many of the chief priests, and scribes, and elders are able see Jesus, in the flesh, for the first time.[2]  They have been hearing stories of this seemingly unorthodox teacher, and preacher, and healer from the backwater town of Nazareth up north, but now, here he is, right before their very eyes.  And they are able to question his methods, and his ideas, and his authority, in-person – to put him to the test.  

We find the scribes doing this very thing at the start of today’s passage when Jesus and the people gathered around him are “disputing with one another.” (Mark 12:28)  One way of translating this passage is that they are “reasoning together,” which implies that they are being polite, but in the original language, there is clearly a debate about controversial things taking place.[3]

Up until this point, the religious leaders have been asking Jesus his opinion on everything from taxes, to divorce, to the resurrection – all of the important topics of the day, to that crowd.  And, when it comes to the debate, Jesus has been killing it.  Even the most skeptical among them are impressed by Jesus’ knowledge of the Bible and his rhetorical skills.  So, one of the scribes is listening to all of this and he sees Jesus doings so well under pressure, and so he asks Jesus a big question:  “Which commandment is the first of all?” (12:28)  Just so you know, the scribes are all about the commandments – following each and every commandment to a “T.”  And, they aren’t just trying to follow the 10 Commandments, either – which were dictated by God to Moses and carved into stone tablets so long ago.  No, they are trying to follow all 613 Jewish commandments found in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  “So, Jesus, which is the first or greatest of all of the 613 commandments?” the man asks.  

Now I know that some of you might be surprised that Jesus doesn’t immediately say “Why, the greatest commandment is Leviticus 11:5, the one about not eating the rock badger.  And a second is just like it:  Leviticus 14:36, the commandment about having a priest inspect a house that has mildew on it.”  But no, instead of going to one of these arcane legal gems Jesus turns to one the most essential verses in all of the Hebrew Bible.  

This ancient verse, which is sometimes called “the Shema” is often quoted, to this day, as one of the essential texts of the Jewish faith.  Which one is the greatest commandment?  Well. . .

“Hear [Shema], O Israel:  the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” (12:29:30)  

Way back in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 6, Moses instructs the people to take these words and keep them, reciting these words to their children, and talking about these words morning, noon, and night, and binding them as a sign on their hands and foreheads, and on the doorposts of their houses.[4]  To this day, when you enter a Jewish person’s home, you can see the shema posted right there by the door.  

“Love God – the One God – with all your heart, and soul, and mind and strength,” Jesus tells the man.  “But there is a second great commandment,” he says, “also from our ancient scriptures:  ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”[5]  “There is no other commandment greater than these.” (12:31)

With these two commandments, Jesus takes all of the law – this big complex and sometimes confusing thing that people are still disputing and studying, to this day, and he makes it simple:  Love God.  Love your neighbor.  This is a message so powerfully simple that it can be written on a bumper sticker, or written on our hearts and minds, and repeated to our children, and talked about morning, noon, and night.

The scribe who asks this question is impressed.  This is the teachable moment, right here – the moment in which this scribe (whose name we do not know) learns something from Jesus, the moment in which that which was so complicated and conflicted and disputed becomes so simple and so sure.  When John Calvin wrote about this passage, he said that one of the most significant things, here, is that the scribe has “shown himself to be teachable.” [6]  And, we would be wise to be teachable as well and to be gracious to others in our midst who are teachable when it comes to the love of God and love of neighbor.  “You are right, Teacher,” he says.  “You have truly said the two most important commandments. . .[7] – this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (12:33)

Just so you know, I imagine that the scribe’s realization, about how love is greater than sacrifices, was not necessarily well-received.  You see, I forgot to mention that the chief priests, and scribes, and pharisees were all about keeping the commandments, but they were also all about burnt offerings and sacrifices.  Some of the 613 laws – whole chapters of the Bible – are devoted to how to make proper sacrifices and what to sacrifice.  There’s a lot in there about the sacrificial killing of bulls, and lambs, and birds and there were whole systems at the Temple in Jerusalem for receiving people’s offerings and disposing of animal parts.  It was an economy all to itself and a big moneymaker for the Temple.

On this Reformation Sunday, we would be remiss if we did not mention Martin Luther and others who were fed up with the church’s desire for sacrifice over love.  500 years ago, the church was preaching the message of “What a wonderful eternal life insurance plan we have for you.  Give the church some money and the soul of your loved-one will go to heaven.  Support our big capital campaign down in Rome and we’ll make sure that you’re taken care of, eternally.”  Martin Luther and John Calvin and the other Reformers sought to strip away the whole “give us money and you will be blessed” artifice of the church in their day.  Because there has got to be something deeper to religion than burnt offerings and sacrifices.  The truth is:  there is something deeper.  

Now, I’m going to admit that reading this story about how loving God and loving neighbor is far more important than giving and making sacrifices might not be the most logical passage of scripture to read at the start of Stewardship Season.  I mean, the whole loving God and loving neighbor thing is great, and all, but when we are talking about giving to the church, does loving God and loving neighbor actually rank higher than our giving?  Yes, it does.

This is the time of year in our congregation when we talk about the importance of giving – giving not out of guilt or obligation, but out of a sense of deep gratitude for all that God has done in our lives.  In truth, our good stewardship of all that God has given to us is actually deeply rooted in a place of love – love for God and neighbor.  What and how we give is a loving-with-our-heart-and soul-mind-and-strength thing. . .  It’s a love-of-neighbor thing. . .  It is foundational to who we are and who we are called to be – far deeper than giving out of guilt or fear of the future.  We love God, in part, because we are grateful to God.  And we offer our gratitude back to God because we love God and we want to love our neighbors.  In the end, loving God with our whole selves and loving our neighbor as ourselves does involve sacrifice on our part, because we will often sacrifice for the ones we love.

It is in moments of sacrifice – whether we are giving of our time, or energy, or money – that God is teaching us what and how to love.  It is in these teachable moments – filled with God’s grace – when we are inspired to take whatever our next step might be, in the direction of lives that are more loving, and more generous, more holy, and more whole.  

Jesus sees the teachable scribe in today’s story taking this next step, and he says, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (12:34)  This is a kingdom that can be seen and known in the here and now – a kingdom where love of God and love of neighbor are the most important thing to us – as well as in the yet to come – a kingdom where the love of God and love of neighbor are all we will ever know.

Friends, when we learn to love, first, we are not far from the kingdom.  To this end, may our hearts, and souls, and minds, and strength be teachable.  And may the One who sacrificed everything for the sake of love teach our hearts, and souls, and minds, and strength in the Way that leads to life in the kingdom of God.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.  

-------------

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachable_moment.

[2] The passages describing Jesus in the Temple in the Gospel of Mark begin in Mark 11:15, when Jesus cleanses the Temple.

[3] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) 339.

[4] See Deuteronomy 6:4-9.

[5] See Leviticus 19:18.

[6] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries – Vol. XVII.3 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009) 65.

[7] See Mark 12:32-33.  Paraphrased, JHS.

[phroyd]

President Trump’s reasons for withdrawing the United States from the Iran nuclear deal caught our attention. The stakes are huge, so Trump’s rationale merits scrutiny.

The United States was one of seven countries in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement struck by President Barack Obama’s administration in 2015. Aside from Iran, the other countries are China, France, Germany, Russia and Britain. It remains to be seen whether the Iran deal will hold together without the United States.

We reviewed six of Trump’s claims from his May 8 speech announcing the decision to withdraw from the deal. As is our custom with roundups of multiple statements, we will not be offering a Pinocchio rating. But we invite readers to weigh in with comments.

“In fact, the deal allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and — over time — reach the brink of a nuclear breakout. …

“The agreement was so poorly negotiated that even if Iran fully complies, the regime can still be on the verge of a nuclear breakout in just a short period of time. The deal’s sunset provisions are totally unacceptable. …

“If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen. In just a short period of time, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

Notice how Trump uses flexible wording such as “on the verge of a nuclear breakout in just a short period of time.” This is refreshing and more accurate than his Four Pinocchio claim from April 30: “In seven years, that deal will have expired, and Iran is free to go ahead and create nuclear weapons.”

The JCPOA’s prohibition on Iran’s building nuclear weapons does not sunset, and other international agreements to which Iran has committed itself also prohibit the development of such weapons.

However, critics of the JCPOA have voiced concerns that — despite these strictures — Iran could keep working toward nuclear weapons capability under the guise of pursuing peaceful goals, such as a nuclear energy program.

Trump is alluding to the fact that the JCPOA gradually lifts restrictions on the types of nuclear activities and the level of uranium enrichment Iran may conduct. These and other provisions sunset over 10, 15, 20 or 25 years.

The president argues that easing these restrictions over time would open the door to Iran’s attaining nuclear weapons capability, rendering the JCPOA ultimately ineffective. But supporters of the Iran deal dispute that and say the JCPOA at least buys time, subjecting Iran to strong constraints on its nuclear activities for 10 to 25 years. Without the JCPOA, Iran could hasten its development of nuclear weapons on an even shorter timeline than the one Trump found unsatisfactory, they say.

Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today,” Obama wrote in a Facebook postresponding to Trump’s announcement.

Moreover, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has committed itself to ratifying the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol in 2023. The former restricts Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons, and the latter grants international inspectors wide access to monitor nuclear-related activities within Iran’s borders.

In agreeing to the JCPOA, Iran reaffirmed its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and stated: “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.”

“This disastrous deal gave this regime — and it’s a regime of great terror — many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash — a great embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the United States.”

Trump always makes it seem that the United States casually handed Iran billions of dollars in cash. But as we’ve reported, this was always Iran’s money. Iran had billions of dollars in assets that were frozen in foreign banks because of international sanctions over its nuclear program. The U.S. Treasury Department estimated that Iran would have a little more than $50 billion of usable liquid assets at its disposal after a broad lifting of sanctions under the terms of the JCPOA. The Central Bank of Iran said the number was $32 billion.

Trump also mentions “actual cash.” This relates to the settlement of a decades-old claim between the United States and Iran. In the 1970s, the pro-Western Iranian government under the shah paid $400 million for U.S. military equipment. But the equipment was never delivered because the two countries broke off relations after American hostages were seized at the U.S. Embassy in Iran.

It was certainly an unusual situation — an initial payment of $400 million in euros, Swiss francs and other currencies landed in Iran on Jan. 17, 2016, the same day Iran’s government agreed to release four American detainees, including The Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian.

The timing — which U.S. officials insisted was a coincidence — suggested that the cash could be viewed as a ransom payment. But the initial cash payment was Iran’s money all along.

“At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program. Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie. Last week, Israel published intelligence documents long concealed by Iran, conclusively showing the Iranian regime and its history of pursuing nuclear weapons.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel announced on April 30 that Mossad agents had obtained a massive cache of documents and data discs from Iran about “Project Amad,” a clandestine nuclear-weapons development program. Netanyahu said the documents proved that Iran had lied about its past nuclear efforts.

“What he is revealing with all this detail is not news,” Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, told The Washington Post after Netanyahu gave a PowerPoint presentation laying out these findings. “The fact that Iran has experimented with nuclear warhead designs, and had at one point an active weapons program, makes it all the more essential that the JCPOA remains in place to prevent Iran from quickly amassing enough fissile material for even one bomb.”

Like Kimball and other experts, U.S.-allied nations in Europe described Israel’s findings as nothing new and said they strengthened the case for the JCPOA.

Trump said Israel revealed “definitive proof” that Iran was not interested in limiting its nuclear activity to peaceful purposes. But the documents produced by Israel mostly cover the pre-2003 period, during which Iran already was known to have been pursuing nuclear weapons ambitions.

Or Rabinowitz, an assistant professor of international relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote in an op-ed that Netanyahu and the “Project Amad” documents did not prove that Iran violated the JCPOA. However, the materials obtained by Israel showed that Iran violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Rabinowitz added.

“While not a clear violation of the JCPOA, by possessing the archive, Iran is violating its obligations as a Non-Nuclear Weapon State (NNWS) party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” she wrote. “NNWS members such as Iran are obligated by the treaty ‘not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.’ Possessing documents about producing nuclear weapons contradicts the spirit of the treaty because such documents could promote nuclear proliferation — either directly by the country possessing the archive or by a transfer of know-how to other actors seeking nuclear weapons.

“That’s on top of Iran’s more serious violation of actively trying to develop nuclear weapons before 2003.” (Iran signed the NPT in 1970.)

The IAEA has found that Iran has complied with the JCPOA. The Trump administration has not disputed this assessment, and it certified in July 2017 that Iran was meeting the terms of the deal.

“In the years since the deal was reached, Iran’s military budget has grown by almost 40 percent — while its economy is doing very badly.”

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Iran’s military expenditure increased nearly 30 percent from 2015, when the JCPOA was adopted, to 2017. This increase brought Iran’s military spending back to near-2006 levels. But as we’ve pointed out before, just looking at the raw increase or decrease in any country’s military budget misses important context. Instead, let’s consider Iran’s military expenditure as a share of overall government spending. In 2015, it accounted for 15.4 percent of government spending. It increased 0.4 percentage point, to 15.8 percent of government spending, by 2017. According to a White House official, this spending level is expected to remain stable in 2018. That means military spending increased alongside overall government spending — not in a silo on its own.

Looking at Iran’s military expenditure as a share of GDP, there’s a similar trend. It has increased by only half a percentage point — going from 2.6 percent to 3.1 percent from 2015 to 2017. (For comparison, in 2016, military expenditure accounted for about 3.3 percent of GDP in the United States.)

Iran’s current budget is funded largely through “oil, taxes, increasing bonds, [and] eliminating cash handouts or subsidies” for Iranians, according to an article by a Forbes contributor, Heshmat Alavi, sent to us by a White House official. Citing the semiofficial Iranian Labour News Agency, Alavi wrote that the Iranian government had increased the suggested budget for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps by 42 percent, and 33 percent for the defense budget.

The nuclear accord has contributed to the overall increase in spending — including the increase in military spending — since it lifted sanctions and allowed for a rise in oil production and exports.

“In 2016, the [Iranian] economy registered a strong oil-based bounce back, with an annual headline growth rate of 13.4 percent, compared to a contraction of 1.3 percent in 2015,” according to a report by the World Bank. The bank was careful to note, however, that growth prospects are “modest” because “unemployment remains high and non-oil sector activity remains subdued, as anticipated foreign investment flows have not materialized, in the absence of a full integration of the banking sector.” This signals that the JCPOA has helped facilitate Iran’s recent economic growth — and also that this growth could slow now that the United States has withdrawn from the deal and thrown it into uncertainty.

The bottom line is that it’s hard to see how the Iranian economy is “doing very badly,” although there’s a case to be made that Iran’s wealth is not spread equitably among its population, as some critics argue. The Forbes article we were sent by the White House says: “The IRGC will receive $8 billion from Iran’s fiscal budget. This is equal to cash handouts for 49 million people a year. If [Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani had not increased the IRGC’s budget by 42%, at least 21 million people would be receiving subsidies.”

The Financial Times assessed the situation in an article May 9:

“After a period of relative stability, the rial plummeted ahead of Mr Trump’s announcement on the fate of the Iran deal, losing a third of its black market value against the dollar this year alone. Compared with its level in 2015, when the nuclear deal was inked, it has lost half its value.

“That tumble threatens one of the government’s proudest boasts, the taming of inflation, which has declined from more than 40 per cent a year when Mr Rouhani took office in 2013 to less than 10 per cent. Today price pressures are increasing again, as the cost of imports heads upwards because of the rial’s weakness.

“Mr Rouhani’s administration also emphasises its record in bringing growth back to Iran. According to official figures, the economy contracted by almost 7 per cent in the sanctions-hit year of 2012 but bounced back after the accord was signed, growing by 12.5 per cent in 2016 and 4.6 per cent last year. The business community is far from convinced by such figures, which many contend reflect an inflow of oil revenues thanks to the lifting of sanctions rather than any more genuine economic progress.”

According to the BBC: “Iran’s economy was in a deep recession in the years before the nuclear agreement. But the International Monetary Fund reported that the real GDP of Iran grew 12.5% in the first year following the implementation of the deal. Growth has fallen since then, and the IMF estimates the economy will grow at 4% this year, which is healthy but below the 8% target Iran had for the five years following the deal.”

“Making matters worse, the deal’s inspection provisions lack adequate mechanisms to prevent, detect, and punish cheating and don’t even have the unqualified right to inspect many important locations, including military facilities. Not only does the deal fail to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it also fails to address the regime’s development of ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads.”

Let’s start at the top. To meet its end of the JCPOA deal, Iran first had to dismantle its nuclear program significantly. Then, Iran gave the international community wide access to investigate its nuclear activities.

As we’ve reported, the IAEA already has the ability to investigate nuclear facilities and activities disclosed by Iran’s government. The country also has committed itself to ratifying the IAEA’s Additional Protocol in 2023, which would give international investigators the power to “investigate undeclared nuclear facilities and activities” as well as “demand information from member states,” according to a 2017 report by the Congressional Research Service.

If Iran were to violate the terms of the deal, sanctions would be reinstated.

This all hinges on the access given to international watchdogs (and their ability). Supporters claim the JCPOA grants them unprecedented access. Some critics point out that Iran has been known to evade inspections in the past and that key provisions giving access to monitors sunset over time. Others say the IAEA should be given wider authority, particularly the ability to inspect military sites, to adequately police Iran’s nuclear programs.

“As long as Iran remains in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has an obligation to answer the IAEA’s questions and allow inspectors access to military sites and personnel in Iran related to that effort,” the Institute for Science and International Security, which has been skeptical of the Iran deal, said in a statement after Trump’s speech.

“The Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror. It exports dangerous missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda.”

This claim is not new to the president’s repertoire. Trump suggests the assistance to al-Qaeda continues to the present day. This is in line with the latest State Department Country Reports on terrorism, released in July 2017, which said: “Since at least 2009, Iran has allowed AQ facilitators to operate a core facilitation pipeline through the country, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and Syria.” This phrasing marked a shift from previous reports, which indicated the support was in the past.

Phroyd

[patriotsnet]

Are There Any Republicans Running For President Besides Trump

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/are-there-any-republicans-running-for-president-besides-trump/

Are There Any Republicans Running For President Besides Trump

Justices Prepare For Major Lgbt Rights Case As Trump Threatens To Bring Election To Supreme Court

Trump Rallies Republicans For Ex-Rival ‘Beautiful Ted’ Cruz In Texas

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is due to confront her first major arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, even as President Donald Trump is threatening to bring a case over the previous nights election to the panel.

Trump said in an early morning address to supporters that well be going to the U.S. Supreme Court, we want all voting to stop. The president did not provide more details, and the nature of such a possible case was unclear. The top court generally hears appeals of lower court decisions.

Trump had for weeks suggested he would contest any outcome that was not a victory and pressed to get Barrett, his third Supreme Court nominee, confirmed before Election Day. NBC News has not called the race, and votes continue to be tabulated.

Despite the prospect of a contested election, the court has a normal if important day of business scheduled. At 10 a.m. ET, the justices will hear arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a major LGBT rights case.

The dispute concerns a Roman Catholic adoption agency that is arguing that Philadelphias decision to exclude it from the citys foster care system because it will not work with same-sex households is unconstitutional. Philadelphia has said it is simply enforcing its laws against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

Tucker Higgins

Sen Ted Cruz Of Texas

Cruz, 50, could start out a 2024 election campaign in a much stronger position than his first run in 2016, when he came in second. Its not uncommon for Republicans to select the recent runner up to later be their nominee which is what happened to Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan.

A lot has happened to Cruz since 2016. For one, he became an ardent Trump supporter and grew a beard. But Cruz has also learned lessons from his first presidential run. Should he run again in the 2024 election, hed be a much more experienced campaigner with a more finely tuned message, higher name ID, and a carefully maintained donor base, one Republican strategist said.

Cruz has also faced backlash for objecting to President Joe Bidens Electoral College win. Following the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, seven Democrats asked the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Cruz and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., for amplifying claims of election fraud that led to violence. In Texas, the Republican Accountability Project paid for 100 billboards calling on Cruz to resign. Cruz also angered some close to him, like a longtime friend and former campaign chair who denounced him, and his chief spokesperson, who resigned, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Why Are Republicans So Afraid Of Voters

There is no both sides do it when it comes to intentionally keeping Americans away from the polls.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstandingvalues. It is separate from the newsroom.

As of Sunday afternoon, more than 93 million Americans had cast a ballot in the November elections. Thats about two-thirds of the total number of people who voted in 2016, and there are still two days until Election Day.

This is excellent news. In the middle of a global pandemic that has taken the lives of nearly a quarter of a million Americans, upended the national economy and thrown state election procedures into turmoil, there were reasonable concerns that many people would not vote at all. The numbers to date suggest that 2020 could see record turnout.

While celebrating this renewed citizen involvement in Americas political process, dont lose sight of the bigger, and darker, picture. For decades, Americans have voted at depressingly low rates for a modern democracy. Even in a good year, more than one-third of all eligible voters dont cast a ballot. In a bad year, that number can approach two-thirds.

Why are so many Americans consistently missing in action on Election Day?

For many, its a choice. They are disillusioned with government, or they feel their vote doesnt matter because politicians dont listen to them anyway.

Also Check: Republican Shutdown

Tight Election Adds To Retailers Uncertainty During Already Uncertain Holidays

Retailers have faced nothing short of whiplash this year. And now, one day after Election Day, they face another threat during the all-important holiday season: Americans who may be distracted or anxious as they await results. That could deal a blow to consumer confidence, when retailers would rather shoppers to be centered around gift-giving and decking their homes with holiday decor.

Greg Portell, lead partner in the global consumer practice of Kearney, a strategy and management consulting firm, said the delayed results will absolutely pause consumer spending.

Consumers have been on a great run of spending coming out of the lockdowns, he said. We were looking at a great holiday season. All of that is on pause until we see some clarity on who is going to win.

If history is a guide, at least a temporary drop in spending is likely, according to a recent survey from Adobe Analytics. Adobe found online sales dropped 14% the day after the 2016 election, when Donald Trump;was elected to office. They dropped 6% the day after the 2018 midterms, the firms research showed.

Lauren Thomas and Melissa Repko

Will Texas Republicans Ever Fight For Limited Government

Sometimes when I look around at what Republicans are doing, I dont really know what to do with myself.

Just think about how Republicans were in charge of the U.S. Senate and House and the White House for two years of the first two years of President Trumps term. What did they accomplish? Not much.

Then, what about the last, what is it now, 17 years of Republicans being in charge of all Texas government; the Texas Senate, the Texas House, the Texas Supreme Court, the governors office, all the state agencies? I mean, it is all Republicans running the state yet the accomplishments that have taken place are just not where they ought to be. And you have to ask yourself why.

I think we can find a partial answer to this in an article I ran across the other day about the threatened veto by President Trump on the defense bill. He has said hes going to veto the defense appropriations bill unless Congress puts a provision in it taking away the liability shield from all these high tech companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, that have been seeking to undermine our elections, laws, and democracy.

They lobbied for this provision in law because they said they were going to be neutral providers of content. They were just going to be platforms that people could use and put out whatever information they wanted to.

Recommended Reading: What Did Republicans Gain From The Compromise Of 1877?

In Georgia Runoffs Dems Are Running Hard On Health Care Republicans Not So Much

Why are these elections so important?

In determining control of the Senate, the results will put one party or the other in charge of the legislative agenda. A Democratic sweep would result in a 50-50 Senate with soon-to-be Vice President Kamala Harris being the tiebreaking vote in the chamber.

While there still is a 60-vote threshold to get legislation through, it would be much easier to confirm Bidens Cabinet picks and judicial appointments than if Democrats were in the minority.

Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who would be presumed to be Senate majority leader if Democrats took control of the chamber, would be in charge of what goes to the floor, including, if it came to it, items like doing away with the filibuster entirely or adding justices to the Supreme Court.

If Republicans won, though, GOP leader Mitch McConnell would be able to largely thwart much of Bidens agenda.

Former Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo

If the 2024 election turns into a foreign policy debate, the 57-year-old Pompeo is in a strong position with his background as former secretary of state and CIA director.

During Pompeos recent speech at the Westside Conservative Club in Urbandale, Iowa, he gave a preview of some of the lines that might end up in his presidential stump speech. He said hes spent more time with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un than any other American, including basketball star Dennis Rodman, and talked about the threat he sees from China. His mention of the U.S. moving its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem during his tenure was met with applause.

Before serving in Trumps Cabinet, Pompeo blasted then-candidate Trump as an authoritarian. Pompeo made the remarks the day of the Kansas caucus in 2016, quoting Trump saying that if he told a soldier to commit a war crime, they would go and do it. Pompeo said the U.S. had spent 7½ years with an authoritarian president who ignored the Constitution, referencing former President Barack Obama, and we dont need four more years of that.

Pompeo served three full terms representing Kansas in the U.S. House before joining the Trump administration. He and his wife, Susan, have one child. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy and Harvard Law and served in the U.S. Army.

Don’t Miss: Who Taxes More Republicans Or Democrats

Trump Campaign Seeks To Get Involved In Supreme Court Fight Over Pennsylvania Ballots

President Donald Trumps reelection campaign asked the Supreme Court to let it join the fight at the court over Pennsylvanias absentee ballot deadlines.

Jay Sekulow, an attorney for the president, wrote in a filing submitted to the justices that Trump has a direct, concrete stake in the outcome of the case that was distinct from the interests of the state lawmakers and Republican Party of Pennsylvania that initiated the suit.

In the case, Republicans are suing over the Pennsylvania Supreme Courts extension of the deadline for elections officials to receive absentee ballots in order for them to be counted. The state court extended the deadline to Nov. 6 from the previous deadline of Tuesday.

The Supreme Court rejected the Republican challenge in a 4-4 split on Oct. 19. On Oct. 28, the justices refused to decide a second GOP challenge before Election Day but left open the possibility of a ruling favoring Republicans after Nov. 3.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed onto the bench too late to weigh in on either decision but her presence on the court is thought to favor the Republican challenge moving forward.

The case at the Supreme Court is just one of the many legal battles that the Trump campaign is pursuing in the wake of Tuesdays election.

Trump has claimed for weeks that he might not accept defeat and would challenge a loss in court regardless of the circumstances.

Tucker Higgins

Consider Candidates Track Record And Party Service In Allocating Debate Slots

2020 Election – 5 Republicans Who Might Run For President (Why Donald Trump will be the GOP Nominee)

For a variety of legal and political reasons, the parties authority over their own debates is constrained.44 Yet debates are very important for introducing voters to the partys candidates. They are an essential aspect of the winnowing process. Selecting invitees is particularly challenging when the candidate field is large, as became evident in the Republican nominating cycle four years ago, when the candidates were so numerous that those who fell below a national poll threshold of 3.5% had to attend an undercard debate instead of the main attraction. One consequence was to favor a reality-television celebrity over veterans like Sen. Lindsey Graham, an expert on foreign affairs who had served South Carolina in the Congress since 1993. That seemed shortsighted and unreasonable at the time, and it seems all the more so in hindsight.

You May Like: Why Do Republicans Still Back Trump

Abraham Lincoln: Campaigns And Elections

The Campaign and Election of 1860:

Going into the presidential election of 1860, the issue of slavery had heated the nation to the boiling point. How were the political parties going to maintain unity in the midst of such intense sectional conflict?

Winning Republican Support

After Abraham Lincoln’s defeat in the race for the U.S. Senate, he spent the next sixteen months speaking and traveling all over the North making campaign speeches for numerous Republican candidates. His style avoided the wordy moral rhetoric of the abolitionists in favor of clear and simple logic. Lincoln was successful in laying the groundwork for his candidacy, since by the spring of 1860, many politicians were indebted to Lincoln for his support. Furthermore, because he was out of office and new to national prominence, he had offended no one in particular within the party. Most importantly, Lincoln had established a solid group of campaign managers and supporters who came to the Republican convention prepared to deal, maneuver, and line up votes for Lincoln. His chief opponent, and the man who was sure that he had the nomination in his pocket, was William H. Seward of New York. However, his front-runner status proved to be his greatest obstacle in that it opened him to political criticism even before the convention delegates had met.

Democratic Disunity

Constitutional Union Party

White-Hot Campaign Trail

Impact of 1860 Election

The Campaign and Election of 1864

Vicious Campaign

Political Realities

Confidence Interval: Republicans Will Win Back Congress In 2022

natesilver: Good pick.

nrakich: Yeah, Pence has led almost every 2024 poll so far that hasnt included Trump. It goes back to what I said earlier about name recognition a lot of the time, the early front-runner wins and you dont have to overthink it.;;

geoffrey.skelley: Pence was my No. 2 pick for these reasons. Plus, vice presidents who run for the presidency have a pretty good history of winning nominations! Think of Joe Biden, Al Gore, George H.W. Bush, Walter Mondale. As Nathaniel wrote back in 2019, its often been a successful stepping stone to the presidency.

alex: Not bad, Sarah! But to play devils advocate: If Trump doesnt run, but the GOP is still the party of Trump in 2022 or 2024, would someone who didnt overturn the election go far?

sarah: Excellent point, Alex, which brings me to my second pick. Pence isnt the most charismatic, and as has been pointed out, the idea that the GOP moves in a more moderate direction might not be the direction the party is interested in heading in. And while I know some like Geoffrey are convinced that Trump is gonna pull a Cleveland and run again as I said up top, I dont buy it I think Republicans are going to be OK with someone else at the top of the ticket as long as they stick to Trumps agenda. And if Im right, who better than Trumps eldest son, the heir apparent?

Its grievance politics 2.0 that maybe has the potential to win back Republicans in the suburbs.

geoffrey.skelley: Oh man. DJTJ?

Also Check: What Percentage Of Republicans Are White

Dire Rhetoric Used To Describe Democratic Political Opponents Whats At Stake In Country

During the second impeachment trial, the core of the House impeachment managersâ case was this: Trumpâs extreme rhetoric about the presidential election being âriggedâ incited a mob to storm the U.S. Capitol.

Every Democratic senator and seven Republican senators bought the argument, voting to convict Trump. In both the House and Senate, even Republicans who did not vote to impeach or convict Trump, respectively, criticized his rhetoric and actions surrounding the election.

But at CPAC, while there were few mentions of Jan. 6, several speakersâ rhetoric was similarly inflammatory as they described political opponents in extreme terms and painted a dire picture of a nation led by Democrats.

During his speech, freshman Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., delivered a line eerily similar to one Trump gave on Jan. 6, when the former president said, âIf you donât fight like hell, youâre not going to have a country anymore.â

âIf we sit on the sidelines, we will not have a country to inherit. If we do not get involved and say that it is our duty to make sure that our country is responsible, that our country doesnât take away our liberties, then my friends, we will lose this nation,â Cawthorn said. âThe Democrats, my opponents and adversaries on the other side are brutal and vicious and they are trying to take away all of our rights.â

Democrats Weigh Next Options As Senate Republicans Filibuster Voting Rights Bill

They dont even want to debate it because theyre afraid. They want to deny the right to vote, make it harder to vote for so many Americans, and they dont want to talk about it, Schumer, D-N.Y., said on Tuesday. There is a rot a rot at the center of the modern Republican party. Donald Trumps big lie has spread like a cancer and threatens to envelop one of Americas major political parties.

Vice President Kamala Harris, who has been tasked by the White House to work on voting rights, presided over the Tuesday debate in the Senate.

The legislation is cosponsored by 49 Democratic members of the Senate. The one holdout, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said Tuesday hed vote to begin debate after receiving assurances that the Senate would consider a compromise version that he has said he can support.

Today I will vote YES to move to debate this updated voting legislation as a substitute amendment to ensure every eligible voter is able to cast their ballot and participate in our great democracy, Manchin said in a statement, while adding that he doesnt support the bill as written.

Well keep talking, he said after the vote. You cant give up. You really cant.

Schumer said the vote was the starting gun, not the finish line in the battle over ballot access and vowed that Democrats will not let it die.

He told reporters on Tuesday that the state-led system held up well in the 2020 election.

It has been rejected by top Republicans as a nonstarter.

You May Like: Will Any Republicans Vote To Remove Trump

[orthodoxydaily]

Saints&Reading: Thur., Apr. 30, 2020

Holy Apostle James, BRother of St John the Theologien

The Holy Apostle James, the son of Zebedee, was the brother of Saint John the Theologian, and one of the Twelve Apostles. He and his brother, Saint John, were called to be Apostles by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who called them the “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17). It was this James, with John and Peter, who witnessed the Raising of the Daughter of Jairus, the Lord’s Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, and His agony in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Saint James, after the Descent of the Holy Spirit, preached in Spain and in other lands, and then he returned to Jerusalem. He openly and boldly preached Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, and he denounced the Pharisees and the Scribes with the words of Holy Scripture, reproaching them for their malice of heart and unbelief.

The Jews could not prevail against Saint James, and so they hired the sorcerer Hermogenes to dispute with the apostle and refute his arguments that Christ was the promised Messiah Who had come into the world. The sorcerer sent to the apostle his pupil Philip, who was converted to belief in Christ. Then Hermogenes himself became persuaded of the power of God, he burned his books of magic, accepted holy Baptism and became a true follower of Christ.

The Jews persuaded Herod Agrippa (40-44) to arrest the Apostle James and sentence him to death (Acts 12:1-2). Eusebius provides some of the details of the saint’s execution (CHURCH HISTORY II, 9). Saint James calmly heard the death sentence and continued to bear witness to Christ. One of the false witnesses, whose name was Josiah, was struck by the courage of Saint James. He came to believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. When they led the apostle forth to execution, Josiah fell at his feet, repenting of his sin and asking forgiveness. The apostle embraced him, gave him a kiss and said, “Peace and forgiveness to you.” Then Josiah confessed his faith in Christ before everyone, and he was beheaded with Saint James in the year 44 at Jerusalem.

Saint James was the first of the Apostles to die as a martyr.

Source Orthodox church of America

St Ignatius Brianchaninov

St. Ignatius Brianchaninov was born Dimitri Alexandrovich Brianchaninov (Дмитрий Александрович Брянчанинов), on the February 15, 1807, in the province of Vologda, the son of an aristocratic landowner. Intellectually gifted, peaceful and reflective by character, from early childhood he was drawn to a life of prayer and stillness. However, his father planned a military career for Dimitri, and so, when Dimitri was 15 years of age, his father enrolled him in the Imperial School of Military Engineers in St. Petersburg. There Dimitri excelled, even attracting the attention of Grand Duke Nicholas Pavlovich, the future Tsar Nicholas I. Nonetheless, Dimtri felt called to the monastic life (uncommon for a Russian aristocrat at that time), and he became deeply depressed at the seemingly inevitable prospect of a career as a military officer.

In 1826, Dimitri fell gravely ill, but nonetheless graduated first among all candidates at the School of Engineers and received his commission. Immediately, Dimitri attempted to resign this commission, but his resignation was refused on orders of Tsar Nicholas. However, in 1827, Dimtri became critically ill once more, and this time his resignation was accepted by the imperial authorities.

During the next four years, Dimitri lived as a novice in various monasteries, without settling permanently in any of them, partly because of ill health, and partly because he failed to find a spiritual father in whom he could place unreserved trust. For the remainder of his life, St. Ignatius would lament the scarcity of true spirit-bearing elders in his day. Finally, in 1831, Dimitri was professed monk by the ruling hierarch of his home province, Bishop Stephen of Vologda, and he received the monastic name of "Ignatius." Shortly after that Monk Ignatius was ordained deacon, then priest. All this took place without the approval of his parents. In 1832, Hieromonk Ignatius was appointed superior of a small monastery in the Vologda diocese. However, the damp climate brought about ill-health which quickly forced his resignation.

Then, in autumn of 1833, the most unexpected thing happened. Tsar Nicholas, during a trip to the School of Military Engineers in St. Petersburg, enquired into what had become of the promising student Dimitri Alexandrovich. Upon learning of his monastic profession and hieratic ordination, the tsar ordered Hieromonk Ignatius to return to the imperial capital, where, aged 26, he was raised to the rank of Archimandrite and made igumen of the St. Sergius Monastery, one of the most important in St. Petersburg, and one which enjoyed great imperial patronage. Tsar Nicholas entrusted Archimandrite Ignatius with the task of transforming this monastery into a model community, where visitors to the Imperial Court could see monasticism as it should be.

Over the next 24 years, and amid what was often taxing circumstances, Archimandrite Ignatius fulfilled his duties as igumen of the St. Sergius Monastery, giving particular attention to the beauty of the Liturgy. During this time he was a prolific author, writing much of the material in the five volumes of his collected works.

Finally, however, in 1857, and exhausted by his responsibilities as igumen, Archimandrite Ignatius was elevated to the episcopacy, to serve as Bishop of the Caucasus and Black Sea—a vast, unorganized diocese, whose administrative burdens were particularly difficult for someone afflicted with Bp. Ignatius' ill-health.

Thus, it was no surprise when, after four years of episcopal service, Bp. Ignatius submitted his resignation in 1861. The resignation was accepted, and Bp. Ignatius was allowed to retire to spend the remaining six years of his life in seclusion at the Nicolo-Babaevsky Monastery of the Kostroma diocese, where he devoted his time to writing and a wide correspondence with spiritual children. He reposed in the Lord on April 30, 1867.

Bp. Ignatius was glorified as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1988, and is commemorated on April 30...Source Orthodoxwiki

Acts 4:23-31 NKJV

Prayer for Boldness

23 And being let go, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who [a]by the mouth of Your servant David have said:

‘Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? 26 The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ.’

27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.”

31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.

Footnotes:

Acts 4:25 NU through the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of our father, Your servant David,

John 5:24-30 NKJV

Life and Judgment Are Through the Son

24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

New King James Version (NKJV) Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. All rights reserved. 

Source: Biblegateway