I am not even talking about scriptural problems within the bible, You don't have to open a single bible to start seeing the problems,
1-) The Problem of Salvation and Faith (Why the plan of salvation is ridiculous, and has failed)
I.The ridiculousness of the plan
A. Demanding blood for remission of sins Heb 9:22 - Why is this the terms that god insists upon? Isn't he the architect of the parameters regarding sin, punishment, and forgiveness? Is he not able to forgive sin without blood sacrifice? Can he not say, “No blood sacrifice necessary, I just forgive you?”
B. God sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself by creating a loophole in the architecture for condemnation he engineered in the first place? This is your solution for a problem in which you yourself are the problem. It’s like a doctor stabbing people to be able to operate and save them.
C. Dying for someone else's crime does not equal justice in any court.
D. The sacrifice was not a sacrifice at all :

1. Jesus is said to be eternal
2. He spent a few days in misery out of his billions of years plus of existence
3. He spent a minutiae of a fraction of his existence suffering knowing he would be resurrected after the ordeal and spend eternity in divine luxury, and that somehow provides him justification to sentence us to trillions of years of eternity suffering without end?
4. Jesus is a supernatural immortal who suffered temporary mortal punishment and then sentences mortals to supernatural eternal punishment if they do not receive his sacrifice.
5. Why is three days of punishment followed by eternity in glory sufficient for all the horrible deeds any man has ever committed, but billions of years suffered in hell by a good moral person who does not believe due to lack of evidence is not sufficient?

2-) Nature of The Christian god
I. He is supposed to be an all Powerful and All mighty being and yet he died on a cross by his own creation (If you see someone claiming to be god and then you saw him hie before your very eyes, How on earth are you supposed to conclude anything else other than "This guy is a liar"?)
Modern Christians would respond to this saying "Only the Human part died, The Divine part wasn't affected"
Which again, doesn't make any sense :
A. Even when assuming a human sacrifice is somehow necessary for salvation, The sacrifice of 1 Human being can never be Enough to atone for the sins of all of mankind since Adam and Eve till the return of jesus.
I found a Coptic pope explaining this issue in detail, Here is a link to his book, https://st-takla.org/books/en/pope-shenouda-iii/nature-of-christ/propitiation-and-redemption.html
Quoting from it : "The belief in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos is essential, necessary and fundamental for redemption. Redemption requires unlimited propitiation sufficient for the forgiveness of the unlimited sins of all the people through all ages. There was no solution other than the Incarnation of God the Logos to offer this through His Divine Power.
Thus, if we mention two natures and say that the human nature alone performed the act of redemption, it would have been entirely impossible to achieve unlimited propitiation for man's salvation. Hence comes the danger of speaking of two natures, each having its own specific tasks. In such case, the death of the human nature alone is insufficient."
It's very clear that saying only the human part died doesn't make any sense, Even according to the Christian theology itself.
B. The Trinity is based on a false idea
I know, It's a classic Argument against Christianity but you can't deny that it's an actual damning argument against the Christian theology.

1. God is all knowing but Jesus wasn't all knowing (mark 13:32)
2. Jesus is supposed to be god, but he is praying to himself to save himself with cries and tears?? (Luke 22:41-44)
3. Jesus is god but we can't say he is good because only god is good?? (Luke 18:18-19)
4. God can't be tempted by evil (James 1:13) but yet jesus was tempted by satan?? (Matthew 4:1)
5. Jesus is god but he can't do a thing on his own?? (John 5:31) 6.Jesus is supposed to be the same as the father, But their teachings are different? (John 7:16)

And so many more, Throught the bible i can't help but notice the intense number of verses which clearly states Jesus can't be god.
3-) The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don’t know the actual historical Jesus)
I. No contemporary historical evidence,
A. No historian alive during Jesus day wrote about Jesus despite ample opportunity

1. The kings coming to his birth
2. Herod’s slaughter of baby boys
3. The overthrowing of money changers
4. Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem where he is declared king by the whole town.
5. Darkness covering the whole earth for hours on Jesus’ Death
6. The earthquakes at Jesus’ death
7. The rending of the temple veil at Jesus’ Death
8. The resurrection of Jesus that was seen by 500 witnesses.(Only Paul claims that, even tho he never met jesus)

II. The Gospels are contradicting, late hearsay accounts
A. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written at least after 70 A.D. (referencing fall of temple) by a non-eyewitness, and makes numerous cultural and geographical errors that a Jewish writer would not have made such as locations of rivers, cultural customs regarding divorce, locations of towns or Jesus quoting from the greek Septuagint etc. (see geographical and historical errors in this link, https://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity/Criticism/Bible%20Problems%20by%20Packham%201998.htm#ERRORS )
B. The other gospels all copied from Mark. Luke and Matthew contain over 70% of Mark and mainly make changes in attempts to fix blatant errors made in Mark and to correct Mark’s poor grammar.The writer of Luke even reveals to us in Luke 1:2 that he was not an eyewitness, but that the story has been passed down to him.
C. Four where chosen by the church father Iraeneus because he believed the earth was founded on four pillars and so too, should the gospels be founded by only four accounts.
Iraenus also revealed the names of the Gospels in the late second century, without any reason to assume they where the authentic authors - no one knows who actually wrote them!
D. John was initially considered heretical by the early church because of its variation from the synoptic but was overwhelmingly popular amongst Christians and so was included.
E. The book of Revelations was also considered heretical by many :
For centuries The Revelation was a rejected book. In the 4th century, St.John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against it. Christians in Syria also reject it. The Synod of Laodicea: c. 363, rejected The Revelation. In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianus produced a canon omitting The Revelation. Bishop Amphilocus of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus written some time after 394, rejects The Revelation. When St.Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the Vulgate bible c. 400, he argued for the Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Jewish Bible over the Septuagint translation. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added existing translations for what he considered doubtful books: among them The Revelation. The Church in the East never included the Revelation.
4-) The early church did not seem to know anything about a historical Jesus. Huge amounts of disagreement over Jesus in the first hundred years :

1. Some churches didn’t even believe he had a physical body, prompting Paul to write about that very issue.
   
2. There was an enormous debate between all the major early churches as to whether Jesus was divine or not, this was settled at the council of Nicea by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
   

5-) Which Bible?
A. Over 450 English versions of the bible All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts
B. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain.
C. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts.
Take a look at this example, 1- Revised standard version 2- Revised standard version Catholic edition 3- NEW revised standard version Updated edition 4- NEW revised standard version Catholic edition 5- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised 6- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised Catholic edition
How many attempts would it take to finally get it right ?!
6-) The Morality of the bible
I don't like using Morality as an argument because i believe it's a subjective thing, But I cannot help but notice how the morals of the OT and the NT are completely contradictory
In the OT god was Angry, Vengeful, Demands war, order genocides, Ordered the killing of children and even the ripping open of pregnant women.
But in the NT he somehow became loving, a father figure, saying if anyone hits you you shouldn't even respond back.

• In Conclusion: I don't think Christianity can be accepted as the truth by any logical person (Even most convert stories i heard were basically "I saw jesus in a dream" or "The holy spirit held my hand")

There is so many Theological confusion, A salvation idea that makes 0 sense, Lack of any form of historical critirea of knowing what is true manuscripts and what is hearsays (The authors of the gospels are all Anynomous),
There is even disagreement within Christianity itself about what stories go into the bible (Many stories have been found out to be false like John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:18)
https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/
The lack of consistency on literally everything makes it one of the least convincing religion in my opinion.

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

Kadillac Kirk had been a good friend of mine for several years. I had met him through friends from The Spring Stage; and he never had anything to do with The Imp, which is why he didn’t appear in the Married Mary saga. Mary would have totally thrown herself at him, and Kirk would have definitely “thrown it in her.” He loved the ladies and often remarked that there was no such thing as an unappealing woman, nor was there anything sweeter than finding the pearl of passion in an outwardly plain dame. Fortunately for Kirk, he never met Mary. This was probably fortunate for Mary as well, seeing as Kirk was a confirmed bachelor and his rakish nature might have broken her fat heart.
Kirk was an older guy. Not MOE old, though. He was in his early forties, but he easily passed for a carefree dude in his 30s... not that he lied about his age. I only mention this trait to juxtapose Kirk’s genuine youthful air with Moe’s unconvincing youthful farce. Kirk dressed normally, avoided stupid jargon, and never busted out gimmicks like tarot cards or spells. He just existed, behaved affably, and people liked him for it.
He drove a classic 1962 Cadillac El Dorado convertible with red leather interior, and he lived in a charmingly quaint (and ridiculously expensive) neighborhood. How he made his fortune remained a mystery, but he never bloviated about his wealth. He just threw spectacular parties and people showed up. And, to my knowledge, he never tried to lure women into bed with his money (although I’m sure he got his fair share of boom-boom thanks to his digs and his wheels, even if the gold-diggers denied their monetary agendas).
Kirk was legitimately handsome. He was a drummer, he had a full head of black hair, he was clean-shaven, he worked out, and he knew all the hidden gems in Wellsprings. So why hadn’t I tried... or even desired to date him? I don’t know. I just didn’t feel drawn to him like that. He felt like a cool uncle and he had, thus far, never done anything to change my perception. Plus, the age difference weirded me out a little. Kirk didn’t look forty; but knowing that he had so much more life experience than I did created a power imbalance that would have creeped me out if we’d been dating. As buddies, I just felt supremely cool riding in his Cadillac, smoking Fantasia cigarettes, and hitting the speakeasies and jazz clubs I would have never known about if it weren’t for Kirk’s connections.
And he had been a good person to talk to about my romantic woes. He never lecherously suggested that I should date him, and he gave the type of tempered advice that only comes with lived experience. But he often lightly mocked me for my crush on Dennis and he did a hilarious impression of Smegal popping too soon over his “precious.” So when Mary “got me back” by doing whatever she did with to Dennis, I called Kadillac Kirk and told him the drinks were on me if he’d be my designated driver for the night.
Why hadn’t I called Whisky??? Well, A) Kirk was way more fun to hang out with, at least from my past experiences up to that point. And B) I needed to bitch about a boy, something I couldn’t do in good conscience in front of a guy I was dating. So I put on the sexiest plunging halter dress I owned, applied heavy eye makeup and spikey accessories, braved a pair of stilettos, and sashayed out to Kirk’s convertible. I felt like a badass rock star. I probably looked like a try-hard hooker.
Kirk: Daaaaay-um! Somebody really did do a number on you, huh? I know you said you were upset, but the gents are gonna be writing thank you notes to that fat girl and that butt-fucking hobbit.
Me: I just need to feel pretty and numb. And I trust you to keep me from making a fool of myself.
Kirk squeezed my shoulder. “I’ve got you. You do whatever you need to do to get rid of these demons.”
He sparked up a J and offered me the first puff. I gladly accepted. He took one puff of his own, but said that the rest was mine since he didn’t want to drive stoned. See? He was responsible! Weed wasn’t legal in California yet, so I got a little bit baked before I stashed the sativa in the glove box and wrapped a scarf around my hair like a starlet from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Kirk sped out of the parking lot and said he was taking me to a downtown hotel that was hosting a party that night in their lush lobby.
Kadillac Kirk pulled up to the main entrance, paid the valet, and then opened my door. I was wobbly from the weed. And I had stupidly decided to wear heels. You can get high or you can wear high (heels). You can’t have both. Not if you’ve repeatedly injured both ankles (as I have). I had to take Kirk’s arm to keep from keeling over. “Can people tell I’m stoned?” I whispered. Kirk replied, “Nobody’s paying any attention to anyone else’s intoxication. I promise you that much.” I nodded, steadied myself, and strutted alongside my very cool friend, feeling a little more confident.
A live jazz orchestra was playing Cole Porter as we entered the lobby. Everything sparkled. The music was even more intoxicating than the spliff had been. “Just One of Those Things” brought tears to my eyes since the lyrics hit every raw nerve regarding the Dennis debacle. But I smiled. It might sound mental, but being distraught over a trash fire of a one-sided romance was exhilarating. Immature, for sure. But also exhilarating. You see, that kind of sadness doesn’t hurt. Not really. It stings. It leaves little bruises, but it’s very safe to wallow in because you haven’t actually lost anything. Melancholia over that which you never had is as sweet as it is bitter; and that type of twisted splendor is rivaled only by Stendhal.
“Here's hoping we meet now and then. It was great fun, but it was just one of those things.” I sang along with the band, and a fat tear rolled down past my melancholic smile and onto my chin. Kirk brushed it aside. “Too close to home?” I wiped away the remnants of the tear’s journey from eye to chin and smiled a more genuine smile. “The perfect distance from home. Shall we get drinks? Remember, I’m buying.”
Kirk: No, no. This is your time to heal. And I’m here as your pal, not your chauffeur. What would the lady like?”
I pretended to barf. Kirk knew I hated it when he got overly formal and overly attentive. So he did it just to mess with me. “Shot of vodka,” I replied.
Kirk: How many?
I thought briefly. “FIVE.”
Kirk: Five to one, baby. One in five...
Me: No one here gets out alive.
Kirk: Are you able to hold yourself upright, or should you come with?
I took a seat on an ornate, damask-upholstered chaise lounge. “I’ll be okay. And I was kidding about the five shots.”
I sat there lost in the music for a while. I thought very little about Dennis. Even less about Mary. And not at all about Whisky (whom I had shagged less than a week ago). My mind danced through the ornate lighting in the hotel lobby, and I suddenly felt the need to join the hoity-toity guests on the dancefloor!
Kirk returned with four shots of vodka. Two for him, two for me. That was quite reasonable of him. He knew damn well that I couldn’t handle five shots, but he also knew that I was in a... state. One that called for more than a single shot. I raised a both miniature glasses to “No more ninnyhammers or hairy-footed lovers.” Kirk did his hilarious Smegal impression, we double-toasted, and downed the shots. The band launched into “Let’s Misbehave,” and I kicked off my stilettos and made a beeline for the dance floor.
“There’s something wild about you child that’s so contagious. Let’s be outrageous! Let’s misbehave.” Kadillac Kirk swept me up, twirled me around, and dipped me as we both sang along with the lyrics. I wasn’t swooning for him, but I was enthralled by the moment. The music, the dancing, the combination of booze and bud... so I kissed him as he pulled me back to my feet. And he kissed back. In a way that Dennis never had. In a way that Whisky’s beard wouldn’t permit. I didn’t feel the visceral sensations that I’d felt when Dennis had kissed me, but it felt nice to feel desired. And then I noticed that other guests were watching us and applauding. Now, that was a dopamine rush if ever there was one!
I gently broke away from the embrace, high-fived Kirk and returned to the chaise lounge to put my stupid shoes back on. He followed me and smashed his face back onto mine. I pulled away and laughed. “It was a moment,” I told him. “I appreciate the dance, and that kiss was the perfect finale. But it’s not happening again.”
Kirk: Not to worry, Valerie. I know you. I knew all along that we were performing, and I was more than happy to be your scene partner.
Me: And dance partner! Those were some excellent moves! I didn’t know you had ballroom training.
Kirk: You name it, I’ve mastered it. Another drink for the lady?
I pretended to barf again. “Not yet. I’m not sad right now. Do you mind if I just sit here and enjoy the music?”
Kirk: Ah. My kisses do have healing properties...
I flipped my hand up at him. “Knock that shit off, bro. I wanted to hang out with you because I trust you not to get weird. Even if I get weird, I know you have the maturity to balance me out.”
Kirk: Are you calling me old???
Me: No. I’m calling you rational, responsible, and respectful.
Kirk: Well, now. If you can articulate an alliterative statement that fluently, then you clearly aren’t drunk enough!
I dismissed this comment as a joke. And he did indeed knock off the flirtation. We had a perfectly pleasant time chatting and dancing (no more kissing, though). And then I noticed a girl I knew from Into the Woods entering the lobby. She’d played Florinda and I’d played Little Red. I called her name and waved enthusiastically. She waved back. And then her date entered. It was D.E.N.N.I.S. I sank into the chaise. Kirk caught on immediately. “The hobbit???” he asked. I nodded silently. “You wanna make out again?” he enthused. I shook my head. I had to go say hello to Flo. And I had an idea...
I crossed the lobby, smiled, squealed, and hugged her.
Florinda: Lil’ Red! It’s been forever! So glad to see you!!! This is my friend, Denny.
Dennis was shifting uncomfortably. I extended my hand. “Nice to meet you. I know your date from Into the Woods. I bet she could tell you some entertaining stories about that show...” Flo laughed out loud, well aware of the many misadventures to which I'd referred. Of course, she might have been laughing because Dennis never, ever listened to anyone else's stories. He was too busy telling, re-telling, slightly altering, and exaggerating his own.
Dennis: C’mon, Val...
Me: Oh, you’ve heard of me? Small world! You guys picked a great night to come here. They’re playing Cole Porter, and the band is delovely!
Florinda (appearing oblivious to the iciness between me and Dennis): Have you seen Prince Big Bad (Scumbanger) lately?
I laughed. “Last time I saw him, he was hitting on some nasty fat chick at The Imp.”
Flo and I both scoffed at the pervy pest. Into the Woods was where I’d initially met Scumbanger. He played The Wolf/Cinderella’s Prince. Again... typecasting. There’s a whole essay in my brain about my first encounter with the pest, during which he quoted the song that he sang to me in the show, “Hello, Little Girl.” But it gets into some pretty uncomfortable territory because he made me feel excited. Well, excited and scared. Nothing of note happened during Into the Woods, but our odd interactions did kind of set the stage for some extremely regrettable events during that Cats cast party.
I excused myself, saying that I needed to get back to my friend. And then I leaned in and said in a hushed voice to Flo, “Watch your ass with that one. If he’s the Denny I’m thinking of...” I gave her a look that only another female would be able to read. Her eyebrows shot up and she nodded. Dennis continued to shift as though he were trying to hold in a massive dump. “BABE! Uh...”
Flo apparently answered to that moniker as well. “What is it, Denny? Don’t worry. That was just telepathic girl talk. You apparently have a reputation...”
Dennis: Different Denny. I assure you I’m a pious gentleman.
Me: Ah. My mistake. Well, then. You guys have a good time! Nice to meet you, Denny. Great to see you, Flo!
I hugged Flo again, gave Dennis a curt nod, ignored the scent of mandarins and mountain air, and returned to Kirk.
I collapsed on the chaise lounge, exhausted from holding back the rage. I had no right to be mad at Florinda. I hadn’t seen her in three years, so how was she supposed to know that I’d had a thing with Dennis? Hell, I couldn’t even be mad at Dennis because the last time he and I had spoken in any meaningful way, I’d told him that I was no longer entertaining my crush on him. So why was I surprised to see him dating??? And why had he never taken ME out on a date like this??? And why wasn’t I smitten with Kadillac Kirk who HAD taken me out on a date like this, was an objectively excellent kisser, and a bona fide BALLER? What was wrong with me???
Kirk suggested going down the street to a quaint little bar and then sobering up at a diner closer to my apartment. I numbly nodded and followed him in silence for a few blocks. He assured me that I had “turned several heads” on the way to the new location, but I neither cared nor believed him. This wasn't the type of numbness I'd been aiming for. Now I needed to get schnockered. “Five shots of vodka, please.” Yes, I was serious.
Kadillac Kirk, my reliable designated driver, ordered only a beer and watched in something across between astonishment, concern, and delight as I slammed all five shots in rapid succession. I half expected to immediately retch all over the bar. But I felt fine. I half expected to immediately lose consciousness and wake up in the hospital. But I remained coherent. How I’d managed to take in that much hard liquor and suffer no direct consequences, I’ll never know.
I think I wanted to suffer. I wanted to either feel nothing at all or to feel a sickness bad enough to distract me from the scorching sting that pulsed through my being when I realized that I had lost the abstract notion I’d been addicted to this entire time. Hope. It wasn’t Dennis himself I couldn’t quit. It was that drug called hope. The hope that maybe, just maybe Dennis would give our romance a fair chance. The hope that maybe, just maybe he would make peace with himself, get his mind out of his crotch, and enjoy some agenda-free togetherness. The hope that maybe, just maybe he would stop bloviating about his admittedly impressive accomplishments for five fucking minutes and ask about my life. I had my own reasonably impressive accomplishments, even if they paled in comparison to his. A proper suitor would have enjoyed hearing about them.
But seeing him out with another woman, a woman who had no reason to parade her Dennis escapades before me as some means of revenge, a woman he was clearly courting of his own volition... My hope had died. It died before I’d had time to wean myself off it. Now I had to mourn the loss of hope, which is a very tricky brand of grief to navigate. Vodka wasn’t the answer, but it was what I had to work with. So it would have to do.
After enough time had passed without vomiting or collapsing, I asked Kirk to bring his car around to the bar so that I didn’t have to walk two and a half blocks drunk and in heels. He nodded and dramatically leaned in for a kiss. I recoiled. “DUDE! I told you. The moment has passed.”
Kirk: I beg your pardon. I misread your eyes. Thought I saw a green light...
Me: It’s fine. I just want to go home while I’m still feeling okay.
Kirk: Of course. Your chariot will be here soon.
He skipped off to fetch his Cadillac and I noticed that the lights in the bar were beginning to dance a bit. This should have been concerning. But then I realized that I was giggling. Wait... What? Oh shit. Sure, I was drunk from those shots. But what I was feeling in that moment wasn’t drunkery. It was stonery. Kirk probably misread my face because my pupils were dilated. Not from desire, but from drug use.
Some of you might be thinking that I was a bad friend for not introducing Lucy, an old dude connoisseur, to Kirk. Well... I did. Several years before the events of this story. He adored her. She, on the other hand, thought he was immature. And she wasn’t wrong. Lucy was astute when it came to sussing out a person’s true nature. Far more astute than I. Her initial assessment that Kirk was immature is about to be vindicated. Stretch those cringe muscles! It’s almost time for pie...
I somehow managed to get to his car. I honestly don’t recall how I got there. Did one of the bartenders carry me? Did some kind patron allow me to lean on him? Had Kadillac Kirk carried me out? I’m not sure. But my memory ceases to be fuzzy about halfway to the 24-hour diner. It might have been the very same 24-hour diner where Mary pulled her... shenanigans. I’ll never know.
Kirk: Would you say that you’re more drunk or more stoned?
Me: STONED. Definitely stoned.
Kirk made some sort of grunty noise and reached for my thigh. I slapped his hand.
Kirk: Stoned but not amorous? That’s rare.
I started laughing rather unkindly. “You’re a fucking horndog! I thought you were my safe straight male friend, dammit.”
Kirk: I solemnly swear that your safety is my primary concern, my stoned beauty.
I pretended to throw up.
Kirk: So... You’re not horny. But are you hungry? The diner I’m heading to makes this Maple Walnut Pie with the most sumptuous... sensual cream and exquisite drizzling of...
Me: Ew! Stop trying to bang the pie. Bro. Are YOU stoned? (Then I remembered the question.) Yes, I’m hungry. But I don’t like nuts. I’ll have banana cream.
Kirk made that repulsive grunty noise again. “Uhhhhh... Mmmmmm. Cream. Yessssss. Yes, we’ll be there in just a minute.” He was squirming in the driver's seat.
Me: GROSS, DUDE! If you’re gonna be like that I’ll just order HASH brows. Get it? Hash??? (I giggled uncontrollably.). You can’t make that sound nasty.
Kirk: Forgive my jokes. I think my blood sugar’s a bit low.
As Kirk parked, I began to wonder how I might get away with walking shoeless into the diner. The stilettos had to get off my feet. At least while I was walking. And Kirk was kind enough to give me his socks and wear his loafers “island style” into the establishment. Okay, that was gallant of him. Maybe he was going to behave himself for the rest of the evening.
I wasn’t terribly talkative as we sat down, and he expressed concern for my emotional well-being. I wasn’t coherent enough to explain what was happening to my emotions and I wasn’t sure I trusted him with my deep, dark secrets at that point. So I shrugged like a sulky teenager, ran my hands over my messy, windblown hair, and mumbled that I was “just hungry.” And right on cue, a very kind, slightly older waitress with a sweet southern accent stopped by to take our order.
Kirk: Ah, yes. We’ll have two cups of black coffee. And we’ll share a slice of that delectable Maple Walnut Pie.
Waitress: Oh, honey. That pie is scrumptious! I take it you’ve been here before?
Kirk: I have. This will be her first time to taste the splendor.
I hated to be a killjoy, but I interrupted and said to the waitress, “Ma’am? I’m sure the Maple Walnut is excellent, but could I please get a slice of Banana Cream? And a big glass of ice water?
Waitress: Sure, hon! Banana Cream’s just as yummy! I’ll be right back with those coffees and that big water.
Kirk was sucking on the tip of his forefinger and shaking his head a bit. “You’re passing up so many sensational... sensual...”
I put my forehead on the table and growled. “You swore you’d stop being nasty!” I held this #headdesk pose for quite some time before I finally lifted my head... only to see that Kirk was still sucking his fingertip and staring at me like a wild animal. “Pleeeeeease be normal,” I whined. “It’s been a really weird night for me.”
Kirk: Indeed. Many surprises. You know... You’re like titanium. Your flame burns so fast and so bright, if a guy doesn’t get in there while the iron is hot, he’ll never get another chance. I was too slow.
What the...? I was pretty sure he was wrong about titanium burning quickly. I’m no chemistry wiz, but my dad and my oldest brother are both big-brains when it comes to physics and chemistry. So I picked up some things just listening to them talk. Accurate or inaccurate, Kirk was being creepy again. He’d never been creepy towards me before, although I’d seen him act like this with other women. Usually with staggering success. Why????? His money. It had to be his money. Kirk was a nice-looking man, but holy shit... No amount of good looks could save this creep show.
And then, our sweet waitress sat down our coffees, my water, and the two slices of pie. After I gulped down a whole bunch of water, I grabbed a fork, prepared to quell my munchies... and then I froze. Kirk was quickly flicking his finger back and forth across the top of his pie. And moaning. He noticed my wide-eyed stare, smirked, sucked the tip of his thumb, picked up the plate with both hands, and began flicking his tongue across the tip of the triangular pie slice. And moaning some more. Well, there went my appetite.
Kirk took his middle finger and jabbed it into the crustless vertex of the pie slice, then he began pumping it in and out like a piston, and flicking his thumb across the increasingly demolished top layer of whipped cream. He gasped this time. People were starting to stare. His pointer finger joined his middle finger in the piston action, and he replaced his thumb with his tongue. Between flicks of the tongue, he groaned, “Oh yeah, baby... Let me taste you,” but it was kind of hard to understand him.
And I was either about to run to the back office, tell them that I was in danger and needed a police escort home... OR I was about to burst out laughing at the spectacle. Kirk continued... He removed his fingers and gregariously licked pie filling off of them. And then he started sucking his fingertips again, switching from middle to pointer, middle to pointer and emitting a delighted little, “Mmmmmm” with every suck.
Finally, he jabbed his fingers back into the utterly destroyed pie, lowered his face into the mess and lapped loudly and passionately, moaning, grunting, and mumbling “Come on, baby. Come on. Mmmmmm. Come on.” I could see the waitress and some dude in a suit heading over to the table, so I sank down in my seat, partially covered my face, but continued to watch the train wreck. At last, Kirk shuddered violently, he splatted his entire hand onto the plate and rubbed furiously. And then he locked eyes with me. He sucked the tip of his thumb one final time and said, “You...” There was a long pause during which Kirk lovingly stroked the mess he’d made. “You... are the pie.”
I don’t hang out with Kadillac Kirk anymore. But he’s still a bachelor, ladies!

Why being transgender is not a sin, by MARK WINGFIELD NOVEMBER 9, 2018

Link to original post: https://baptistnews.com/article/why-being-transgender-is-not-a-sin/#.YYk6tE7MK72
I recently met a lovely young family in the northern suburbs of Dallas. They told me they previously attended a large Baptist church there – until their high school son became their daughter.
The mother was committed to her volunteer work in the church, and when she told the pastor who supervised that ministry area that her child was transgender, the pastor said: “That’s fine. We love everybody here. But it’s still a sin.”
“Blah, blah, blah, but….” Whatever comes after the “but” always negates whatever nice things were said in the first part of the sentence. Beware of the “but.”
Some would look kindly on the suburban pastor’s response because, after all, the pastor didn’t kick the family out of the church or condemn the teenager straight to hell. But.
Even among Christians who appear kind or progressive, too often the existence of someone who identifies as transgender gets chalked up to “sin.” No doubt that’s the root reason so many Christians happily pile on against transgender persons and their family members about bathrooms and schools, because in their heart of hearts, they don’t understand transgender identity and simply default to thinking it is a sinful lifestyle choice.

I think we all can agree that a “sin” is something we do that we shouldn’t do, something we have a choice about. If I eat an entire half-gallon of ice cream, I am likely guilty of the sin of gluttony. I didn’t have to eat the ice cream. If I fixate on why other people are more athletic and agile than me in my mid-life body, I probably am guilty of the sin of envy. There is a way for me to redirect my thoughts to avoid envy.
The same is not true of transgender identity. Emphatically and conclusively, this is not a choice. It is who a person is. Did you choose to have red hair? Did you choose to be tall or short? Did you choose to have the genetic markers you have? Of course not. Transgender persons are simply acknowledging that the gender identity assigned to them at birth because of physical anatomy does not match the brain, biochemical and genetic gender identity they know inside.
Since writing a column two years ago about understanding transgender identity – an opinion article that has been read more than 1 million times and led to giving a TED Talk on the same subject – I have conversed with hundreds of transgender persons and family members of transgender persons. That’s not just ministerially speaking. It really has been hundreds. Every one of those transgender persons has told me that they knew from their earliest awareness – from the time they were 4, 5 or 6 years old – that the gender anatomy they showed on the outside did not match who they knew they were on the inside.
There is an increasing body of scientific evidence to back up this assertion. For example, a 2008 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that female fetuses with increased prenatal exposure to androgens are more likely to have gender nonconforming behaviors. Researchers – including some theologically conservative ones – point to environmental factors that may be responsible for what appears to be an increase in transgender identity through endocrine disruption beginning in the 20th century. This is linked to industrialization, development of new chemicals and medicines.
But these environmental factors only explain an increase, not the presence of transgender identity, which has been documented for centuries. The American Academy of Pediatrics (not to be confused with a small association of conservative pediatricians often cited by critics of transgender rights) recently released a new policy statement explaining that variation in gender identity is a normal part of human diversity. For an excellent, lay-friendly description of the emerging science of transgender identity, look to this report from Harvard University.

I could quote chapter and verse for study after study, and that would not change the minds of some people who are determined to label as sinful anything they do not understand, usually because “the Bible says so.” In these cases, I ask people to tell me where in the Bible being transgender is condemned as sinful. The only answer usually offered is Deuteronomy 22:5, which says: “A woman shall not wear a man’s apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord your God.”
Here’s the problem with even a literal reading of that passage: Transgender persons will tell you they are not “men” putting on “women’s” clothing or “women” putting on “men’s” clothing. Instead, they are declaring an identity much deeper than clothing; they are saying that they are dressing outwardly to match who they know they are on the inside. This is not cross-dressing, which is not the subject of this column. Cross-dressing is about finding pleasure in wearing certain clothes. Being transgender is about finding mental and spiritual peace by aligning outward presentation with inner being.
Occasionally, people will point to Genesis 1:27 as a condemnation of transgender identity: “male and female he created them.” Most transgender persons will tell you they believe God has, in fact, created them as either male or female; the problem is how they have been labeled by others who are not God.
Some people today identify as “gender fluid,” meaning they find in themselves bits of both male and female identity and cannot definitely say they are one or the other. While this may sound unsettling to some of us on first hearing, a return to Genesis might help. There we also learn that God created both “night” and “day” and that God separated “land” from “sea.” Yet we have no problem understanding the existence of dawn and dusk or marshes and everglades. Also, the point of Genesis 1 is inclusion, not exclusion. The ancient text tells us that God created everything: “and,” not “or.”
The other lesson we need to keep learning from Genesis is that all humanity is created “in the image of God.” Everybody. Without exception. When we look at others who are different than us and try to see in them the image of God, we gain new understanding and empathy.
Sometimes well-meaning Christians get this part but still can’t get over the “sin” label. So they will say things like, “All of us are sinners in God’s eyes, and it’s just that my sin is different than your sin.” That’s another way of saying, “I love you, but….”
There’s an easy way to remember why this is wrong: Transgender identity is about who a person is. It is about their fundamental being as humans created by God in God’s image – an image that God has declared to be good.

"I love "Star Trek" deeply because of its radical, aggressive optimism. It envisions a world, and a form of entertainment, that downplays conflict. Drama and power can come from elsewhere. The future, "Trek" always declared, was going to be populated by nerds, miracle tech, and egalitarianism. And what's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?"
Witney Seibold (SlashFilm)
Link:
https://www.slashfilm.com/1582617/star-trek-changed-my-life-forever-reigns-as-greatest-sci-fi-franchise-of-all-time/
Quotes:
"Like many Trekkies, I came to "Star Trek" at an early age. Throughout the 1980s, reruns of the original series would air on my local station (KCOP, channel 13 in Los Angeles), and they would serve as a periodic video backdrop to our dinnertimes. As a child, "Star Trek" was merely an action-light, horror-heavy sci-fi adventure series, and my older sister and I would gleefully yell out when Spock (Leonard Nimoy) performed his notorious Vulcan nerve pinch, or when Captain Kirk (William Shatner) got to snog an itinerant babe. We would hide our heads from the monster of the week; like many, I was terrified by the scowling face of Balok, the Ted Cassidy-voiced puppet alien from "The Corbomite Maneuver" (November 10, 1966).
Perhaps unusually for a child, I wasn't powerfully drawn to action, fights, or explosions in my entertainment. I would indeed watch the era's toyetic wartime cartoons like "Transformers" and "G.I. Joe," of course, but I didn't care deeply for the characters, nor have much invested in their dramatic stakes. I had trouble taking the "oorah" action seriously, perhaps already innately understanding that the cartoon soldiers were fictional and their triumphs were only temporary; what is the meaning of a victory when the bad guys will merely return the following week?
I only realized this in retrospect, but "Star Trek" was secretly providing an antidote to the breathless mayhem oozing from every pore of my generation's childhood entertainment. It was a series that, despite bad guys, monsters, and fights, was ultimately teaching intense lessons of diplomacy and leadership. The crew of the Enterprise weren't "violent/cool," and I liked that. Finally, I realized, here was a show about pacifism.
And, yes, "Star Trek" communicated themes of pacifism. It might have been a fluke of 1960s special effects budgets, but "Star Trek" rarely showed the USS Enterprise firing off its weapons or getting into full-scale starship battles. The common playground pop culture query of "who would win in a fight?" seemed churlish with "Star Trek." Would Kirk win in a fight with, say, Han Solo? Even as a wee bairn, I had to ask why Kirk and Han Solo would be fighting in the first place. I figured Spock would merely ask Han Solo about his ship while Kirk invited him in for a meal. Power, "Star Trek" argued, wasn't derived from one's ability to dominate and overwhelm others with tactics and weapons prowess, but to negotiate, adapt, and remain friendly.
[...]
Whether "Star Trek" taught me to be a pacifist or whether I was already a pacifist can be debated, but creator Gene Roddenberry and I were definitely on the same wavelength. "Star Trek" took place in a post-war universe at a time when humans had outgrown the need to kill each other for resources, and petty political grievances were a thing of the past.
[...]
Star Trek is for nerds, and that's a good thing
While it may be a cliché, I still maintain that "Star Trek" is for nerds. That is, I should hasten to add, a high compliment. With the release of "Next Generation," I was given my clearest, most refreshing draft of action-antidote. I began to realize that the rest of the American viewing public longed for conflict and war and action in their entertainment, with boys my age constantly raving about the latest 'splosion-fest that evoked the word "awesome."
Meanwhile, over on "Star Trek: The Next Generation," the universe had already graduated, moved into the stars, and gave up on action altogether. Oh sure, Commander Riker (Jonathan Frakes) was handy with a phaser, Worf (Michael Dorn) could murder you with a bat'leth, and the USS Enterprise-D needed to employ some sneaky battlefield tactics to outgun the Borg (or any number of other opponents), but one always got the sense that weapons and fights were a last-ditch tactic, a formality that must be seen through before an understanding could be reached. War was to be avoided at all costs.
What's more, there were classical references! Whenever Picard quoted Shakespeare, my heart would sing. By the time I turned 13 (when NextGen had just finished its fourth season), I too was getting into Shakespeare and Picard emerged as a teacher, a fictional professor that you didn't want to disappoint. I finally realized that the nerdy sci-fi technicalities of "Star Trek," along with its classical obsessions, workplace propriety, devotion to diplomacy, multicultural mindsets, and ability to brainstorm open-minded solutions to complex problems ... these were all aspirational states. Scoop in a few ethical dilemmas — racism, euthanasia, gender politics — and "Trek" gave me everything.
Star Trek obsession is healthy, actually
Like with the original series, the peacefulness of "Next Generation" could easily have been a product of its budget; without the money to stage massive phaser battles, fights and scrapes rarely rose above the skirmish level. This, by necessity, required the show to de-emphasize violence. The makers of "NextGen" also couldn't afford to visit alien worlds regularly, forcing them to shoot on the same six or seven sets week after week.
The limitations, however, allowed Trekkies to enjoy our time on board the Enterprise. "Star Trek" is, after all, a workplace drama above anything else, and we loved seeing the characters do their jobs on an day-to-day basis. We lived with the Enterprise crew long enough that we started to get a sense of how the ship worked. That, in turn, led directly into fantasies of living in "Star Trek," knowing we could operate the machinery if asked. It also didn't seem so terrible to live in a world that was devoted to science, peace, and diplomacy.
[...]
When J.J. Abrams' 2009 "Star Trek" reboot film came out, the franchise was altered to be one of the usual action flicks that "Trek" previously eschewed. It appealed to a mass audience. Conversations began as to what constituted "real Trek," leading directly into additional conversations about gatekeeping, fandom, and franchise evolution. Is "Star Trek" for nerds, or can it appeal to — for lack of a better term — jocks?
Conversations between Trekkies in the 1990s were impassioned, but rarely caustic (at least in my experience). In 2009, however, notions of fan toxicity were more openly acknowledged among pop obsessives, and people became angrier about their obsessions. All of a sudden, I was an "old school" Trekkie.
I was 31 and okay being "old school." After all, decades had passed since "Next Generation," a series that responded to Ronald Reagan and flourished during the 1990s. Why shouldn't it adjust again? I didn't like the franchise's actioned-up response to 9/11, but I was still happy to have debates as to what "Star Trek" meant and what modern action films communicated.
"Trek" taught me to negotiate ... about "Trek."
What Star Trek means today
I am on record with my feelings about the Paramount+ era of "Star Trek," and I have frequently been rather critical. I want to go on record, however, that my criticisms are not based in misplaced nostalgia, prejudicial hate against new "Star Trek," nor a gradually closing mind (an unfortunate affliction that can sometimes strike people rounding middle age). Indeed, I have liked a great deal of the "Star Trek" shows that have debuted since 2017. I think "Star Trek: Lower Decks" perfectly balances humor and irreverence with notable "Star Trek" themes of growth and maturity. "Lower Decks" is about lower-ranking officers who have the crappiest jobs on a Starfleet vessel, and struggle to grow up when they have a twentysomething's instincts toward laziness and bad decision-making. "Star Trek" is about adults, and "Lower Decks" sees people becoming adults.
Likewise, "Star Trek: Strange New Worlds" returns to an episodic structure, allowing for miniature dramas and handily-packaged morality plays to be presented more cleanly than the broad arcs of "Discovery" or "Picard." I only wince at "Star Trek" when it violates its own principles or lazily falls into action-based stories that (perhaps unwittingly) glorify combat, war, and aggression. And make no mistake, these kinds of stories were always part of the franchise; they didn't start in 2017.
I love "Star Trek" deeply because of its radical, aggressive optimism. It envisions a world, and a form of entertainment, that downplays conflict. Drama and power can come from elsewhere. The future, "Trek" always declared, was going to be populated by nerds, miracle tech, and egalitarianism. And what's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
War was our awkward adolescence, "Trek" said, and our adulthood is in the stars."
Witney Seibold (SlashFilm)
Link:
https://www.slashfilm.com/1582617/star-trek-changed-my-life-forever-reigns-as-greatest-sci-fi-franchise-of-all-time/

Loving you was like being in the middle of a big black hole. A stillness. Afraid to move because any shift and the chaos and complete darkness around me would swallow me up and I didnt know how long it would be until it would spit me back out again.
There was a comfort in the familiarity of your cold absence. Days at a time, because I did or said something you didn't like. You called it indifference and I called it punishment.
"You're too much. Too intense, too sensitive, too clingy and overbearing" You'd tell me when I would lay out my heart for you. Send you long paragraphs about how I felt about you. Sometimes poems that expressed perfectly how I felt about you. When I would beg to see you because I just really needed a hug from you and to be near you. Or when I'd call, because I just wanted your voice to be the last thing I hear before falling asleep.
When I'd ask why you've been ignoring my messages you'd say because talking to friends is a privilege not an obligation. That my topics of conversation weren't of urgency or importance. And that's when it clicked. If you analyze, the majority of conversation isn't that of urgency or importance.
What you meant to say was my thoughts and feelings weren't of importance to YOU.
You could be talking about anything, things I don't know a thing about and I would still listen, you being all I could see and hear. Because if its important to you, whatever it may be, its important to me.
That's the difference. ............................................. No matter how much I want a future with him, no matter how badly I wish it, it's not going to happen.
Not everyone we love is going to love us the same way back, or love us at all.
And that's okay. I'm working on understanding and coming to terms with that. But you know what, it's hard. Its hard letting go. Sometimes I find it hard to cope, like a child having a meltdown when they dont get what they want.
So if you have a piece of advice you can spare or a song or a quote or whatever that helped you move on at one time, please share it with me♥️

Providing a list of 50 alleged falsehoods or contentious points from the Book of Mormon is a complex task and might be perceived as disrespectful to those who hold it as a sacred text. However, I can list some common points of debate that critics often discuss. If you're looking for more detailed scholarly critique, there are many sources available from historians and religious scholars.

1. No evidence of large-scale civilizations: Critics argue that there is no archaeological evidence for the large-scale civilizations described in the Book of Mormon.
2. Anachronistic animals: The text mentions animals like horses and elephants, which were not present in the Americas during the time periods described.
3. Wheeled vehicles: References to wheeled vehicles, which were not used by pre-Columbian civilizations in the Americas.
4. Old World plants: Mentions of wheat and barley, which were not found in the Americas during the time periods described.
5. Steel and iron: The use of steel and iron in the Book of Mormon does not match the known metallurgical history of pre-Columbian America.
6. Silk: References to silk, which was not produced in the pre-Columbian Americas.
7. DNA evidence: Genetic studies have not shown a link between Native Americans and the ancient Israelites as suggested by the Book of Mormon.
8. Hebrew and Egyptian languages: The Book of Mormon claims it was written in Reformed Egyptian, a language for which there is no evidence.
9. Nephite and Lamanite cultures: Lack of archaeological evidence for the Nephite and Lamanite cultures described in the text.
10. Coinage: References to coinage, which was not used by ancient American civilizations.
11. Glass: Mention of glass, which was not produced by ancient American civilizations.
12. Chariots: References to chariots, which were not used in the Americas.
13. Cattle and sheep: Domesticated cattle and sheep were not present in the Americas during the time periods described.
14. Agricultural practices: Some agricultural practices described do not match those of ancient American civilizations.
15. New World geography: Some geographic descriptions do not match known locations in the Americas.
16. Fortifications: Descriptions of extensive fortifications that have not been found archaeologically.
17. Weapons and armor: Types of weapons and armor described that do not match those used by ancient American civilizations.
18. Metal plates: The use of metal plates for writing, which was not a known practice in the ancient Americas.
19. Christian theology: Some theological concepts in the Book of Mormon are similar to those of 19th-century American Christianity.
20. Biblical passages: Direct quotes from the King James Bible, including translation errors specific to that version.
21. Advanced technology: References to advanced technology not known to ancient American civilizations.
22. Complex writing systems: Claims of complex writing systems not supported by archaeological findings.
23. Rivers and seas: Descriptions of rivers and seas that do not match known geography.
24. Linguistic anachronisms: Use of words and phrases that are anachronistic to the time periods described.
25. Population sizes: Descriptions of population sizes that seem implausible given known demographic data.
26. Ethnic and racial origins: Claims about the origins of Native American peoples that conflict with current anthropological understanding.
27. Technological capabilities: Descriptions of technological capabilities that do not match those of ancient American civilizations.
28. Historical timelines: Timelines that do not align with known historical events in the Americas.
29. Ancient prophets: Descriptions of ancient prophets and their activities that lack corroborating evidence.
30. Zoological anachronisms: Mention of animals like goats and swine, which were not present in the Americas during the time periods described.
31. Swords and scimitars: References to swords and scimitars not consistent with known ancient American weaponry.
32. Natural disasters: Descriptions of natural disasters that have no supporting geological evidence.
33. Migration patterns: Migration patterns described that conflict with known historical and anthropological data.
34. Cultural practices: Cultural practices described that do not match those of known ancient American civilizations.
35. Economic systems: Economic systems described that do not align with those of ancient American civilizations.
36. Religious practices: Religious practices described that are more consistent with 19th-century American religious practices than ancient American ones.
37. Prophecies: Prophecies in the Book of Mormon that critics claim were written after the events they describe.
38. Christian themes: Presence of Christian themes and narratives in a pre-Christian context.
39. New World animals: Mention of animals like the curelom and cumom, which have no known equivalents in the ancient Americas.
40. Shipbuilding: Descriptions of shipbuilding and transoceanic travel that are not supported by archaeological evidence.
41. Military strategies: Military strategies and tactics described that do not match those of ancient American civilizations.
42. Government structures: Government structures described that do not align with those of ancient American civilizations.
43. Genealogical records: Genealogical records described that have no supporting evidence.
44. Metalwork: Descriptions of advanced metalwork not supported by archaeological evidence.
45. Textual consistency: Critics argue there are inconsistencies within the text itself.
46. Chronological inconsistencies: Timelines and events that seem inconsistent or contradictory within the text.
47. Lack of external corroboration: Lack of corroboration from other ancient texts or records.
48. Scientific knowledge: Some descriptions of natural phenomena that do not align with scientific understanding.
49. Societal structures: Descriptions of societal structures that are not supported by anthropological evidence.
50. Historical accuracy: General concerns about the historical accuracy of events and figures described in the Book of Mormon.

The Number 47, Synchronicity & the Law of Time Courtney Jamal Dewar, aka Capital STEEZ, came with perfect timing. Wielding a higher message, he revealed to all those around him through his music and his being the corruption of society and all of its constructs. He was fascinated, some would say, obsessed, with the number 47. For him this number held a higher meaning on many levels. First and foremost, he felt it was about synchronicity. He made all of his homies, including myself, aware of how this is the quintessential random number. We literally began to see it everywhere. You can research the numerological significance of 47. Here are just a few: 47 appears to be the quintessential random number of the universe. When a number appears randomly, more often than not, that number is 47. In other other words, if you asked people to pick a number at random, more often than not, that number would be 47. Of course, if 47 shows up more than any other number then it isn’t truly random, but using the word random makes the whole phenomenon easier to describe. From a spiritual perspective, number 47 is a combination of the energies and attributes of number 4 and number 7. The vibrations of number 4 include those of productivity and application, inner-wisdom and practical-thinking, honesty and integrity, endurance and determination, conscientiousness and discipline. Number 4 also relates to our passion and drive in life. Number 7 brings the qualities of spiritual awakening and enlightenment, intuition and inner-knowing, psychic abilities and mysticism, independence and individualism, persistence of purpose and manifesting good fortune.
There is even a much-viewed YouTube spoof of Jim Carrey’s The Number 23, substituting—you guessed it–the No. 47. Jim Carrey's character named Walter is given a book titled The Number 23. Walter starts reading the book and notices striking similarities between himself and the main character, a detective named "Fingerling". Fingerling is obsessed with the 23 enigma, the idea that all incidents and events are directly connected to the number 23 (Weirdly enough when I was younger I was in cod team called 23Enigma) only noted it as of the coincidence.
Jim Carrey told reporters he was so captivated by the 23 enigma even before reading the script that he renamed his production company from "Pit Bull Productions" to "JC23." (Jesus Christ 23?) Oddly enough the first film Carrey worked on with Joel Schumacher his character The Riddler's real name was 'E. Nigma'. According to Carrey, he was reading a book about Psalm 23 when he was first given a copy of the screenplay to review. He said he asked a friend to read the script and "an hour and a half later he was on page 23, circling every 23rd word. That's the kind of thing I want to do to an audience." When he discovered that the first page of the script involved the lead character trying to capture a pit bull, he was "freaked out," given the change in name of his production company. (Pitbull productions) My Nicknames Pitty, short for pitbul (These are just speculations) Also I've gathered others inputs and went down a deep rabbit hole. Mind you, this is just connections that has been gathered over time, but the consistency of certain "coincidences" are interesting to say the least. Just try to piece together the connections even though it may be out of radar due to us living completely different lives.
James > Cleveland Cavaliers (Cavs) > Number 23 > Nicknames are King James & The Chosen One
Cavs is the nickname of my last name Cavanagh
When you flip the cleveland cavaliers logo upside down it is quite similar
(The hat I've worn since 14, P represents the nickname"Pitty:" short for pitbill a nickname ive had since i was around 10 years old.
Matthew writes that on 23 occasions Jesus blessed 47 people.
The Bible credits Jesus with 47 miracles.
The Declaration of Independence has 47 sentences. Originally published: 4 July 1776 (4/7)
1947 is when the UFO crashed at Roswel
The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn are 47 degrees of latitude apart.
Capital STEEZ died from allegedly leaping from the Cinematic Music Group’ either gripping a bible or with it strapped on his back There is also the fact that a blood lunar eclipse will occur in New York at 3:47 am on STEEZ’s birthday in 2047, and then the lunar eclipse which will occur after this one is part of the Lunar Saros series 135. He said he named the song 135 for “5th dimensional synchronization”... whatever that means, this would be a massive coincidence.
How Many People Can See This Eclipse? Number of People Seeing... Number of People* Fraction of World Population At least some of the penumbral phase 4,070,000,000 When the Eclipse Happens Worldwide — Timeline Event UTC Time Time in Melbourne* Penumbral Eclipse begins 7 Jul at 07:47:47 Visible in Melbourne 7 Jul at 5:47:47 pm On capital steez birthday.
STEEZs last tweet “the end” Was posted December (23) 2012 The building steez died (The colliers office) is on 666 fifth avenue, 10103 10+10+3=(23), New York. The building was built in 1878 The bohemian grove was established in 1878 The address of the CMG label building is on 40 west (23)rd st, 10010, New York The Freemasonry Grand lodge of New York is on 71 west, (23)rd st 10010 NY. Directly located across the same building STEEZ died. Yeah. West 23rd st, w is the (23)rd letter in the alphabet. In Hebrew the letter W represents the number 6 The fraction 2/3 in decimals=0.666 The freemasonry grand lodge of New York was founded in December 15, 1782 15, 1782 1+5+1+7+8+2 = 24. December 24 the date that's etched on STEEZs tombstone. A police report about his death has never surfaced, information has never been released, but there is pictures of his gravestone (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuFVUJJR4Ug) and on that gravestone it says 24/12/12, which actually adds up to 48, yet he tweets on the 23/12/12 stating 'The End. Steez was ready to open up Pandora’s box and expose the illuminati occult in a way that has never been done before. It gets deep. Just think about it guys. Steez was an intellectual genius. He would obviously know that suicide actually makes u go to hell and not heaven. As a believer in the lord he would never commit suicide.
I'm not sure if you're paying attention to the ryan garcia trying to reveal how something tragic happened to him where he was taken to boheiman grove and forced to watch things i wont mention here People said his crazy and on drugs, sad thing is, I believe he is telling the truth Fast forward he wasn't on drugs and
Peep his song "Free The Robots" https://youtu.be/XcmR8DxuHBA
STEEZ has definitely made a positive impact on this world by introducing a new way of thinking and spirituality, even more of an impact than a lot of artists who are still alive... Capital STEEZ was 19 at the time of his death.
There is also gematria behind his death it has to do with numbers. I’ll explain what it is for those who aren’t aware of it. Gematria is the decoding of letters to numbers, it’s used to translate ancient Hebrew Scriptures. But it’s also the code for the entire world. The most basic way I can put it is that it’s as simple as ABC=123, they use these numbers thru media, and the thing that’s being shown on the media always correlates with Masonic numbers and words that correlate with whatever and whoever is being shown on the news or media and whatever event is taking place always correlates 100% of the time. In news, sports, music industry, Hollywood, politics, everything. In Numerology, which is different from gematria. After calculating his name I came across a lot of similarities when calculating mine in various forms.
While calculating his name i came across things relating to me like Like "Melbourne Victoria Australia, Royal Melbourne Hospital, june twenty fourth. From his name which connected to me personally as i was born in that hospital, thats the city i live and my birthday. The similarities left me wondering if it was actually real or not so I used multiple different calculators and paid for a membership on gematrinator to get maximum results and ended up noticing so much our mine and steezs calculations were similar answers in different form, and answers i got with his name ultimately connected to mine, vice versa. So i was intrigued and these are a list of numbers that matched up with our names. This is all speculation based on connections that seem to be very consistent peep this
Calculating these variations of our names such as Courtney Jamal Dewar / Courtney jamal Dewar Jr / Courtney Everald Jamal Dewar Jr / Capital STEEZ / Nathan Cavanagh / Nathan James Cavanagh / Nathan James Cavanagh Sciarra, calculations all listed together when I noted them all I didn't think to label to each name as I was so captivated by the coincidences I just kept going down the rabbit hole. I came across profound links to both our names that binds us both to the unique synchronicities that were to apparent to all be ruled as pure coincidence, such as his name calculating to my birthday, place of birth and city, and city i live to say the least.
These are calculations through gematria, some are our calculations mixed in this as I was just noting down every connection I noticed
The first and the last Eye Of Horus Total Eclipse the numbers of gods matrix coordinated universal time Capital Steez June Twenty Forth (my birthday) came up from steez name Lunar Eclipse Sacrifice July (2047 lunar eclipse on steezs birthday) The Central Intelligence Agency A WISE TALENTED MUSIC PRODUCER Royal Melbourne Hospital (where I was born) The Holy Bloodline Of Jesus The Return of Christ Exodus Luke synchronisation The Synchronicities Of Jesus The Book Of Revelations Vibrational Frequency Biblical Prophecy Melbourne Victoria Australia (where im from), came up on steezs calculations The Royal Bloodline The Divine Bloodline Of Jesus fourth of jew lie Energy frequency vibration The Holy Lineage Of Christ One Who Understands Mysteries december the twenty fifth. ..... speaks for itself A Door to another dimension New Moons And Solar Eclipse twenty four seven (my birthdays the 24th, his is the 7th) the victory of the lamb multidimensional royal regiment of scotland Golden Gate Sacrifice Gods Gift Clairvoyant The Chosen One The Two Appointed Ones Leaving For Heaven David And Daughter Of The Oath Are One Almighty God Roars Upon His Throne Powerful Great Grandma The Lord On Earth Donald Trump Assassination Lords Alignment The Lord Gods Here God Is Really Here God Birthdate Encoded End Of Times God Code The Code Of The Lord Lord Birthday Code Gods Provable Code Gods Alive Loser Access Into Heaven Twenty Three The Anunnaki Gods Jesus Is Coming A True Prophet The Seventh Seal What is Jesus's number? 888 Apollo Is The Beast Of Revelation See Fulfillment Of The Book Of Isaiah Prophecy The Serpent In Genesis Describes The Mark Of The Beast See The Forced Evil Mark Of The Beast Foiled The Victory Of The Lamb May The Lord Fill Your Heart Two Masters Is Cancer (steez and I are both Cancer) God Of Eternity We Are God Twins Maker Of New Earth A Two Edged Swords Xanax Vicodin Addiction (i struggled with bad) The Bible Is Intentionally Concealing Information The Galactic Jesus the Anointed One Moses Will Come The King Is Coming Miraculously Encoded By God Pyramids On Mars Forests On Mars Holy Spirit Of Zeus We Are Absolute Infinite Sent By The Gods Powerful Great Grandma999 Burning Alive The Gang Stalkers. (long story short I was a victim of whay they call gangstalking when I was reaching my peak or enlightenment and have been trying to get back to that state again, all I can describe it as is demonic torment) Enoch 777 on YouTube speaks on it good.) A Fourty Seven Mandating The Poisonous Jabs Knowledge Of God Brings Eternal Life Death Isnt So Scary Anymore Invictus Sol The Lion And The Lamb https://imgur.com/gallery/ztGPJGS The Lord Is Here Coming To Restore The Eternal Kingdom The Blood Of The Lamb Contact With A God Revival Jesus The Annointed One the key to it all I Am The Holy Grail Sun Moon Earth Revelation Nine Spirit World I Am The One Lord Jesus Christ I Know All Codes And Connections The Wisdom Of God Word Of The Lord Quantum Entanglement Theory The Anunnaki Path Almighty God Roars Upon His Throne 173 Enoch Chapter Ninety Five Pyramids Have Hidden Chambers Music Is My Life Revelation Five Everyone Is God Forever Jesus Walking With God Vision Of Gabriel New Revelation Seven Wonders Symbiotic Craft Thank You James (my middle name is James) Words Of The Bible Isaiah Fourteen Thirteen Trumps Last Son He Is Jesus Crown Chakra God Is You Gods In A Body The Resurrection Of Life The Book Lj Enoch King Jesus Gods Wrath We Are At War Truth Hidden In Plain Sight Double Conciousness The Anointed Lay Dead On The Cross Dragon Of China Is The Anti Christ. A Seed Of Jesse Angelic Guidance Black Pyramid Hidden Truth In Plain Sight King Messiah Heavens Dream Let The Decoding Fun Begin Add Up Letters Notorious Names The Child Of Christ Aliens Exist Spirit Of Moses C E R T I F I C A T E Of Baptism Of The Lord Of Christ Alchemist Fluoride To Heaven God Is Number Codes Numerical Language Learning Decoding Is Fun The Lord Of The Messiah The Book Of Hidden Messages Eight Eight Eight Nine Nine Nine Lost Books Of The Bible Rna Vaccine Maternal Ancestors Are Of Royal Descent You Are Gifted Frequency Turn Off Your Smart Phone I Am Eternal Life David Christ Gods Son The Sound Of Jesus Coming Help Others Realize Full Potential Implants During Surgical Procedures The Solar System And Thoughts The Reincarnation Of King David King David Divine Dna Is Activated Jesus Returns To Earth The Lion Of Judah Is With Us (Steez would speak about Judah)
Jamal Dewar; psalm twenty three Jesus son of God Nathan Day Revelation fourteen one Spiritual warfare Gang Stalker (experienced this myself) Satanic Cults Commit Suicide forty seven problem Bloodline of Jesus Christ The End (when this came up my jaw dropped.) And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you Amen The Holy Mother of Jesus christ Are you ready for whats coming july seventh twenty eighteen
Courtney Jamal Dewar, Jr: The Book Of Revelations Vibrational frequency MELBOURNE VICTORIA AUSTRALIA (where I live) Christ Resurrection Satan Rules The World The Divine Bloodline of Christ synchronization Biblical Prophecy Capital steez Exodus Luke The Divine Bloodline of David Second Christ The Return of Christ Jesus Resurrection Jesus Christ Bloodline
I added stuff from my name as it was so coincidental I didn't think to label them at first I just wrote down anything I thought added up This is just deep research into who reminds me of myself My instagram is mistapitty Listen to The Resurrection by Pitty https://on.soundcloud.com/Xn3nN
Listen to Revelation 22 by Pitty https://on.soundcloud.com/gBAja
Peep his song "Free The Robots" https://youtu.be/XcmR8DxuHBA
STEEZ has definitely made a positive impact on this world by introducing a new way of thinking and spirituality, even more of an impact than a lot of artists who are still alive... Capital STEEZ was 19 at the time of his death.
There are four gospel accounts of Jesus' life and ministry. Each of these emphasizes a unique aspect of his sacrifice and ministry. Matthew's focus is on Christ being the son of David and a King.
Look into the etymology of your name. - What Does Nathan Mean? The name Nathan means “Gift of God” or “God has given.” In the Old Testament, Nathan was a prophet and one of King David's sons; he acted as a messenger to King David and is considered one of Jesus' ancestors. (David name of my biological grandfather) (James is my middle name) - James is a classic, traditional and Biblical name (Saint James, of course, was Jesus's brother and one of the 12 apostles) meaning "supplanter" or "replacer." It's derived from the Latin Jacomus which also means "may God protect.
Every letter to Capital STEEZs full name calculates to 147 when done in reverse on the gematria calculator and mine equals to exactly 470 when done in reverse.
"Nathan James Cavanagh Sciarra" = 470 (Reverse Reduction) N a t h a n 104 13 26 7 19 26 13 J a m e s 87 17 26 14 22 8 C a v a n a g h 159 24 26 5 26 13 26 20 19 S c i a r r a 120 = 470 8 24 18 26 9 9 26 Reverse = 470
"Capital STEEZ" = 47 (Reduction) C a p i t a l 26 3 1 7 9 2 1 3 S T E E Z 21 = 47 1 2 5 5 8 Reduction = 47
"Courtney Everald Jamal Dewar" = 147 (Reverse Reduction) C o u r t n e y 41 6 3 6 9 7 4 4 2 E v e r e s t 41 4 5 4 9 4 8 7 J a m a l 35 8 8 5 8 6 D e w a r 30 = 147 5 4 4 8 9 Reverse = 147
On June 24th 2022: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are lining up in the pre-dawn sky, a planetary procession that could be seen above the eastern horizon And what’s even more remarkable about this month’s lineup is that the planets are arranged in their natural order from the sun. The best day to see the spectacle will likely be the morning of June 24 of 2022, weather permitting, as the planetary parade will be joined by the waning crescent moon. This is three days after the summer solstice (or winter in australia), which is June 21. What makes this so unique is the last time we had 5 planets aligned in this fashion, was in March of 1874.
All of the "classical" planets will be viewable in the early morning skies of June 24th 2022. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn will be visible, all apparent to the naked eye even under urban light pollution. On the 24th, our moon will be situated between Venus and Mars, so you could say the Earth-Luna system will complete the "perfect" alignment. Under the darkest skies, one will be able to see seven planets in one sweeping gaze. The same year December 24th (25th in Australian time) the planets will align in their correct order outward from the sun for the second time this year, after a pre-dawn alignment in June was on my birthday. STEEZ is said to have died on the 24th of December 👉 https://imgur.com/gallery/0RVIxxA
In australian time it would've been the 25th as we are a day ahead
Alternatively, 25 December may have been selected owing to its proximity to the winter solstice because of its symbolic theological significance. After the solstice, the days begin to lengthen with longer hours of sunlight, which Christians see as representing the Light of Christ entering the world. This symbolism applies equally to the celebration of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on 24 June, near the summer solstice, based on John's remark about Jesus "He must increase; I must decrease." John 3:30 NRSV.[59] Now check out the following texts from the bible, they speak of the solstice here. 👉 https://imgur.com/gallery/0RVIxxA and I thought I should add this as it seemed to be quite a coincidence of the date i posted this somg and the content of the posts she made. It aligned with those geomatria calculations I made and i wish I could document snd explain why certain ones just synchronzie but it'd be to hard to comphrened.
"AFTER THE SOLSTICE, THE DAYS BEGIN TO LENGTHEN WITH LONGER HOURS OF SUNLIGHT, WHICH CHRISTIANS SEE AS REPRESENTING THE LIGHT OF CHRIST ENTERING THE WORLD. THIS SYMBOLISM APPLIES EQUALLY TO THE CELEBRATION OF THE NATIVITY OF SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST ON 24 JUNE, NEAR THE SUMMER SOLSTICE, BASED ON JOHN'S REMARK ABOUT JESUS "HE MUST INCREASE; I MUST DECREASE." JOHN THE BAPTIST ANNOUNCES THE COMING OF THE LIGHT THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE, JOHN THE BAPTIST, ANNOUNCES THE COMING OF JESUS, THE COMING OF NEW TIMES, JOHN ANNOUNCES THAT GOD IS GRACIOUS TO HIS PEOPLE BY ANNOUNCING THE COMING OF THE SON OF GOD. BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, AND EVERY EYE WILL SEE HIM, EVEN THOSE WHO PIERCED HIM; AND ALL THE TRIBES OF THE LAND WILL MOURN OVER HIM.” –ZECHARIAH 12:10-14; DANIEL 7:13-14 SO IT IS TO BE. AMEN (AGREED, YESHUA HIMSELF IS THE AMEN 3:14). “I KEPT LOOKING IN THE NIGHT VISIONS, AND BEHOLD, WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN ONE LIKE A SON OF MAN WAS COMING."
John the Baptist day is 24th of June.
"The flower of life, represents global consciousness and like there's this thing on the consciousness grid, the last piece, it has to be the flower of life and it has to align with the sun and all that stuff and it will wake up global consciousness & as i further in my ascension I hope to build it one day" "Some people might think this type of thinking, first of all this type of thinking might jump over a lot of people's heads" "I think humans need to lighten up, maybe try lighten up" - STEEZ
Someone regarding STEEZ: "Did he think there were codes in the Bible or something? I’ve heard him say he knows the “code” does anyone know what the code is? He was a truly enlightened person I wish I could understand him better."
STEEZ supposedly said he had to die now in order to save the Earth in 2047, which is when the world is supposed to end. Before he killed himself his friends say he withdrew not only from them, but rap in general, saying he was going to become a superhero.
(My birthday)24th of June 1999 = 2+4+6+1+9+9+9 = 40 STEEZ birthday) 7th of July 1993 = 7+7+1,993 = 2007.) 40 + 2007 = 2047
Now read a conversation he had on Facebook prior to death https://www.kanyetothe.com/threads/rip-capital-steez.354864/page-42?post_id=16781894&nested_view=1&sortby=oldest#post-167818 His song Dead Prez (credit to who found these calculations as this wasn't mine) If you wanna conspire a little, we technically have had 46 different president so far, tho truly only 45 different guys have been in office. This year, if we elect a new president they will be our 47th prezident. You could say that happens when the next president is elected, or when the second new president is elected because then there'd actually be 47 different people. On the contrary, you could predict that once 47 presidents have died, something very significant will happen because the song is about DEAD presidents. It'll happen in most of our lifetimes i wonder what will happen 2047?
https://imgur.com/a/bOpRy
FORTY, THE NUMBER: "Forty days was the period from the resurrection of Jesus to the ascension of Jesus some scholars note that 40 days in the Bible doesn't always mean 40 days literally, but may be a symbolic way of saying "a longer time. A master number and part of the “awakening code”. Also Jose Arguelles’s kin is 11 – he brought forth the Law of Time aka the World Thirteen Moon Cale In the Bible, next to the number seven, the number forty occurs most frequently.
Here's an article on Fader that's kind of aligns some things I've discovered.
https://www.thefader.com/2013/11/26/capital-steez-king-capital
Check out these images, not a lot of people would've seen these: h ttp://i.imgur.com/nPE90.png / http://i.imgur.com/sHtdM.png / http://i.imgur.com/ZcNu2.png - he thought he was the alchemist that had the key for world peahttp://i.imgur.com/ZcNu2.png Deshay posted this on Facebook after his immediate death: "Fxck.... This shxt jus rly fxcked me up. Me and Steezus JUST made plans to record on Saturday now hes gone. RIP Capital STEEZ" Joey said he believed he sacrificed himself for spiritual rebirth.
The End THE WIDELY ACCEPTED STORY is that Courtney ‘Jamal’ Dewar committed suicide by jumping off the Cinematic Music Building in Manhattan on 23.12.12 – which equals 47, the rapper’s favourite number. None of the city’s newspapers reported his death. As a result of inconsistent stories and a lack of police intelligence, confusion surrounds the heart-breaking event for the Dewar family. In a 2013 interview with Fader, an anonymous member of Pro Era said, “STEEZ told some of the Pros that he was thinking of killing himself by jumping off the building where Cinematic had its offices.” Dirty Sanchez a close friend of the late rapper recalled, “Nothing was working. Nothing. It was like too late. He made up his mind already.”
Today I will be briefly explaining the practice of Gematria. Gematria comes from ancient Jewish mysticism. It is the practice of combining the letter with the number, with the word. It is said this is how God created the world.
How does it work? Gematria has 4 major ciphers. The first two are easy as ABC, literally. For example A=1 B=2 C=3. And so on. The code can also be read backward from Z to A. This is called reverse ordinal. There are two more ciphers that are equally important but a bit more nuanced so for the sake of clarity I’ll leave those explanations to the work of Zachary K Hubbard. But to put Gematria into usable terms I’m gonna explain a decode I did recently. If you want to decode a word or phrase without doing the math yourself, there is an extremely helpful calculator at gematrinator.com it will give you all four cipher values for your word or phrase in an instant, as well as compare it with corresponding ciphers. Without further ado let’s look at this example:
Here I will outline some interesting numbers that coincide with the rapper Capital STEEZ and the numbers surrounding the music industry as well as numbers that come up with race, and other things I found eye grabbing.
(Credit to another user on here) First off I’ll start with Capital STEEZ, The interesting number here is the full reduction number, 47. It’s eye grabbing for many reasons, but we’ll start with a little back ground. Before Capital STEEZ’s (aka Jamal Dewar) death (suicide) in 2012, STEEZ was apart of an up and coming rap group known as Progressive Era, or ProEra for short. A known staple among these young men were the belief in “47 chakras” and “indigo children”. The two are a topic on their own, but the interesting part is that such a powerful number in Jamal Dewar’s life also coincides with the Gematria of his rap name. But that’s not it! Let’s continue
Capital STEEZ English ordinal: 137
Full reduction: 47
Reverse ordinal: 187 ( see pushed off a roof)
Reverse full reduction :70
Now keep an eye on 70, as we shall see him more as well.
Next we will decode the gematria of the reported means of STEEZ’s death, suicide. This is where I admittedly started getting intrigued.
Gematria of Suicide:
English Ordinal: 70
Full reduction: 34
Reverse ordinal:119
Reverse full reduction: 47
Wow. The exact same values but flipped.
Just a mere coincidence I’m sure But let’s continue .
With these next two we will see two repeats of values, one new value, 88 and a previously used value, 34. As well as 65
Jamal Dewar
English ordinal: 88
Full reduction: 34
Reverse ordinal: 182
Reverse full reduction: 65 ————————— Phrase: pushed off the roof
English Ordinal: 187
Full reduction: 88
Reverse ordinal: 245
Reverse full reduction: 65
And the next term we will decode will be Jamal’s occupation of rapper. Here we will see a reverse of our main number in question, 47, which I’ve found to be reoccurring as well.
Rapper
English ordinal: 74
Full reduction: 38
Reverse ordinal: 88
Reverse full reduction: 34
I’m beginning to sense a bit of a pattern here... But let me move on Now it’s time to get a little spicy
Jamal Dewar commited suicide on the night of December 23, 2012, though his wiki has his death on the 24 I believe as it was around midnight. Many articles coming out about his death including one I read from thefader.com reported his death on the 23rd. I specifically remember this detail because I was a huge fan of his and Pro Era at the time and it was a huge loss to the community.
December is the 12th month
12
23
12
Care to guess what that equals?
Yep. 47
Here are some other related phrases put into the gematrinator calculator:
Brooklyn New York (where proera is from)
223 79 182 74
Suicide by fall 128 56 223 79
Are you seeing the synchronization of these seemingly unrelated words and phrases?.
The word murder and murdered both have synchronized gematria with Jamal. We also see another repeat with 38, also found in the full reduction of the word rapper.
Murder
English ordinal: 79
Full reduction: 34
Reverse ordinal: 83 (38 reverse)
Reverse full reduction: 38
Murdered ,interestingly enough, though only being two letters away from murder, is actually more closely related numerically to jamals name and the word rapper, But there are similarities abound. Murdered.
English ordinal: 88
Full reduction: 43 (34 reverse)
Reverse ordinal: 128
Reverse full reduction: 47
Wow. This one really stands out to me. Every single number code number is used in the over all code of Capital steez just in this one word.
We see the repeats of 88 and 47 as well as the reverse of 34 for the first time and a repeat in the numbers of 128, which we saw as 182 above.
This one is slightly unrelated so I left it sort of by itself but I still maintain it’s validity as it’s use in the music industry is still relevant. That is the word racist. Race is huge in the overall narrative that msm tries to portray.
Racist
English ordinal: 70
Full reduction:25
Reverse ordinal: 92
Reverse full reduction: 47
racist and suicide are perfect matches on the front end and back end. 70 and 47.
Here’s another nugget.
The phrase : jumped to his death
English ordinal: 178 (pushed off the roof 187)
Full reduction: 70 (pushed off the roof 88)
Reverse ordinal:254 (pushed off the roof 245)
Reverse full reduction :83 (pushed off the roof 65)
Leap also shares 34 and 84.
Suicided 74 38 142 52
Occult
English ordinal: 74
Full reduction: 20
Reverse ordinal:88
Reverse full reduction:34
3 more repeats
The year of his suicide was a leap year
Leap year
English ordinal:83 Full reduction: 38 Reverse ordinal:133 Full res verse reduction: 43
Target audience: 133 61 245 83 Suicidal: 78 33 138 57 Hidden mission: 142 70 209 74 Some of these numbers are conjecture but there’s a lot of links between the numbers. 47/74 being the one of the more prominent, as well as 83/38, 34/43, 70, 245/254, 88, 33, 29/92/209, 182/128 all of these numbers connect in one way or another. Now it wouldn’t mean much if we didn’t know more about the nature of these numbers and how and where they appear. But since these number keep popping up in accordance to things like CONTROL GRID or MYSTERY RELIGION or SUPREME MATHEMATICS it seems almost impossible for it to be mere coincidence. Anyways I urge you guys to think for yourself and put in some work and see if you can find any use of this practice. God bless
Ps:
STEEZ’s debut album ”amerikkkan korruption” Came out on 4-7-2012 another 47. Vibration equals 47
A theory out there is that the cabal needed him to die because STEEZ was really bringing influence to more and more young minds with knowledge and the way STEEZ attacked and exposed certain things is not a good thing for those in power, the label that Joey wanted to sign when they were pro era, was a Jewish man named Jonny Shipes. if you’ve extensively went down the “rabbit hole”, like extensively, and you’d say you’re pretty “woke” (I hate that word), then you may know that most labels especially Jewish owned labels are basically the portals into The Illuminati cult, the Jesuit organization that controls the entire world. Oh and remember the news outrage, and investigation because of the 47 “swa stikkas” all over NY, yea you think these Jonny Shipes fucked with that? Nah. But this is all speculation.
It wasn’t long after Capital STEEZ's unfathomable passing on 12/23/12 – 12+23+12 = 47), which was only days after December 21, 2012, the precise date calculated by the great Mayans to be the end of a Great Cycle, that I received knowledge & became aware of the Law of Time. This seemingly new cosmology felt ancient and I quickly realized it had EVERYTHING to do with Synchronicity! I even found the number 47 to be ever ubiquitous throughout this 13 Moon calendar system.
"The next chapter is unstoppable. And yet, the greatest revolutions sometimes originate from the confines of impossibility, do they not? Break the code. It could make a leap and make possible a decision that defines the order of things that are." " Reality is a mathematical model which gets solved over and over again by the observer your thoughts are computations. And they render this world for you to call your own. Not all processors are alike. Different brains produce different realities. The variations go from the subtle to the drastic. Your mind defines how much you can taste. How much you can feel. How much you can understand. Perception defines perspective. We designed you and made sure to engineer your senses so you could perceive just what we needed you to. Neither more nor less. There are parts of time we preferred you remained blind to. It was a necessity."
The Law of Time, I found to hold the most profound yet simple teaching; our Time is not Money, Time is Art. I was able to grasp a greater vision of how we as humans have created an artificial timing system where our time here equates to how much money we can accumulate, where we are constantly stressed by this false belief of our making, and where there is never enough time… This system of our making and continuous propagation has only served to separate us from our Selves, from each other, and ultimately, from nature. Hence, resulting in the chaos and disharmony prevalent in the world today.
What is the greatest common factor of 23 & 47? 1 is the greatest number that 23 & 47 is divided to. The Chosen One @mistapitty ㄣ

So the day finally came when I saw Ben live in flesh and blood in front of my eyes for two nights straight. Only now when a couple of days have passed, I am able to comprehend as to what just happened.
Okay, so to put things into perspective, I've been an admirer of his craft since the Every Kingdom days, and like most of the fans out there, I absolutely love Every Kingdom and I Forget Where We Where along with the Burgh Island EP. It's the quintessential Ben Howard stuff that you recommend people to listen.
So the song which fueled my utmost devotion towards Ben was Conrad like many others, more so because me and my ex used to listen to that song together through our drives and at home and everywhere else cause we were in a situation where we understood that "we will never be the change to the whether and the sea" and I knew that, but still "I loved her with the good and the careless in me" as Ben felt too I guess. So when the relationship did end, I followed the words of Ben and "built a world without her love, and I built it mean" where "I Forgot Where We Where" and my days were reduced to "ten Marlboro cigarettes that I rolled the butts into the bottle tops and stared at the sea until my eyes would eventually have enough for the day".
So when the Is It? tour was announced and I got to know that Ben is going to be in my country, my elation knew no bounds, because it was a person who knew how I've felt and with whose words I've spent the most time with. But there rose my concern, and like that of many others, that what if he doesn't play more from the EK and IFWWW days anymore, the songs that have stayed with me the most. No doubt, I absolutely loved Days of Lantana and Couldn't make it up and Moonraker and others from the album. And I guess, a part of me knew that he probably doesn't want to play the old stuff because he doesn't feel the same way about them anymore.
Anyways, with a lot of excitement I went to the gig and Ben started with Couldn't make it up and Life in the time, and it blew the fuck out of my ears. I have listened to a lot of big bands live and I loved them to bits, but the sound of Ben and his guitars was something I have never seen or experienced before live and I was absolutely mesmerized with the tracks following from Is It? to Collections to Noonday. But obviously everyone has their favorites and lot of them were requesting for the old stuff like Esmeralda and End of the affair. And then in that moment, Ben started to speak, he said and I quote "It's quite difficult to live through so many forms of yourself, working through records. Cause you forget a lot, tunings and people, mostly tunings". And I stood there for a moment, thinking about it, and it struck me that we humans resist change so much, when change is the most natural thing. And like all of us Ben has changed too, and for the good. This is a man who has gone from feeling "Blinded, now I see that death moves amongst us" to saying "to be by your side I'd walk the Nile twice". And this is a story of triumph. The Ben of now is happy and looks full of hope and it's so damn heartening to see that. And make no mistake, his skills and craft haven't gone down, but have only evolved. He poured his heart and soul into every song from is it? and I can proudly say that it's the best album by Ben for me going forward. The only thing I would tell anyone who loves the old stuff from Ben and not the new ones is to stop resisting the change and then everyone will be able to see how good the new stuff is. And to all the people who are going to see him in the coming days, it's a request from me to cheer the loudest for the songs from is it? because he's Ben Howard, the man who said 'I will become what I deserve' and he deserves every fucking bit of happiness like everyone of us and feel the 'jubilation in the faint june shine!'
Thank you for the memories Ben and the band. The best shows I ever attended. And for restoring the faith in me that changes eventually happen for the best.

1. In 2024, Zayn Malik told Nylon, "[Using Tinder has] not been too successful for me, I'll be honest. Everyone accused me of catfishing. They're like, 'What are you using Zayn Malik's pictures for?' I've been kicked off once or twice."
2. During a 2024 appearance on Getting Grilled with Curtis Stone, Teri Hatcher said, "I've tried them all, and I tried my latest one. I tried Hinge...You know, I thought, I'm gonna say to the universe that I am open and vulnerable, and I'm putting myself out there. That's what I thought my gesture of joining that Hinge app would be. And then they kicked me off."
3. In 2021, Leslie Jones tweeted, "Ok why did @hinge banned me I literally just signed up yesterday! And they don’t even tell you why. So fucking lame after taking my money! [sic]"
4. In 2022, Peyton List told Entertainment Tonight, "I went on a dating app, and I got kicked off because they thought I was a fraud. But it was me!"
5. Appearing on Jimmy Kimmel Live in 2019, Billy Eichner said, "I've been on Tinder for, like, seven years, and I'm very nice. I don't do anything naughty or weird, you know, I'm a normal person. They banned me all of a sudden. They didn't give me an explanation. They just said, 'You violated the terms of use.' And I said, 'I've been single for seven years; you violated the terms of use!' I didn't violate anything."
6. After a breakup, Demi Lovato tried to reactivate their Raya account, only to get rejected from the app.
7. In 2022, Lewis Capaldi told the podcast The Diary of a CEO, "I've just been kicked off of Tinder because, I think, people think I'm fake. So I've been kicked off of Bumble, Tinder, Hinge."
8. In a 2021 Instagram post, Paulina Porizkova said, "OK. What's up @hinge? I signed up a while back and was booted off instantly because I had violated guidelines. I didn't even get to post my photo. My name, it seems, is against guidelines? I called, I emailed. No one bothered to reply."
9. Appearing on Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen in 2020, Sam Smith said, "I joined this dating site called Hinge in the UK, and they chucked me off of it after one night cause they thought I was a catfish pretending to be me."
10. In 2018, Andy Cohen told The Ellen Show, "I am on Tinder, and there is a gay dating app that I'm on that I keep getting kicked off of because they think I'm impersonating Andy Cohen. And they're like, 'Your photos don't meet our guidelines.' And I keep trying. I'm like, 'No, it is me.'"
11. In a since-deleted tweet from 2019, Sharon Stone said, "I went on the @bumble dating sight and they closed my account. Some users reported that it couldn’t possibly be me! Hey @bumble, is being me exclusionary? Don’t shut me out of the hive."
12. Quote tweeting Sharon Stone's post, singer Conor Maynard added, "This happened to me on both @Tinder and @hinge ... any help guys?"
13. In 2021, Alicia Silverstone told The Drew Barrymore Show, "A few years ago, I tried to get on one of the dating apps, and I put up a fake profile because I wasn't comfortable yet being me. And then I got kicked off; I got banned."
14. In 2018, Stassi Schroeder Clark tweeted, "Raya kicked me off twice over a year and a half ago for 'talking about it.'"
15. And finally, on a 2023 episode of his podcast IMPAULSIVE, Logan Paul said, "I tried that app, Raya, and within 24 hours, I got some matches. And within 24 hours, I was kicked off the app with a, like, put together user interface message that said, 'You have violated community guidelines. Because of this, Raya has decided not to...' And then that's it. That's how this ended."

Link to article

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen
Readings:
Psalm 5; 6 Proverbs 4
Gospel: Matthew 11:7–15
7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Commentary:
We often find others, and sometimes ourselves, in a moment of religious fervor quoting a single verse or perhaps a passage, as a means of accentuating our editorial point or even justifying that point or opinion. When a verse is used appropriately, in that the contextual meaning of the verse actually is relevant to the theme we are seeking to emphasize, the usage stirs great emotion and sometimes introspection or encouragement. But when a verse is used out of context, the result is an opposite effect, causing confusion when the reader attempts to understand the writers intent or motivation.
Therefore, if we are going to use bible verses effectively, without sowing confusion and misunderstanding, we should attempt to learn all we can about the Bible, especially these individual scenes or vignettes we are presented with in bible studies such as the one today.
Quite frequently, the backgound of the Gospel account and the historical and cultural influences, are interesting, enlightening, and add a deeper understanding and appreciation of the lesson presented in the Gospel.
Regarding the setting or background of the passage we are studying today, we find John the Baptist—who had been arrested and imprisoned by Herod Antipas (see Mt. 4:12 and 14:1-12) hearing reports of the works of Christ—even while in prison—leading John to send two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus if he was indeed the Christ, the anointed one promised by the prophets. The one that the people were longing for with great expectations; a Messiah that would lead them out of subjugation by the Romans and restore the kingdom to its former glory as was under the reign of King David. (v. 11:2-3)
Donovan writes of this situation:
“The reason behind John’s question is found in his messianic expectations. He called people to repent (3:2), because “Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire” (3:10). He warned that the one who was to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. He will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire” (3:12). John clearly expects a fire-and-brimstone messiah.”
“Jesus has not lived up to that billing. He has pronounced blessings on the poor in spirit, the meek, and peacemakers (5:1-11). He has called his disciples to love their enemies (5:42-48). He has warned them not to judge others (7:1-5). These teachings seem weak by comparison with the actions anticipated by John’s fire and brimstone preaching.”
“Furthermore, Jesus moved away from Jerusalem, the home of the temple and the center of religious authority, and began his ministry in Galilee (4:12).”
“Then Jesus worked a series of healing ministries in chapters 8-9—what Bruner calls an “ambulance ministry”—of tremendous significance to those who were healed, but not significant to the nation as a whole. It has been centuries since Israel has heard a prophetic voice (other than John’s). People are looking for a voice of authority—for a fire that will purge the dross—for a powerful leader who will restore Israel’s former glory—for a messiah who will restore the people of God. John keeps watching Jesus hoping to see fireworks, but thus far has been disappointed.”
“But we must admire John. He has a problem with Jesus, so he approaches Jesus as directly as his imprisonment allows—no behind-the-back criticism! He sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one or shall they look for another? John has doubts, but he seeks to learn what Jesus will say—is open to hearing Jesus say that he is, indeed, the one! ”
In verse 6, Jesus states, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” John did not take offense, but only expressed doubt. We can surmise, that John was questioning his own situation just as he was questioning that of Jesus. After all if he (John the Baptist) was truly the one sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, why is he in prison? Wouldn’t he better serve God by being out preaching the word of God? And if Jesus was the anointed one, why isn’t he calling down lightening strikes on the Romans, putting them on the run out of Judea? John, as great of a prophet as he was, is about to learn a great lesson in messiah-ship.
“Jesus could rebuke John for his doubts, but instead offers him a blessing. Jesus has not lived up to John’s expectations, but John has not allowed that to be a stumbling block (skandelisthe). Soon enough, Jesus will deal with cities that refuse to repent (11:20-24)—hometown people who take offense (13:57)—Pharisees who take offense (12:1-8; 15:12) and conspire to kill Jesus (12:9-14) and charge that Jesus gets his power from Beelzebul (12:24)—and even disciples who desert him when the chips are down (26:31-33). John has done none of those things, but simply asks Jesus to confirm that he is the one for whom everyone has been waiting. Jesus offers the blessing, not just to John, but to all who do not take offense—all who do not stumble—all who are not scandalized. Jesus blesses us when we remain faithful in the face of prayers that seem not to be answered or hopes that go unfulfilled.” (Donovan)
Perhaps you now understand the importance of reviewing the nuances of the surrounding factors relative to a passage. Hopefully the brief summation provided helps you to understand why Jesus did not rebuke John, but in the verses suggested as today’s study, we find Jesus offering John praise.
“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?”(v. 7) John’s disciples had departed, returning to Herod’s prison to report what Jesus had said, and Jesus turns his attention to the followers who had gone out to hear John preach and now were intently listening to and watching Jesus.
Instead of teaching in the formal places of religious instruction, such as the temple in Jerusalem or the outlying synagogues, John had preached in the wilderness, rural areas free of distraction and creature comforts. It required effort upon the part of the people to make the arduous journey out there to hear him, but none the less they did, in great multitudes according to the Gospel writers.
Jesus—in a rhetorical manner—asks them, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” Naturally, no one—much less multitudes of people—would make such a great effort to venture out into the desert to hear someone preach who was unworthy. “ They who are weak as reeds will be shaken as reeds; but John was strong in spirit, Eph. 4:14. When the wind of popular applause on the one hand blew fresh and fair, when the storm of Herod's rage on the other hand grew fierce and blustering, John was still the same, the same in all weathers. The testimony he had borne to Christ was not the testimony of a reed, of a man who was of one mind to-day, and of another to-morrow; it was not a weather-cock testimony; no, his constancy in it is intimated (Jn. 1:20); he confessed and denied not, but confessed, and stood to it afterwards, Jn. 3:28. ” (Henry)
In essence, Jesus is stating “Let me tell you what kind of man John is!”
“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (vs. 8-10)
John was said to wear a rough cloak made from the hair of a camel, with a leather belt to gird it, eating wild honey and grains so as to avoid the comparison of those political and religious leaders who lavished upon themselves great luxury. “A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.” Is a direct condemnation of the weak and lascivious usurper who had inherited his father’s throne, Herod Antipas, who in an attempt to seduce his own step daughter granted her a wish, which resulted in her mother asking for John’s head on a platter.
“Note, they who have lived a life of mortification, are least likely to be driven off from their religion by persecution. John appeared rough and unpleasant, yet they flocked after him.” (Henry)
“A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.” Israel endured four hundred years without a prophet. When John burst onto the scene with his fiery preaching, the authenticity of his ministry generated enormous public appeal. “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” “John prepares the way of the one who is to come. People check roads before the king travels them. Servants repair potholes and scouts insure security. Today, executives have assistants who plan their travel, secretaries who make their reservations, chauffeurs who drive their cars, and pilots who fly their planes. Just as the services of those who prepare the way enhance the executive’s ability to accomplish work, so also John smoothed Jesus’ entry into the world by calling people to repentance.”(Donovan)
“Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:” (v. 11a) Jesus declares John to be, not just the greatest prophet, but the greatest figure ever. Given Israel’s pantheon of heroes, such as Abraham, Moses, and David, this is an astonishing statement, indeed. What makes John so special is not his personal characteristics, excellent though those might be, but his privileged place in salvation history. All the other heroes of the faith have done mighty works, but only John has the privilege of introducing the Messiah.
“notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”(v. 11b) “ John stands at the pinnacle of the old era, but even the greatest representative of the old era is less than the humblest representative of the new. An appropriate metaphor is the ancient astronomer whose observations were limited by a small, primitive telescope. The most brilliant person, so limited, could never match the work of a more ordinary person with access to today’s space-based telescopes. Like Moses, John marched up to the border of the promise without actually entering it himself. He was Jesus’ forerunner—not his disciple. If the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John, consider where that places us. We may be very ordinary Christians, but God considers us to be great.” (Donovan)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (vs. 12-15)
Jesus’ reference to violence refers to both the intensity of spiritual warfare surrounding the ministry of Jesus and His herald, and also to the intensity required to persevere in following God and His kingdom.
The exact sense of this has been greatly debated, and is made more difficult by complicated grammar. Carson probably gives the best sense of both expressions. “The kingdom has come with holy power and magnificent energy that has been pushing back the frontiers of darkness. This is especially manifest in Jesus’ miracles and ties in with Jesus’ response to the Baptist…The kingdom is making great strides; now is the time for courageous souls, forceful people, to take hold of it.” (Carson)
“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. ” Jesus saw an era ending with John; all the prophets and the law anticipated John and his ministry as a herald. There is a sense in which John spoke for every prophet who heralded Jesus’ coming. Under the Old Covenant, every other prophet announced, “The Messiah is coming.” John alone had the privilege of saying, “The Messiah is here.”
“The ministry of John was the beginning of the gospel, as it is reckoned, Mk. 1:1; Acts 1:22. This is shown here in two things: [1.] In John the Old Testament dispensation began to die, v. 13. So long that ministration continued in full force and virtue, but then it began to decline. Though the obligation of the law of Moses was not removed till Christ's death, yet the discoveries of the Old Testament began to be superseded by the more clear manifestation of the kingdom of heaven as at hand. [2.] In him the New-Testament day began to dawn; for (v. 14) This is Elias, that was for to come. John was as the loop that coupled the two Testaments; as Noah was Fibula utriusque mundi—the link connecting both worlds, so was he utriusque Testamenti—the link connecting both Testaments. The concluding prophecy of the Old Testament was, Behold, I will send you Elijah, Mal. 4:5, 6. Those words prophesied until John, and then, being turned into a history, they ceased to prophecy. ” (Henry)
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “A proverbial form of speech often used by Jesus after important utterances, here for the first time in Matthew.” (Bruce) A saying of Jesus that will appear throughout the Gospels which is a veiled warning to all mankind, to listen, to take heed, to understand that the teachings of Christ are indeed the thoughts and commandments of his Father in Heaven, and an implication that to ignore these words will result in less than favorable circumstances.
Benediction
It is not enough to acclaim Jesus Christ as our Lord and King. Our mission in life is to make his kingdom a reality among us and to bring it to those around us by our words and deeds. The way to do this is to live as he lived: for others, in love and service. May almighty God bless you for this task: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and to give shape to his kingdom. Thanks be to God!
Thought for the Day:
Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.
Ray Bradbury

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen
Readings:
Psalm 5; 6 Proverbs 4
Gospel: Matthew 11:7–15
7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Commentary:
We often find others, and sometimes ourselves, in a moment of religious fervor quoting a single verse or perhaps a passage, as a means of accentuating our editorial point or even justifying that point or opinion. When a verse is used appropriately, in that the contextual meaning of the verse actually is relevant to the theme we are seeking to emphasize, the usage stirs great emotion and sometimes introspection or encouragement. But when a verse is used out of context, the result is an opposite effect, causing confusion when the reader attempts to understand the writers intent or motivation.
Therefore, if we are going to use bible verses effectively, without sowing confusion and misunderstanding, we should attempt to learn all we can about the Bible, especially these individual scenes or vignettes we are presented with in bible studies such as the one today.
Quite frequently, the backgound of the Gospel account and the historical and cultural influences, are interesting, enlightening, and add a deeper understanding and appreciation of the lesson presented in the Gospel.
Regarding the setting or background of the passage we are studying today, we find John the Baptist—who had been arrested and imprisoned by Herod Antipas (see Mt. 4:12 and 14:1-12) hearing reports of the works of Christ—even while in prison—leading John to send two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus if he was indeed the Christ, the anointed one promised by the prophets. The one that the people were longing for with great expectations; a Messiah that would lead them out of subjugation by the Romans and restore the kingdom to its former glory as was under the reign of King David. (v. 11:2-3)
Donovan writes of this situation:
“The reason behind John’s question is found in his messianic expectations. He called people to repent (3:2), because “Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire” (3:10). He warned that the one who was to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. He will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire” (3:12). John clearly expects a fire-and-brimstone messiah.”
“Jesus has not lived up to that billing. He has pronounced blessings on the poor in spirit, the meek, and peacemakers (5:1-11). He has called his disciples to love their enemies (5:42-48). He has warned them not to judge others (7:1-5). These teachings seem weak by comparison with the actions anticipated by John’s fire and brimstone preaching.”
“Furthermore, Jesus moved away from Jerusalem, the home of the temple and the center of religious authority, and began his ministry in Galilee (4:12).”
“Then Jesus worked a series of healing ministries in chapters 8-9—what Bruner calls an “ambulance ministry”—of tremendous significance to those who were healed, but not significant to the nation as a whole. It has been centuries since Israel has heard a prophetic voice (other than John’s). People are looking for a voice of authority—for a fire that will purge the dross—for a powerful leader who will restore Israel’s former glory—for a messiah who will restore the people of God. John keeps watching Jesus hoping to see fireworks, but thus far has been disappointed.”
“But we must admire John. He has a problem with Jesus, so he approaches Jesus as directly as his imprisonment allows—no behind-the-back criticism! He sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one or shall they look for another? John has doubts, but he seeks to learn what Jesus will say—is open to hearing Jesus say that he is, indeed, the one! ”
In verse 6, Jesus states, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” John did not take offense, but only expressed doubt. We can surmise, that John was questioning his own situation just as he was questioning that of Jesus. After all if he (John the Baptist) was truly the one sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, why is he in prison? Wouldn’t he better serve God by being out preaching the word of God? And if Jesus was the anointed one, why isn’t he calling down lightening strikes on the Romans, putting them on the run out of Judea? John, as great of a prophet as he was, is about to learn a great lesson in messiah-ship.
“Jesus could rebuke John for his doubts, but instead offers him a blessing. Jesus has not lived up to John’s expectations, but John has not allowed that to be a stumbling block (skandelisthe). Soon enough, Jesus will deal with cities that refuse to repent (11:20-24)—hometown people who take offense (13:57)—Pharisees who take offense (12:1-8; 15:12) and conspire to kill Jesus (12:9-14) and charge that Jesus gets his power from Beelzebul (12:24)—and even disciples who desert him when the chips are down (26:31-33). John has done none of those things, but simply asks Jesus to confirm that he is the one for whom everyone has been waiting. Jesus offers the blessing, not just to John, but to all who do not take offense—all who do not stumble—all who are not scandalized. Jesus blesses us when we remain faithful in the face of prayers that seem not to be answered or hopes that go unfulfilled.” (Donovan)
Perhaps you now understand the importance of reviewing the nuances of the surrounding factors relative to a passage. Hopefully the brief summation provided helps you to understand why Jesus did not rebuke John, but in the verses suggested as today’s study, we find Jesus offering John praise.
“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?”(v. 7) John’s disciples had departed, returning to Herod’s prison to report what Jesus had said, and Jesus turns his attention to the followers who had gone out to hear John preach and now were intently listening to and watching Jesus.
Instead of teaching in the formal places of religious instruction, such as the temple in Jerusalem or the outlying synagogues, John had preached in the wilderness, rural areas free of distraction and creature comforts. It required effort upon the part of the people to make the arduous journey out there to hear him, but none the less they did, in great multitudes according to the Gospel writers.
Jesus—in a rhetorical manner—asks them, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” Naturally, no one—much less multitudes of people—would make such a great effort to venture out into the desert to hear someone preach who was unworthy. “ They who are weak as reeds will be shaken as reeds; but John was strong in spirit, Eph. 4:14. When the wind of popular applause on the one hand blew fresh and fair, when the storm of Herod's rage on the other hand grew fierce and blustering, John was still the same, the same in all weathers. The testimony he had borne to Christ was not the testimony of a reed, of a man who was of one mind to-day, and of another to-morrow; it was not a weather-cock testimony; no, his constancy in it is intimated (Jn. 1:20); he confessed and denied not, but confessed, and stood to it afterwards, Jn. 3:28. ” (Henry)
In essence, Jesus is stating “Let me tell you what kind of man John is!”
“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (vs. 8-10)
John was said to wear a rough cloak made from the hair of a camel, with a leather belt to gird it, eating wild honey and grains so as to avoid the comparison of those political and religious leaders who lavished upon themselves great luxury. “A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.” Is a direct condemnation of the weak and lascivious usurper who had inherited his father’s throne, Herod Antipas, who in an attempt to seduce his own step daughter granted her a wish, which resulted in her mother asking for John’s head on a platter.
“Note, they who have lived a life of mortification, are least likely to be driven off from their religion by persecution. John appeared rough and unpleasant, yet they flocked after him.” (Henry)
“A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.” Israel endured four hundred years without a prophet. When John burst onto the scene with his fiery preaching, the authenticity of his ministry generated enormous public appeal. “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” “John prepares the way of the one who is to come. People check roads before the king travels them. Servants repair potholes and scouts insure security. Today, executives have assistants who plan their travel, secretaries who make their reservations, chauffeurs who drive their cars, and pilots who fly their planes. Just as the services of those who prepare the way enhance the executive’s ability to accomplish work, so also John smoothed Jesus’ entry into the world by calling people to repentance.”(Donovan)
“Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:” (v. 11a) Jesus declares John to be, not just the greatest prophet, but the greatest figure ever. Given Israel’s pantheon of heroes, such as Abraham, Moses, and David, this is an astonishing statement, indeed. What makes John so special is not his personal characteristics, excellent though those might be, but his privileged place in salvation history. All the other heroes of the faith have done mighty works, but only John has the privilege of introducing the Messiah.
“notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”(v. 11b) “ John stands at the pinnacle of the old era, but even the greatest representative of the old era is less than the humblest representative of the new. An appropriate metaphor is the ancient astronomer whose observations were limited by a small, primitive telescope. The most brilliant person, so limited, could never match the work of a more ordinary person with access to today’s space-based telescopes. Like Moses, John marched up to the border of the promise without actually entering it himself. He was Jesus’ forerunner—not his disciple. If the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John, consider where that places us. We may be very ordinary Christians, but God considers us to be great.” (Donovan)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (vs. 12-15)
Jesus’ reference to violence refers to both the intensity of spiritual warfare surrounding the ministry of Jesus and His herald, and also to the intensity required to persevere in following God and His kingdom.
The exact sense of this has been greatly debated, and is made more difficult by complicated grammar. Carson probably gives the best sense of both expressions. “The kingdom has come with holy power and magnificent energy that has been pushing back the frontiers of darkness. This is especially manifest in Jesus’ miracles and ties in with Jesus’ response to the Baptist…The kingdom is making great strides; now is the time for courageous souls, forceful people, to take hold of it.” (Carson)
“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. ” Jesus saw an era ending with John; all the prophets and the law anticipated John and his ministry as a herald. There is a sense in which John spoke for every prophet who heralded Jesus’ coming. Under the Old Covenant, every other prophet announced, “The Messiah is coming.” John alone had the privilege of saying, “The Messiah is here.”
“The ministry of John was the beginning of the gospel, as it is reckoned, Mk. 1:1; Acts 1:22. This is shown here in two things: [1.] In John the Old Testament dispensation began to die, v. 13. So long that ministration continued in full force and virtue, but then it began to decline. Though the obligation of the law of Moses was not removed till Christ's death, yet the discoveries of the Old Testament began to be superseded by the more clear manifestation of the kingdom of heaven as at hand. [2.] In him the New-Testament day began to dawn; for (v. 14) This is Elias, that was for to come. John was as the loop that coupled the two Testaments; as Noah was Fibula utriusque mundi—the link connecting both worlds, so was he utriusque Testamenti—the link connecting both Testaments. The concluding prophecy of the Old Testament was, Behold, I will send you Elijah, Mal. 4:5, 6. Those words prophesied until John, and then, being turned into a history, they ceased to prophecy. ” (Henry)
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “A proverbial form of speech often used by Jesus after important utterances, here for the first time in Matthew.” (Bruce) A saying of Jesus that will appear throughout the Gospels which is a veiled warning to all mankind, to listen, to take heed, to understand that the teachings of Christ are indeed the thoughts and commandments of his Father in Heaven, and an implication that to ignore these words will result in less than favorable circumstances.
Benediction
It is not enough to acclaim Jesus Christ as our Lord and King. Our mission in life is to make his kingdom a reality among us and to bring it to those around us by our words and deeds. The way to do this is to live as he lived: for others, in love and service. May almighty God bless you for this task: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and to give shape to his kingdom. Thanks be to God!
Thought for the Day:
Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.
Ray Bradbury

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen
Readings:
Psalm 5; 6 Proverbs 4
Gospel: Matthew 11:7–15
7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Commentary:
We often find others, and sometimes ourselves, in a moment of religious fervor quoting a single verse or perhaps a passage, as a means of accentuating our editorial point or even justifying that point or opinion. When a verse is used appropriately, in that the contextual meaning of the verse actually is relevant to the theme we are seeking to emphasize, the usage stirs great emotion and sometimes introspection or encouragement. But when a verse is used out of context, the result is an opposite effect, causing confusion when the reader attempts to understand the writers intent or motivation.
Therefore, if we are going to use bible verses effectively, without sowing confusion and misunderstanding, we should attempt to learn all we can about the Bible, especially these individual scenes or vignettes we are presented with in bible studies such as the one today.
Quite frequently, the backgound of the Gospel account and the historical and cultural influences, are interesting, enlightening, and add a deeper understanding and appreciation of the lesson presented in the Gospel.
Regarding the setting or background of the passage we are studying today, we find John the Baptist—who had been arrested and imprisoned by Herod Antipas (see Mt. 4:12 and 14:1-12) hearing reports of the works of Christ—even while in prison—leading John to send two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus if he was indeed the Christ, the anointed one promised by the prophets. The one that the people were longing for with great expectations; a Messiah that would lead them out of subjugation by the Romans and restore the kingdom to its former glory as was under the reign of King David. (v. 11:2-3)
Donovan writes of this situation:
“The reason behind John’s question is found in his messianic expectations. He called people to repent (3:2), because “Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire” (3:10). He warned that the one who was to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. He will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire” (3:12). John clearly expects a fire-and-brimstone messiah.”
“Jesus has not lived up to that billing. He has pronounced blessings on the poor in spirit, the meek, and peacemakers (5:1-11). He has called his disciples to love their enemies (5:42-48). He has warned them not to judge others (7:1-5). These teachings seem weak by comparison with the actions anticipated by John’s fire and brimstone preaching.”
“Furthermore, Jesus moved away from Jerusalem, the home of the temple and the center of religious authority, and began his ministry in Galilee (4:12).”
“Then Jesus worked a series of healing ministries in chapters 8-9—what Bruner calls an “ambulance ministry”—of tremendous significance to those who were healed, but not significant to the nation as a whole. It has been centuries since Israel has heard a prophetic voice (other than John’s). People are looking for a voice of authority—for a fire that will purge the dross—for a powerful leader who will restore Israel’s former glory—for a messiah who will restore the people of God. John keeps watching Jesus hoping to see fireworks, but thus far has been disappointed.”
“But we must admire John. He has a problem with Jesus, so he approaches Jesus as directly as his imprisonment allows—no behind-the-back criticism! He sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one or shall they look for another? John has doubts, but he seeks to learn what Jesus will say—is open to hearing Jesus say that he is, indeed, the one! ”
In verse 6, Jesus states, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” John did not take offense, but only expressed doubt. We can surmise, that John was questioning his own situation just as he was questioning that of Jesus. After all if he (John the Baptist) was truly the one sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, why is he in prison? Wouldn’t he better serve God by being out preaching the word of God? And if Jesus was the anointed one, why isn’t he calling down lightening strikes on the Romans, putting them on the run out of Judea? John, as great of a prophet as he was, is about to learn a great lesson in messiah-ship.
“Jesus could rebuke John for his doubts, but instead offers him a blessing. Jesus has not lived up to John’s expectations, but John has not allowed that to be a stumbling block (skandelisthe). Soon enough, Jesus will deal with cities that refuse to repent (11:20-24)—hometown people who take offense (13:57)—Pharisees who take offense (12:1-8; 15:12) and conspire to kill Jesus (12:9-14) and charge that Jesus gets his power from Beelzebul (12:24)—and even disciples who desert him when the chips are down (26:31-33). John has done none of those things, but simply asks Jesus to confirm that he is the one for whom everyone has been waiting. Jesus offers the blessing, not just to John, but to all who do not take offense—all who do not stumble—all who are not scandalized. Jesus blesses us when we remain faithful in the face of prayers that seem not to be answered or hopes that go unfulfilled.” (Donovan)
Perhaps you now understand the importance of reviewing the nuances of the surrounding factors relative to a passage. Hopefully the brief summation provided helps you to understand why Jesus did not rebuke John, but in the verses suggested as today’s study, we find Jesus offering John praise.
“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?”(v. 7) John’s disciples had departed, returning to Herod’s prison to report what Jesus had said, and Jesus turns his attention to the followers who had gone out to hear John preach and now were intently listening to and watching Jesus.
Instead of teaching in the formal places of religious instruction, such as the temple in Jerusalem or the outlying synagogues, John had preached in the wilderness, rural areas free of distraction and creature comforts. It required effort upon the part of the people to make the arduous journey out there to hear him, but none the less they did, in great multitudes according to the Gospel writers.
Jesus—in a rhetorical manner—asks them, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” Naturally, no one—much less multitudes of people—would make such a great effort to venture out into the desert to hear someone preach who was unworthy. “ They who are weak as reeds will be shaken as reeds; but John was strong in spirit, Eph. 4:14. When the wind of popular applause on the one hand blew fresh and fair, when the storm of Herod's rage on the other hand grew fierce and blustering, John was still the same, the same in all weathers. The testimony he had borne to Christ was not the testimony of a reed, of a man who was of one mind to-day, and of another to-morrow; it was not a weather-cock testimony; no, his constancy in it is intimated (Jn. 1:20); he confessed and denied not, but confessed, and stood to it afterwards, Jn. 3:28. ” (Henry)
In essence, Jesus is stating “Let me tell you what kind of man John is!”
“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (vs. 8-10)
John was said to wear a rough cloak made from the hair of a camel, with a leather belt to gird it, eating wild honey and grains so as to avoid the comparison of those political and religious leaders who lavished upon themselves great luxury. “A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.” Is a direct condemnation of the weak and lascivious usurper who had inherited his father’s throne, Herod Antipas, who in an attempt to seduce his own step daughter granted her a wish, which resulted in her mother asking for John’s head on a platter.
“Note, they who have lived a life of mortification, are least likely to be driven off from their religion by persecution. John appeared rough and unpleasant, yet they flocked after him.” (Henry)
“A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.” Israel endured four hundred years without a prophet. When John burst onto the scene with his fiery preaching, the authenticity of his ministry generated enormous public appeal. “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” “John prepares the way of the one who is to come. People check roads before the king travels them. Servants repair potholes and scouts insure security. Today, executives have assistants who plan their travel, secretaries who make their reservations, chauffeurs who drive their cars, and pilots who fly their planes. Just as the services of those who prepare the way enhance the executive’s ability to accomplish work, so also John smoothed Jesus’ entry into the world by calling people to repentance.”(Donovan)
“Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:” (v. 11a) Jesus declares John to be, not just the greatest prophet, but the greatest figure ever. Given Israel’s pantheon of heroes, such as Abraham, Moses, and David, this is an astonishing statement, indeed. What makes John so special is not his personal characteristics, excellent though those might be, but his privileged place in salvation history. All the other heroes of the faith have done mighty works, but only John has the privilege of introducing the Messiah.
“notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”(v. 11b) “ John stands at the pinnacle of the old era, but even the greatest representative of the old era is less than the humblest representative of the new. An appropriate metaphor is the ancient astronomer whose observations were limited by a small, primitive telescope. The most brilliant person, so limited, could never match the work of a more ordinary person with access to today’s space-based telescopes. Like Moses, John marched up to the border of the promise without actually entering it himself. He was Jesus’ forerunner—not his disciple. If the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John, consider where that places us. We may be very ordinary Christians, but God considers us to be great.” (Donovan)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (vs. 12-15)
Jesus’ reference to violence refers to both the intensity of spiritual warfare surrounding the ministry of Jesus and His herald, and also to the intensity required to persevere in following God and His kingdom.
The exact sense of this has been greatly debated, and is made more difficult by complicated grammar. Carson probably gives the best sense of both expressions. “The kingdom has come with holy power and magnificent energy that has been pushing back the frontiers of darkness. This is especially manifest in Jesus’ miracles and ties in with Jesus’ response to the Baptist…The kingdom is making great strides; now is the time for courageous souls, forceful people, to take hold of it.” (Carson)
“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. ” Jesus saw an era ending with John; all the prophets and the law anticipated John and his ministry as a herald. There is a sense in which John spoke for every prophet who heralded Jesus’ coming. Under the Old Covenant, every other prophet announced, “The Messiah is coming.” John alone had the privilege of saying, “The Messiah is here.”
“The ministry of John was the beginning of the gospel, as it is reckoned, Mk. 1:1; Acts 1:22. This is shown here in two things: [1.] In John the Old Testament dispensation began to die, v. 13. So long that ministration continued in full force and virtue, but then it began to decline. Though the obligation of the law of Moses was not removed till Christ's death, yet the discoveries of the Old Testament began to be superseded by the more clear manifestation of the kingdom of heaven as at hand. [2.] In him the New-Testament day began to dawn; for (v. 14) This is Elias, that was for to come. John was as the loop that coupled the two Testaments; as Noah was Fibula utriusque mundi—the link connecting both worlds, so was he utriusque Testamenti—the link connecting both Testaments. The concluding prophecy of the Old Testament was, Behold, I will send you Elijah, Mal. 4:5, 6. Those words prophesied until John, and then, being turned into a history, they ceased to prophecy. ” (Henry)
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “A proverbial form of speech often used by Jesus after important utterances, here for the first time in Matthew.” (Bruce) A saying of Jesus that will appear throughout the Gospels which is a veiled warning to all mankind, to listen, to take heed, to understand that the teachings of Christ are indeed the thoughts and commandments of his Father in Heaven, and an implication that to ignore these words will result in less than favorable circumstances.
Benediction
It is not enough to acclaim Jesus Christ as our Lord and King. Our mission in life is to make his kingdom a reality among us and to bring it to those around us by our words and deeds. The way to do this is to live as he lived: for others, in love and service. May almighty God bless you for this task: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and to give shape to his kingdom. Thanks be to God!
Thought for the Day:
Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.
Ray Bradbury

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen
Readings:
Psalm 5; 6 Proverbs 4
Gospel: Matthew 11:7–15
7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Commentary:
We often find others, and sometimes ourselves, in a moment of religious fervor quoting a single verse or perhaps a passage, as a means of accentuating our editorial point or even justifying that point or opinion. When a verse is used appropriately, in that the contextual meaning of the verse actually is relevant to the theme we are seeking to emphasize, the usage stirs great emotion and sometimes introspection or encouragement. But when a verse is used out of context, the result is an opposite effect, causing confusion when the reader attempts to understand the writers intent or motivation.
Therefore, if we are going to use bible verses effectively, without sowing confusion and misunderstanding, we should attempt to learn all we can about the Bible, especially these individual scenes or vignettes we are presented with in bible studies such as the one today.
Quite frequently, the backgound of the Gospel account and the historical and cultural influences, are interesting, enlightening, and add a deeper understanding and appreciation of the lesson presented in the Gospel.
Regarding the setting or background of the passage we are studying today, we find John the Baptist—who had been arrested and imprisoned by Herod Antipas (see Mt. 4:12 and 14:1-12) hearing reports of the works of Christ—even while in prison—leading John to send two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus if he was indeed the Christ, the anointed one promised by the prophets. The one that the people were longing for with great expectations; a Messiah that would lead them out of subjugation by the Romans and restore the kingdom to its former glory as was under the reign of King David. (v. 11:2-3)
Donovan writes of this situation:
“The reason behind John’s question is found in his messianic expectations. He called people to repent (3:2), because “Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire” (3:10). He warned that the one who was to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. He will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire” (3:12). John clearly expects a fire-and-brimstone messiah.”
“Jesus has not lived up to that billing. He has pronounced blessings on the poor in spirit, the meek, and peacemakers (5:1-11). He has called his disciples to love their enemies (5:42-48). He has warned them not to judge others (7:1-5). These teachings seem weak by comparison with the actions anticipated by John’s fire and brimstone preaching.”
“Furthermore, Jesus moved away from Jerusalem, the home of the temple and the center of religious authority, and began his ministry in Galilee (4:12).”
“Then Jesus worked a series of healing ministries in chapters 8-9—what Bruner calls an “ambulance ministry”—of tremendous significance to those who were healed, but not significant to the nation as a whole. It has been centuries since Israel has heard a prophetic voice (other than John’s). People are looking for a voice of authority—for a fire that will purge the dross—for a powerful leader who will restore Israel’s former glory—for a messiah who will restore the people of God. John keeps watching Jesus hoping to see fireworks, but thus far has been disappointed.”
“But we must admire John. He has a problem with Jesus, so he approaches Jesus as directly as his imprisonment allows—no behind-the-back criticism! He sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one or shall they look for another? John has doubts, but he seeks to learn what Jesus will say—is open to hearing Jesus say that he is, indeed, the one! ”
In verse 6, Jesus states, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” John did not take offense, but only expressed doubt. We can surmise, that John was questioning his own situation just as he was questioning that of Jesus. After all if he (John the Baptist) was truly the one sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, why is he in prison? Wouldn’t he better serve God by being out preaching the word of God? And if Jesus was the anointed one, why isn’t he calling down lightening strikes on the Romans, putting them on the run out of Judea? John, as great of a prophet as he was, is about to learn a great lesson in messiah-ship.
“Jesus could rebuke John for his doubts, but instead offers him a blessing. Jesus has not lived up to John’s expectations, but John has not allowed that to be a stumbling block (skandelisthe). Soon enough, Jesus will deal with cities that refuse to repent (11:20-24)—hometown people who take offense (13:57)—Pharisees who take offense (12:1-8; 15:12) and conspire to kill Jesus (12:9-14) and charge that Jesus gets his power from Beelzebul (12:24)—and even disciples who desert him when the chips are down (26:31-33). John has done none of those things, but simply asks Jesus to confirm that he is the one for whom everyone has been waiting. Jesus offers the blessing, not just to John, but to all who do not take offense—all who do not stumble—all who are not scandalized. Jesus blesses us when we remain faithful in the face of prayers that seem not to be answered or hopes that go unfulfilled.” (Donovan)
Perhaps you now understand the importance of reviewing the nuances of the surrounding factors relative to a passage. Hopefully the brief summation provided helps you to understand why Jesus did not rebuke John, but in the verses suggested as today’s study, we find Jesus offering John praise.
“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?”(v. 7) John’s disciples had departed, returning to Herod’s prison to report what Jesus had said, and Jesus turns his attention to the followers who had gone out to hear John preach and now were intently listening to and watching Jesus.
Instead of teaching in the formal places of religious instruction, such as the temple in Jerusalem or the outlying synagogues, John had preached in the wilderness, rural areas free of distraction and creature comforts. It required effort upon the part of the people to make the arduous journey out there to hear him, but none the less they did, in great multitudes according to the Gospel writers.
Jesus—in a rhetorical manner—asks them, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” Naturally, no one—much less multitudes of people—would make such a great effort to venture out into the desert to hear someone preach who was unworthy. “ They who are weak as reeds will be shaken as reeds; but John was strong in spirit, Eph. 4:14. When the wind of popular applause on the one hand blew fresh and fair, when the storm of Herod's rage on the other hand grew fierce and blustering, John was still the same, the same in all weathers. The testimony he had borne to Christ was not the testimony of a reed, of a man who was of one mind to-day, and of another to-morrow; it was not a weather-cock testimony; no, his constancy in it is intimated (Jn. 1:20); he confessed and denied not, but confessed, and stood to it afterwards, Jn. 3:28. ” (Henry)
In essence, Jesus is stating “Let me tell you what kind of man John is!”
“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (vs. 8-10)
John was said to wear a rough cloak made from the hair of a camel, with a leather belt to gird it, eating wild honey and grains so as to avoid the comparison of those political and religious leaders who lavished upon themselves great luxury. “A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.” Is a direct condemnation of the weak and lascivious usurper who had inherited his father’s throne, Herod Antipas, who in an attempt to seduce his own step daughter granted her a wish, which resulted in her mother asking for John’s head on a platter.
“Note, they who have lived a life of mortification, are least likely to be driven off from their religion by persecution. John appeared rough and unpleasant, yet they flocked after him.” (Henry)
“A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.” Israel endured four hundred years without a prophet. When John burst onto the scene with his fiery preaching, the authenticity of his ministry generated enormous public appeal. “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” “John prepares the way of the one who is to come. People check roads before the king travels them. Servants repair potholes and scouts insure security. Today, executives have assistants who plan their travel, secretaries who make their reservations, chauffeurs who drive their cars, and pilots who fly their planes. Just as the services of those who prepare the way enhance the executive’s ability to accomplish work, so also John smoothed Jesus’ entry into the world by calling people to repentance.”(Donovan)
“Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:” (v. 11a) Jesus declares John to be, not just the greatest prophet, but the greatest figure ever. Given Israel’s pantheon of heroes, such as Abraham, Moses, and David, this is an astonishing statement, indeed. What makes John so special is not his personal characteristics, excellent though those might be, but his privileged place in salvation history. All the other heroes of the faith have done mighty works, but only John has the privilege of introducing the Messiah.
“notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”(v. 11b) “ John stands at the pinnacle of the old era, but even the greatest representative of the old era is less than the humblest representative of the new. An appropriate metaphor is the ancient astronomer whose observations were limited by a small, primitive telescope. The most brilliant person, so limited, could never match the work of a more ordinary person with access to today’s space-based telescopes. Like Moses, John marched up to the border of the promise without actually entering it himself. He was Jesus’ forerunner—not his disciple. If the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John, consider where that places us. We may be very ordinary Christians, but God considers us to be great.” (Donovan)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (vs. 12-15)
Jesus’ reference to violence refers to both the intensity of spiritual warfare surrounding the ministry of Jesus and His herald, and also to the intensity required to persevere in following God and His kingdom.
The exact sense of this has been greatly debated, and is made more difficult by complicated grammar. Carson probably gives the best sense of both expressions. “The kingdom has come with holy power and magnificent energy that has been pushing back the frontiers of darkness. This is especially manifest in Jesus’ miracles and ties in with Jesus’ response to the Baptist…The kingdom is making great strides; now is the time for courageous souls, forceful people, to take hold of it.” (Carson)
“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. ” Jesus saw an era ending with John; all the prophets and the law anticipated John and his ministry as a herald. There is a sense in which John spoke for every prophet who heralded Jesus’ coming. Under the Old Covenant, every other prophet announced, “The Messiah is coming.” John alone had the privilege of saying, “The Messiah is here.”
“The ministry of John was the beginning of the gospel, as it is reckoned, Mk. 1:1; Acts 1:22. This is shown here in two things: [1.] In John the Old Testament dispensation began to die, v. 13. So long that ministration continued in full force and virtue, but then it began to decline. Though the obligation of the law of Moses was not removed till Christ's death, yet the discoveries of the Old Testament began to be superseded by the more clear manifestation of the kingdom of heaven as at hand. [2.] In him the New-Testament day began to dawn; for (v. 14) This is Elias, that was for to come. John was as the loop that coupled the two Testaments; as Noah was Fibula utriusque mundi—the link connecting both worlds, so was he utriusque Testamenti—the link connecting both Testaments. The concluding prophecy of the Old Testament was, Behold, I will send you Elijah, Mal. 4:5, 6. Those words prophesied until John, and then, being turned into a history, they ceased to prophecy. ” (Henry)
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “A proverbial form of speech often used by Jesus after important utterances, here for the first time in Matthew.” (Bruce) A saying of Jesus that will appear throughout the Gospels which is a veiled warning to all mankind, to listen, to take heed, to understand that the teachings of Christ are indeed the thoughts and commandments of his Father in Heaven, and an implication that to ignore these words will result in less than favorable circumstances.
Benediction
It is not enough to acclaim Jesus Christ as our Lord and King. Our mission in life is to make his kingdom a reality among us and to bring it to those around us by our words and deeds. The way to do this is to live as he lived: for others, in love and service. May almighty God bless you for this task: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and to give shape to his kingdom. Thanks be to God!
Thought for the Day:
Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.
Ray Bradbury

The Collect
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness keep us, we pray, from all things that may hurt us, that we, being ready both in mind and body, may accomplish with free hearts those things which belong to your purpose; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever; Amen
Readings:
Psalm 5; 6 Proverbs 4
Gospel: Matthew 11:7–15
7 And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
8But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Commentary:
We often find others, and sometimes ourselves, in a moment of religious fervor quoting a single verse or perhaps a passage, as a means of accentuating our editorial point or even justifying that point or opinion. When a verse is used appropriately, in that the contextual meaning of the verse actually is relevant to the theme we are seeking to emphasize, the usage stirs great emotion and sometimes introspection or encouragement. But when a verse is used out of context, the result is an opposite effect, causing confusion when the reader attempts to understand the writers intent or motivation.
Therefore, if we are going to use bible verses effectively, without sowing confusion and misunderstanding, we should attempt to learn all we can about the Bible, especially these individual scenes or vignettes we are presented with in bible studies such as the one today.
Quite frequently, the backgound of the Gospel account and the historical and cultural influences, are interesting, enlightening, and add a deeper understanding and appreciation of the lesson presented in the Gospel.
Regarding the setting or background of the passage we are studying today, we find John the Baptist—who had been arrested and imprisoned by Herod Antipas (see Mt. 4:12 and 14:1-12) hearing reports of the works of Christ—even while in prison—leading John to send two of his disciples to inquire of Jesus if he was indeed the Christ, the anointed one promised by the prophets. The one that the people were longing for with great expectations; a Messiah that would lead them out of subjugation by the Romans and restore the kingdom to its former glory as was under the reign of King David. (v. 11:2-3)
Donovan writes of this situation:
“The reason behind John’s question is found in his messianic expectations. He called people to repent (3:2), because “Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire” (3:10). He warned that the one who was to come would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. He will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire” (3:12). John clearly expects a fire-and-brimstone messiah.”
“Jesus has not lived up to that billing. He has pronounced blessings on the poor in spirit, the meek, and peacemakers (5:1-11). He has called his disciples to love their enemies (5:42-48). He has warned them not to judge others (7:1-5). These teachings seem weak by comparison with the actions anticipated by John’s fire and brimstone preaching.”
“Furthermore, Jesus moved away from Jerusalem, the home of the temple and the center of religious authority, and began his ministry in Galilee (4:12).”
“Then Jesus worked a series of healing ministries in chapters 8-9—what Bruner calls an “ambulance ministry”—of tremendous significance to those who were healed, but not significant to the nation as a whole. It has been centuries since Israel has heard a prophetic voice (other than John’s). People are looking for a voice of authority—for a fire that will purge the dross—for a powerful leader who will restore Israel’s former glory—for a messiah who will restore the people of God. John keeps watching Jesus hoping to see fireworks, but thus far has been disappointed.”
“But we must admire John. He has a problem with Jesus, so he approaches Jesus as directly as his imprisonment allows—no behind-the-back criticism! He sends his disciples to ask Jesus if he is the one or shall they look for another? John has doubts, but he seeks to learn what Jesus will say—is open to hearing Jesus say that he is, indeed, the one! ”
In verse 6, Jesus states, “And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” John did not take offense, but only expressed doubt. We can surmise, that John was questioning his own situation just as he was questioning that of Jesus. After all if he (John the Baptist) was truly the one sent by God to prepare the way for the Messiah, why is he in prison? Wouldn’t he better serve God by being out preaching the word of God? And if Jesus was the anointed one, why isn’t he calling down lightening strikes on the Romans, putting them on the run out of Judea? John, as great of a prophet as he was, is about to learn a great lesson in messiah-ship.
“Jesus could rebuke John for his doubts, but instead offers him a blessing. Jesus has not lived up to John’s expectations, but John has not allowed that to be a stumbling block (skandelisthe). Soon enough, Jesus will deal with cities that refuse to repent (11:20-24)—hometown people who take offense (13:57)—Pharisees who take offense (12:1-8; 15:12) and conspire to kill Jesus (12:9-14) and charge that Jesus gets his power from Beelzebul (12:24)—and even disciples who desert him when the chips are down (26:31-33). John has done none of those things, but simply asks Jesus to confirm that he is the one for whom everyone has been waiting. Jesus offers the blessing, not just to John, but to all who do not take offense—all who do not stumble—all who are not scandalized. Jesus blesses us when we remain faithful in the face of prayers that seem not to be answered or hopes that go unfulfilled.” (Donovan)
Perhaps you now understand the importance of reviewing the nuances of the surrounding factors relative to a passage. Hopefully the brief summation provided helps you to understand why Jesus did not rebuke John, but in the verses suggested as today’s study, we find Jesus offering John praise.
“And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John,What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?”(v. 7) John’s disciples had departed, returning to Herod’s prison to report what Jesus had said, and Jesus turns his attention to the followers who had gone out to hear John preach and now were intently listening to and watching Jesus.
Instead of teaching in the formal places of religious instruction, such as the temple in Jerusalem or the outlying synagogues, John had preached in the wilderness, rural areas free of distraction and creature comforts. It required effort upon the part of the people to make the arduous journey out there to hear him, but none the less they did, in great multitudes according to the Gospel writers.
Jesus—in a rhetorical manner—asks them, “What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” Naturally, no one—much less multitudes of people—would make such a great effort to venture out into the desert to hear someone preach who was unworthy. “ They who are weak as reeds will be shaken as reeds; but John was strong in spirit, Eph. 4:14. When the wind of popular applause on the one hand blew fresh and fair, when the storm of Herod's rage on the other hand grew fierce and blustering, John was still the same, the same in all weathers. The testimony he had borne to Christ was not the testimony of a reed, of a man who was of one mind to-day, and of another to-morrow; it was not a weather-cock testimony; no, his constancy in it is intimated (Jn. 1:20); he confessed and denied not, but confessed, and stood to it afterwards, Jn. 3:28. ” (Henry)
In essence, Jesus is stating “Let me tell you what kind of man John is!”
“But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (vs. 8-10)
John was said to wear a rough cloak made from the hair of a camel, with a leather belt to gird it, eating wild honey and grains so as to avoid the comparison of those political and religious leaders who lavished upon themselves great luxury. “A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.” Is a direct condemnation of the weak and lascivious usurper who had inherited his father’s throne, Herod Antipas, who in an attempt to seduce his own step daughter granted her a wish, which resulted in her mother asking for John’s head on a platter.
“Note, they who have lived a life of mortification, are least likely to be driven off from their religion by persecution. John appeared rough and unpleasant, yet they flocked after him.” (Henry)
“A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.” Israel endured four hundred years without a prophet. When John burst onto the scene with his fiery preaching, the authenticity of his ministry generated enormous public appeal. “For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” “John prepares the way of the one who is to come. People check roads before the king travels them. Servants repair potholes and scouts insure security. Today, executives have assistants who plan their travel, secretaries who make their reservations, chauffeurs who drive their cars, and pilots who fly their planes. Just as the services of those who prepare the way enhance the executive’s ability to accomplish work, so also John smoothed Jesus’ entry into the world by calling people to repentance.”(Donovan)
“Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:” (v. 11a) Jesus declares John to be, not just the greatest prophet, but the greatest figure ever. Given Israel’s pantheon of heroes, such as Abraham, Moses, and David, this is an astonishing statement, indeed. What makes John so special is not his personal characteristics, excellent though those might be, but his privileged place in salvation history. All the other heroes of the faith have done mighty works, but only John has the privilege of introducing the Messiah.
“notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”(v. 11b) “ John stands at the pinnacle of the old era, but even the greatest representative of the old era is less than the humblest representative of the new. An appropriate metaphor is the ancient astronomer whose observations were limited by a small, primitive telescope. The most brilliant person, so limited, could never match the work of a more ordinary person with access to today’s space-based telescopes. Like Moses, John marched up to the border of the promise without actually entering it himself. He was Jesus’ forerunner—not his disciple. If the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John, consider where that places us. We may be very ordinary Christians, but God considers us to be great.” (Donovan)
“And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (vs. 12-15)
Jesus’ reference to violence refers to both the intensity of spiritual warfare surrounding the ministry of Jesus and His herald, and also to the intensity required to persevere in following God and His kingdom.
The exact sense of this has been greatly debated, and is made more difficult by complicated grammar. Carson probably gives the best sense of both expressions. “The kingdom has come with holy power and magnificent energy that has been pushing back the frontiers of darkness. This is especially manifest in Jesus’ miracles and ties in with Jesus’ response to the Baptist…The kingdom is making great strides; now is the time for courageous souls, forceful people, to take hold of it.” (Carson)
“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. ” Jesus saw an era ending with John; all the prophets and the law anticipated John and his ministry as a herald. There is a sense in which John spoke for every prophet who heralded Jesus’ coming. Under the Old Covenant, every other prophet announced, “The Messiah is coming.” John alone had the privilege of saying, “The Messiah is here.”
“The ministry of John was the beginning of the gospel, as it is reckoned, Mk. 1:1; Acts 1:22. This is shown here in two things: [1.] In John the Old Testament dispensation began to die, v. 13. So long that ministration continued in full force and virtue, but then it began to decline. Though the obligation of the law of Moses was not removed till Christ's death, yet the discoveries of the Old Testament began to be superseded by the more clear manifestation of the kingdom of heaven as at hand. [2.] In him the New-Testament day began to dawn; for (v. 14) This is Elias, that was for to come. John was as the loop that coupled the two Testaments; as Noah was Fibula utriusque mundi—the link connecting both worlds, so was he utriusque Testamenti—the link connecting both Testaments. The concluding prophecy of the Old Testament was, Behold, I will send you Elijah, Mal. 4:5, 6. Those words prophesied until John, and then, being turned into a history, they ceased to prophecy. ” (Henry)
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” “A proverbial form of speech often used by Jesus after important utterances, here for the first time in Matthew.” (Bruce) A saying of Jesus that will appear throughout the Gospels which is a veiled warning to all mankind, to listen, to take heed, to understand that the teachings of Christ are indeed the thoughts and commandments of his Father in Heaven, and an implication that to ignore these words will result in less than favorable circumstances.
Benediction
It is not enough to acclaim Jesus Christ as our Lord and King. Our mission in life is to make his kingdom a reality among us and to bring it to those around us by our words and deeds. The way to do this is to live as he lived: for others, in love and service. May almighty God bless you for this task: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and to give shape to his kingdom. Thanks be to God!
Thought for the Day:
Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.
Ray Bradbury

Plotwise, there's certainly a lot at play here, but with an ensemble director like Joss Whedon at the helm, he manages to create amazing character dynamics and make everyone feel relevant on top of that. The film goes a different direction than you'd expect from a teamup movie and has our characters of strong personalities at odds with each other, which makes the stakes at hand feel way less hunky dory and more real and tangible. For example, something I never noticed prior to Captain America: Civil War was that Tony and Steve weren't particularly fond of each other with Tony mentioning how his father, Howard Stark, spoke highly of Cap all the time, but never supported him (Tony). In addition to that, Steve, having been the one to make the "sacrifice play" in his first outing, calls out Tony for fighting only for himself and not being the one who would ever make that call -- something that ultimately concludes Tony's character years later in Endgame. It's a dynamic that is pretty much the basis for the first three phases of the MCU happening the way they did and I'm very glad I rewatched this movie to notice the seeds of what became years later. Although they don't get much screentime together this time around, this also shows the believable friendly dynamic between Black Widow and Hawkeye, the two having been great friends in S.H.I.E.L.D. for years despite the latter being mentioned to have been sent on a mission to kill the former when they first met. That there was a detail I never caught before and it's told at an underrated moment where Black Widow is interrogating Loki on what his plan is -- Loki using Natasha's history to emotionally compromise her, eventually revealing that he will use their "monster" -- the Hulk -- against them. As far as Clint and Nat's dynamic, this movie was also the first mention of the famous unanswered MCU plot point known as Budapest, the question of which was answered in Phase 4's first film, Black Widow. The setup for so many significant MCU moments in this one film is astonishing and it succeeded in its own payoffs by both bringing all established heroes together and even including several supporting roles such as Agent Coulson and Dr. Selvig and giving them important roles.
The acting is also stellar as well; Robert Downey Jr. maintains his usual Tony Stark arrogant charm and witty charisma he had established in the first two Iron Man films, even improvising certain gags like him eating blueberries while talking about serious topics with Steve and Dr. Banner. As with the first Captain America film, Chris Evans continues to be one of my favorite parts of the MCU, exuberating that charisma of a soldier with a sense of duty who doesn't play around and puts the safety of others first -- the antithesis of what he suggests to Tony as I mentioned before. Like most Marvel movies, Cap also has some of the best quotes like when Romanoff suggests that Cap is dealing with gods to which Cap says, "There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure He doesn't dress like that" -- a nice nod to comic book Captain America's Christianity. Up to this point, Chris Hemsworth has also been an exceptional Thor, demonstrating a more humble attitude toward Earth than he did in the first Thor movie while also acting vengeful like when he fights with Iron Man for getting in the way of him dealing with Loki. Being his first round as the Incredible Hulk, Mark Ruffalo does a pretty good job acting as Bruce Banner, maintaining a bashful, level headed demeanor when, secretly, he's "always angry", which allows him to control the Hulk persona a little more easily -- save for when he Hulks out due to the stress of the Helicarrier attack. Jeremy Renner wasn't given much to do in his small cameo in Thor, but he has more significant presence and character here with his dynamic with Natasha, as I mentioned, being the best part. As far as Natasha herself, Scarlett Johanssen shows much more acting ability here than her debut in Iron Man 2, showing she is much more prone to emotional breakdowns like when she acts emotionally compromised due to Loki taunting her about her past and later when she distresses over Bruce Banner Hulking out while she's stuck under debris. It was moments like this that turned Black Widow into more than just a badass beauty for me with her now being one of my favorite women in the MCU. Smaller roles like Clark Gregg as Agent Coulson and Colbie Smulders as Maria Hill are what you expect from those characters with Agent Coulson getting the most emotional moment in the film by being the one to die -- he comes back in the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. TV show, but at the time, this was the most emotional Marvel movie death apart from Uncle Ben in Raimi's Spider-Man. The acting of this movie would ultimately form the basis of these characters for their remaining MCU tenure and they would act very consistently for many movies to come.
Something that current movies in the MCU lack is good CGI and this movie has a lot of that, but it's very impressive CGI for that matter. With a whopping 2,200+ VFX shots, this film pretty much gave James Cameron's Avatar a run for its money (quite literally in terms of how fast it achieved $1 billion). The Iron Man suit CG is still a sight to behold with the contraption that removes his armor along the Stark Tower walkway being an impressive showcasing of digital effects as well as the evolution of Tony's technology. The Hulk CGI is also done well in how it captures Mark Ruffalo's face on the beast, which is something all Hulk actors have done, but, in my honest opinion, Ruffalo's facial capture looks the most natural; upon looking into the VFX shots of the movie, I discovered that Ruffalo also wore a motion capture suit with prosthetics on his upper body to emulate the Hulk's size. This was particularly useful in closeup shots such as when Thor and Hulk are fighting in the Helicarrier and made their interactions look more natural compared to the CGI dolls that have been used frequently in later Marvel projects. The look of the Helicarrier is also rather impressive with the ship being the largest ship put to screen in a Marvel project at that point and even the wideshots of it rising from the ocean present some clean, detailed CGI, making it look very lived in and used. Perhaps the most impressive use of CGI in the film is, surprisingly, the New York skyline during the final battle; potentially to avoid filming costs, ILM (Industrial Lighting and Magic) recreated the New York skyline in great detail and did an excellent job making it look like the real Manhattan with fictional landmarks (i.e.: Stark Tower). A well-known fact among Marvel superfans such as myself is that this film was almost canonical to The Amazing Spider-Man because Disney and Sony agreed to implement the Oscorp Tower from said film into the background somewhere in the final act. This idea was unfortunately abandoned, but it would have been an impressive connection between those franchises and, as of the present day, I am glad that Disney and Sony worked out a deal to implement a new version of Spider-Man into the MCU. That aside, the lengths to which this film went to make the CGI look natural was astounding and makes for some of the best VFX in Marvel before and since.
Shockingly for an MCU film, this soundtrack is actually decent as many sequences present what is perhaps the most iconic MCU theme song and superhero theme song in general, "The Avengers" by Alan Silvestri. Silvestri was previously in charge of the Captain America: The First Avenger soundtrack and, while his work wasn't too standout in that film, he more than exceled at giving the world the one theme song that most people besides Marvel superfans would associate with the Avengers. The swelling horns and heroic strings that display the triumph of the Avengers forming for the first time to save the world is so iconic, I am picturing the moment where it plays in the film as the camera circles around them forming up to take on the Chitauri invasion -- a very iconic group shot of the Avengers, for that matter. The formation of this team was not only a triumphant moment in-universe, but the fact that the theme is repeatedly used and reused for Avengers promotional material and in the following three sequels for that matter is a testament to its iconography and the impact the Avengers and other Marvel heroes have had on pop culture for the last decade and a half. I, personally, haven't listened to the rest of the soundtrack as I don't typically do that for film soundtracks, but the film score I could make out sounded pretty epic and befitting of the situations they were in, even the non-superhero action sequences such as the opening chase scene with Loki and co. running from Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D. forces. As with most of my reviews, I am often one to point out the vocal theme song made for the credits and in this case it's "Live to Rise" by Soundgarden. With the band having reformed around the time of this movie, this song was a hit upon release and, in my opinion, captivates the Avengers in their moment of triumph against Loki and the Chitauri. Rock songs have often been included at the end of superhero movies, even the 1990s Batman movies, and the Avengers has no shortage of music from and inspired by it on its aptly titled Avengers Assemble: Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture soundtrack -- I even listen to the Shinedown song, "I'm Alive" while working out. Of all the MCU movies, this is by far the one in which I can say the most about the music and that shows just how relevant the team has become both in culture and musically.
With all that's become of superhero pop culture in this day and age, it's only fitting to say that The Avengers has played a significant part in that in more ways than one. With its familiar plotline full of excellent character relationships and dynamics, its great acting talents, impressive VFX, and actually competent music -- for an MCU movie that is -- it's no wonder that the Avengers superhero team and its characters have become one of the newest pop culture staples in recent memory. While sadly the former passion and talent of the MCU has mostly gone away, lest we not forget how this movie brought to the limelight the concept of an interconnected movie universe with shared characters that have strong enough personalities to expand into a mega multi-billion dollar franchise. If this film serves as a testament to me personally, it was the beginning of my superhero nerd culture with both the then-upcoming and already existing Spider-Man projects I invested in cementing the reasons why I love superheroes so much nowadays. To me and many others, they may have larger than life personas, but with actors and aspects of their characters portraying well the humanity of the heroes showcases why we more often than not return to see these characters go on new escapades and take on new challenges no matter how formulaic the movies might get with time. All that said, I give The Avengers a solid A and recommend it to anyone, comic book nerd and casual moviegoer alike.

I'm having a very hard time deciding whether I am any type at all. It all feels like to some extent at some point i start to have worldviews, traits, behaviors like this type, but at other times, but when it happens it's extremely vibrant and apparent for me.

• So I am a person with a lot of doubt and uncertainties. I always think about the repercussions that might happen when I do something, and I overdo it to a point that it does not push me towards any work at all because I always get defeated by the knowledge of the "downside" of it. That's why I find freedom and stable places to be good where I can do whatever I want in that zone without having to worry about anything happen to me at all.

When people tell me something i often need a fact check or a need to understand why they feel this way about this certain thing. If not i often take it as a form of manipulation and tend to get really paranoid about the intention of what this person is trying to do to me. Im very grateful who is consistent in their responses, whom I could trust my thoughts onto as im in a free of judgement zone. But it's scary that i always know the harmless ways that can disappoint someone if im not behaving the way that i'm expected or supposed to. So I restrict a lot of relationships because how easily is it to mess up through my neurotic being. Im really ashamed of how i behave, talk, and appear since i often come off as a broken and a flawed person that im constantly being judged for. society wise im quite crippled.

• I am also a person that have an individualistic nature inside of me, I want to be seen as a unique, oftenly trashed out and eccentric character, a person that takes unconventional approach to every aspects of life, how I live, how I walk, how I talk, how I act, how I look, how I love, (I want to be something that you only see once in your life, and I feel extremely good when someone says "You are a rare case that I see that feels about something this way", I want to feel different, I want to act different, I want to be different. So I like the bad, the poor quality in items/style/nuance/aesthetics sometimes that irrationally form into a characteristic identification that people would spot and go like "oh that's something that this person would do/have" and be known for exclusively. But it spins around the concept of being sorrowful, dark, and "violin strings that are out of tune" broken vibes that i dig so much in being like. idk haha. I like to be so different in a way in hope of that someday a person would see all of that mess in me and go through it and love me for who i am truly, it makes it extra special.
• I always find relatability when I talk to someone, and find personal synchronization with the person that I'm with. If something never happened to me it's still very easy for me to picture how such thing could make someone feel as I could position not only myself but the incorporation of the the other person's character to see why someone is feeling this way. This makes talking to other person extremely fun to me if they're willing to open up, because it's like you get to be shown the "math work" of how someone got into this conclusion that they made towards their problem/opinion gradually. And that makes the connection very interesting for me and I incredibly value that whenever I build a relationship with anyone, through the sharing of their inner insights, values and how they navigate something in their everyday life. (I find that to be exceptionally rare in the environment that i'm living in, with everyone having their only focus of relationship is to solely build each other to success and nothing else).

However, it's a selfish process as I keep most of the understandings for myself and execution-wise I tend to be more questioning, unconsciously asserting my individual opinion on top of it out of urge, and spend lower effort in the process of validating towards that other person, since I find that process to be somewhat too much of unrealistic coping and wishful thinking that it might give them an illusion of power. Yet, I always push for a narrative of "Do what you want, and know what you're getting into" to promote the idea that they shouldn't lose themself, but do be characteristic while also be informed at the same time. Which I tend to like make a lot of quotes and like imagine myself as some sort of inspiring idealist that gives alternative perspectives in life that makes it meaningful in your own way, not relying on any set standards or existing principles that a person have to go through just to uphold that tradition. It's important for me to be remembered as insightful at some point. Then i can be cynical as i want after that.

• I am also a very reactive person (if i'm not limited to my material or physical form, to which i would rather use reasoning or mutual negotiation). I express anger a lot if i'm perceiving someone to be toxic through pragmatic considerations, being too harsh upon other's if they laugh at anyone in a very demoting sense, self-absorption that emphasize on status/class superiority, etc. I always call that out and often lose my control from those behaviors since stuff like that is my natural enemy. In the other hand, unrelatedly, on a more mutual scale I often position myself in places where I would have to argue with someone about a topic that I pick just to feel like tussling.
• If I die someday, i would like my legacy to be about who i was as a person, a person whos remembered as something odd, influential, but through and by being unlike anyone else, how people would look up to me as something great and novel through my contradictory beings and perspectives. But after self-awareness i find that to be very unlikely that it would happen because of my competence in general is not convincing enough for any of that. haha. and somehow i don't even want to be great anymore, and it oscillates toward my living to being a never-known entity that has something people don't know (mostly about emotion).
• I make music and when I do it i try to go for sensory aspects and prioritizes making feel-good sonics and how does something make a song good. But i find the process of doing that extremely difficult since I'm very indecisive of which path do I want to structure a song as, and the resistence to go for a formulative and common approach makes it incredibly discouraging for me since it's so unpersonalized. So oftenly, it always ends up with me going for a more niche approach and focusing on making it sound original, and in some way promotes my own artistry as a result. It's pretty passive and non-deliberate. I don't know what my art is, but i know when the art is "me".

Personally, no one knows me, I have my own world, I have my own fantasy that are sensory and nostalgic through the places i've been through or imagined being through. There's always some significant event that occur through envisioning something that never happened before and i take that as though it's a real for my history. It's such a memorable, distant, somewhat irrational, dark, brooding, or even heavenly, as it oscillates in my mind and how it coexist with both of my self-induced actualized fiction, and reality. But all of that daydreaming always base on one notion: eternal love and everlasting bond.

The recent beef had made me obsessed with Kendrick's songs again and understanding why the songs were made and what he wanted to communicate. When it came to Auntie Diaries, I was wondering why he went through dead naming, using the wrong pronouns and even dropping F bombs, but one line stood out to make that point pretty simple:
"Kendrick ain't no room for contradiction, to truly understand love, switch position"
The central theme of the song is empathy, and the story is about how Kendrick learns to empathise. He may have been initially supportive of transgender people around him, but he never truly understood what things they have been going through.
This is why the intro says: "Heart plays in ways the mind can't figure out".
Middle schoolers have no filter and to them it is just a word. However, it still affects queer people like me despite it being a word. People may just make jokes, but to queer people it can be seen as an attack. To Kendrick, he was taught that words were "nothin more than a sound" if the intentions weren't there. However, the heart understands that it represents a normalisation of marginalising queer people. Kendrick, just like most of the other non queer people in this story, were ignorant of that reality.
It all comes to a climax at near the end when Kendrick stand up against the Church, and with the experience of the white girl on stage.
Kendrick questions if we should "love thy neighbour" because the preacher man is contradicting that by attacking his uncle and Mary Ann.
He chose humanity over religion despite quoting the Bible, as a minor critique of modern religious practices (especially in Christianity) being more exclusionary. It became more representative of the ignorance that plagues human virtues, misconstruing the word of God to spread animosity and biases.
Kendrick's message is this: Our humanity is getting contradicted by the biases that come from ignorance. By learning empathy and understanding people, you can alleviate the contradictions and choose humanity over ignorance.

I don't have the whole story here, just some key references - and can anyone add to this? Once again, the topic of "Gaucho" sounding like a Jarrett song came up on this sub - with someone commenting "(Jarrett) had to fight for (songwriting credit)." Really, though, fight for it? I myself have never heard that, and it does make D & W sound like thieving assholes, right? Then again, we're here at Shitpost Central, steelydan, so what else to expect I suppose. I do know that they didn't initially credit him, and then, in a March 1st '81 interview with DF & WB in Musician magazine (which I'll quote/link to below), the interviewer brings up the songs' similarity and they reluctantly(?) acknowledge it. At some point thereafter, Jarrett requested co-writing credit and they didn't hesitate to give it to him. Like I mentioned recently: though I do agree they should've either given him credit in advance or finished writing the song without the heavy Jarrett "influence", I don't think it makes the song inherently unoriginal, because Jarrett's influence was only on part of the composition, and it's not the best part of the composition. The more advanced, original sounding part - which sounds like classic DF at his genius-level, compositional best - doesn't recall Jarrett's tune at all.
Here's Jarrett's original:
youtu.be/SM36ykdccsQ
(Note this comment below the vid: "I think it definitely influenced SD, and they should have known better. I also heard that Fagen initially didn't want it to go on the album at all. But Gary Katz et al. spent all night remixing it and the next day Donald liked it, and it got included after all - becoming the album lead track and title.")
Here's Jazzman Ben Sidran's son Leo Sidran's interview with DF where they talk about the Jarrett influence, but it's a long one, so would anyone else care to note the time in the interview where it comes up? Or even use YouTube's "copy url at time-stopped" function to post a link that cues right up to that time?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwl4TYIm-M8
Now here's the Musician interview link, followed by the the section of it about Jarrett:
steelydanreader.com/1981/03/01/steely-dan-interview/
MUSICIAN: Are you familiar with a Keith Jarrett record Belonging, particularly a tune called “Long as you know you’re living yours”?
BECKER: Yes.
MUSICIAN: Have you ever listened to that up against “Gaucho”?
BECKER: No.
MUSICIAN: I’m not casting any aspersions now, but in terms of the tempo and the bass line and the saxophone melody it’s pretty interesting.
BECKER: Parenthetically it is, yeah [uneasy laughter]
MUSICIAN: At this point the reporter traditionally asks the cornered politican or athlete to “go off the record.”
FAGEN: Off the record, we were heavily influenced by that particular piece of music.
BECKER: I love it.
[Becker and Fagen later approved their “off the record” responses for publication.]
MUSICIAN: We were talking about borrowing…
FAGEN: Hell, we steal. We’re the robber barons of rock ‘n’ roll.
MUSICIAN: Well, the only other thing on the record that seems obviously borrowed is “Glamour Profession.” The rhythm and feel of it, and the way the synthesizehorn vamp swings against the pulse sounds very much like Dr. Buzzard’s Original Savannah Band.
BECKER: I don’t listen to them. Donald listens to them. But I see what you mean though.
MUSICIAN: I’m not saying it was necessarily a conscious act of pilferage.
FAGEN: That song was influenced by disco music in general.
MUSICIAN: Nouveau Swing Disco?
FAGEN: What you’re saying is basically valid. There are other things that are borrowed too. The bridge on “Glamour Profession” is a take on the bridge of Kurt Weill’s “Speak Low.”
BECKER: Which is taken from Ravel.
MUSICIAN: What about popular music? Anything going on that you might be a bit more enthusiastic about?
BECKER: I’ve had a tough time with the radio lately. It’s pathetic.
FAGEN: The Talking Heads are very interesting. They’re a top band.
MUSICIAN: That’s what happens when you go to the Rhode Island School of Design.
FAGEN: Fortunately, it’s mainly their album covers that I like. The covers and the guy’s eyes are great. There’s at least an intelligence behind them, which is more than you can say for most groups.
BECKER: Further and further as time goes by… they’re leaving it in the dust.
FAGEN: I like Donna Summer's records.

New Flash everyone: the guy who hangs out with Daniel Greene(a pro-fairy rights socialist), is loved by redditors, and got a Hugo award is… woke. Who would have ever seen that coming? But, thanks to Jon Del Arroz making a video about it on May 18th, I am here to repeat the news back to you so there is an easily accessible source as to HOW he’s woke. Everything was revealed back in January 2023, but I want people to understand the implications and narrative that he’s presenting when he says his concerns about fairy rights. By the end of this, you will realize that people calling themselves Christian does not cause them to be immune to wokeness.
In fact, with how Christianity has influenced wokeness into existence, it’s likely a lot of "Christians" are what we can call “first wave wokeness”.
For context, Brandon Sanderson is a Mormon, part of the Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Mormonism is almost exclusively a US issue, and I’ve also noticed that there are a lot of youtubers who tend to be Mormon women(probably because they have other women in the house to do the chores). These people are great with money, big in business, and their church is anti-fairy. A lot of problems the fairy-rights activists have are with Mormon churches, which is strange for Europeans to witness with how open a lot of their churches are, outside of the US. Protestant, evangelical, unitarian, the national church of Denmark, it’s a big list.
But in 2008, Brandon wrote an essay about his Mormon beliefs on how Dumbledore from Harry Potter liked to have wands stirred around in his brown cauldron. His quote:

How does this relate to Dumbledore? I'm not trying to present him as an antagonist or a villain. All I'm saying is that if you believe in the truth of your message, then you shouldn't care if someone decent, respected, and intelligent is depicted as believing differently from yourself. Decent, respected, and intelligent people can be wrong--and you can still respect them. It's okay. That doesn't threaten our points, since we (theoretically) believe that they are eternal and stronger than any argument we could make.

Back in this time, Brandon had only been an author for 3 years, but he won an award for his first published book, Elantris. He was being careful with his words, and his take is considered liberal. He was trying to defend the backlash JK Rowling received for her (poor) choice of virtue signaling and tried to mend this defense with his own religion. Mentioning his religious views is what got him canceled back then, which he later apologized for in 2011:

I cannot be deaf to the pleas of [fairy] couples who want important things, such as hospital visitation rights, shared insurance, and custody rights. At the same time, I accept and sustain the leaders of the LDS church. I believe that a prophet of God has said that widespread legislation to approve [fairy] marriage will bring pain and suffering to all involved.

He was not backing down from his religion yet. His goal post moved to the legal ramifications of the US, which are separate from his church(remember, church and state, supposed to be separate in the US), but he was still saying his religion wanted him to oppose people calling it a marriage and having it in churches. This was a second “cancellation” that didn’t go very far, mostly because he was able to use religion as an excuse for his take, with the Christian Cake Packed With Fudge Scandal not happening yet(2018).
Fast forward to 2023, after he hangs out with a bunch of woke youtubers, and we get a new quote from Brandon:

The church’s first prophet, Joseph Smith, famously taught, “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” My current beliefs are where I’ve arrived on my journey, as I attempt to show the love that Jesus Christ taught. I look forward to seeing further changes in the church, and I work to make sure I am helping from within it to create a place that is welcoming of [fairy] people and ideas. I would love, for example, to see the church recognize [fairy] marriage among its members. Both temporally and eternally. I would support ordaining [tinkerbell] men to the priesthood. (And would support the ordination of women, though that is another issue.)

That’s interesting. It seems like he made a complete 180 on his stance, claims that he’s always believed this new stance, blames Jesus for this new stance, and then doubles down on this new stance by adding female ordination(becoming a priest and higher) and even Tinkerbells. As time went on, he decided that his religion was totally wrong about fairies, and this 13 year difference means way more than the nearly 200 years Mormonism has been around. I believe a fellow Mormon, Shadversity, would love to have a discussion about how any of this makes sense, but I’m starting to feel that he’s the same way. Who knows if Ethan Van Sciver understands Mormonism as well as Brandon Sanderson does, with how easy it is to manipulate prophecies and reinterpret scripture.
But that’s been the point for a while, right?
Wokeness is here to restructure both historical evidence and even religions, in order to shift cultures and social institutions to obey this progressive change. Words are changed in the dictionary, social “norms” are changed to be updated for a “modern audience”, and postmodernists like Foucault were able to trick college kids into thinking the Greeks were all pixie fairies. Once a critical theorist gets their hands on something with power, their goal is not to keep it as it is. It is to keep it for themselves. This is why you will hear these people say everything is subjective, which is secret code for “Look at me: I’m the captain of reality now.”
But wait, it gets better! Brandon Sanderson continued with:

Back in 2007, I was mostly known only in my community, not to the world at large. The essay, then, was directed at my local community, and was more controversial among them (for being too liberal) than it was controversial to the world at large for being [fairy]phobic. That might surprise you, if you’ve read the excerpts that often float around the internet. This was mostly me trying to encourage other members of the church to be more open and welcoming of [fairy] characters and ideas.
That said, the essay does display the casual bigotry common to people who (like myself) have lived lives where we haven’t had to deal with some of the issues common to the lives of people suffering discrimination. Many of the assertions (such as my view on [fairy] marriage) do not reflect my current stance. After writing it, and interacting with those who found it objectionable–even painful–I came to understand them and their experiences better. Though they did not owe me that honor, they gave it freely.

You see, he's honored to hear about the life of a bug chaser.
Brandon cares deeply about the pain he caused to his wallet… I mean the fairies who saw his essay. He was an award winning author back then, he didn’t know it would be a global thing. It was supposed to be only seen by people in Utah, that’s it. This is what we call: bullshit. The woke rely heavily on gaslighting and pretending they’re ignorant of everything, while telling others that they need to learn and understand EVERYTHING about a subject before they are even able to mention it.
He was already big on reddit, he knew all about his fandom, and he knew about his publisher, Tor. The only thing that really changed is that now he is unable to stick to being liberal and he has to present himself as progressive. Why? Well, the new Amazon deal happened recently, and he’s the writer of the series The Wheel of Time. As if Rings of Power wasn’t evidence enough of how Amazon mistreats their properties, Brandon was forced to erase his own past, like Agent J in Men in Black, burning his own hands in the process.
I’m not surprised that he’s woke or even that Christians are falling to this woke inquisition. When I said first wave wokeness, I would like to clarify why it’s the catalyst for all of this stupidity. Wokeness is not of Christian values, but instead a parasite upon Christianity, in the same way Gnosticism and Satanism would be. When Christianity started to allow new sects, and a lot of these were considered valid, the crazy sex cults of the 60s opened the floodgates for a bunch of crazy reinterpretations. It’s the same way as how there are still circles of Christianity that go for flat earth theory or say that dinosaurs don’t exist, with these people usually at the forefront of the home-schooling movement.
It’s not that home-schooling is bad by itself, it’s that bad people use it to then have the good people using it be wrongfully grouped into the same area, in the same way gun-ownership does. This type of bastardization has always been a problem in the US, due to the lack of authority over what makes something categorized as such a thing, thanks to liberalism allowing the freedom to constantly change things. As time went on, this liberalism changed into progressivism, with the key difference being that liberalism is an allowance of change while progressivism is an enforced change. The liberalism of the 1800s allowed the Confederates to claim Christianity approved of their enslavement of black people, by blaming the story of Ham and using scripture to claim it was okay to enslave certain people for generations. We always see this strange cherry-picking of scripture from fake Christians, and this problem has expanded into the Vatican itself with the current and following generations of Popes.
A lot of times, we’ll hear news about how Christians are under attack, a bakery is targeted to expose discrimination, or even where people claim they were banned from twitch for being Christian. But what they get wrong is that they are in the same circle as liberal and progressive Christianity, their openness created this weakness to tourism, and most Christian circles have been taken over in the US since before the 60s. The south has a culture of being liberal, Mormons have a culture of being liberal, protestants are very liberal, all because the US began as a liberal culture in the form of classical liberalism. The libertarian argument is always used by these liberal groups, that changes into the progressive enforcement, and over the years these liberal people get infected by the virus.
Add money to the mix, and we have ourselves an endless chain of liberal minded people falling to wokeness. The “redemption” narrative, along with original sin, from Christianity is currently its main weakness. The appeal to ignorance is another weakness, with people playing skeptic as a snake slithers through the grass. Christianity isn’t the problem by itself, it’s the naivety that comes from blind faith, which then expands into a contradictory blind faith that people are good inside, only to later wonder why everything is changing for the worse when evil people are put in charge. Fantasy stories have been under attack by the woke for quite a while, long before they tried to appropriate Tolkien with Rings of Power.
The fantasy that is controlled by the woke is an extension to their attack on religion, because to them a fantasy story is no different than a bible. Mythological presentation, symbolic themes, a dream-like world to present morals to follow; the entire thing has been used by Brandon to then have him later claim that he’s always had fairy characters since the beginning. Sure, his religion says fairies are bad, but then he virtue signals by claiming he’s always made fiction about how they’re good. He would never say this if the publishing world made sense and if publishers were the way they were in the 1950s. That is because he would never have to choose between religion and money back then, with money always mattering more to the typical materialist.
I’m sure people will say that I’m being hard on Christians, or that I’m evil for saying this, or even that I am a satanist for noticing. These people would only be angry at the truth being said, which is the opposite of what Christianity teaches. Fantasy writers, like Brandon, have a lot of supporters, with this support merging between the woke and Mormons. So many feel that they need to make sense of their fandom, so they claim their religion is wokeness, converting it into blind Satanism. This is far from the truth and we need to condemn those who focus solely on radical subjectivity.
Especially if they blame God for their stupid takes, like how Brandon does now.

Suddenly, the plane was flying upright again, both engines were operational, and the windows were intact.
Trash and debris was scattered everywhere.
We all either fell from the wall, or rolled off the pinball machines onto the floor.
The unconscious ones just laid there.
I got up and ran to Donna immediately, “Are you ok, beautiful?”, I asked.
“Yes! My knee hurts a little, but I’m ok!”, she answered.
“Sit down, Babe! I’ll rub it!”, I said.
She did, and I rubbed her knee.
Now, most peoples perception of guys in Heavy Metal bands are that they are all chauvinistic pigs, believing that they are “better” than everyone else, including their fans, or misogynistic assholes, only looking to get laid.
That perception is wrong.
Although many guys do fit that criteria, not all are like that.
I am a hopeless romantic by nature. Sue me.
Anyway, Bob then snapped his fingers, and the entire mess was cleaned up instantly.
“Ta-da!”, he said.
“What the FUCK just happened?”, Derek said angrily, sitting up and holding his hand over his left eye.
The 2 conscious girls were just sitting there holding each other crying.
“How did we…”, Ricky started to say, but grabbed the back of his head, and grimaced in pain, as he too sat up.
Corey leaned up on his left arm, and started to say, “Yeah! We were falling…”, he began.
Bob then cut him off by shouting like any worried father would, “REBECCA! Are you alright, my dear?”, as Corey got up and grabbed some napkins from the sandwich station to hold against his bottom lip.
He then took a seat at the table.
“Yes, Daddy! I’m fine!”, Rebecca answered.
“What were you thinking, dear?”, Bob asked her.
“Um! I- I don’t know! I- I saw the girls, and- and I guess I got jealous. I’m sorry, Daddy!”, she said.
“Don’t apologize to me, dear! A little plane crash wouldn’t have hurt me at all. I am the Devil, remember? You need to apologize to Mr. Hard-Sell, Donna, those two girls there, and as soon as they wake up,Tony, and the rest of the girls.”, Bob stated.
Now, in case you’re wondering why Bob didn’t tell Rebecca to apologize to Derek, Corey, Ricky, or Stephen, that’s because they would not have been killed for real. They were already dead, and would just come back to life, remember?
Bob then continued, “Now, go get changed, grab your little bandage bag, and help with the injured.”, Bob instructed.
“Yes, Daddy!”, She said embarrassingly, “It’s called a first aid kit.”
She then turned and slowly disappeared behind the curtain, her tail dragging on the floor once again.
At the same time, we heard the intercom pop again, “Sir! The craziest thing just happened. I- I don’t know. Um, I lost control, now I have control, and we’re back on course! All systems go here. I’ve got a really bad headache though, Sir!”
I didn’t think demons could feel pain, well besides getting hit with Holy Water.
Anyway, Bob then walked over to me, whispered in my right ear, “They’re going to ask questions. You’re going to have to explain this.”, he said.
I just nodded, “I know!”, I responded.
“I will tell them I did it, to take the pressure off of you, for a price of course!”, Bob said.
“”One deal per customer!”, that’s what you told Stacy!”, I said.
“I didn’t like her! I like you! So l’m willing to bend the rules, so to speak.”, Bob replied.
“No, Bob! No more deals. My first deal got me in this mess. I can just imagine what kind of fucked-up shit this one would bring. I’ll tell them the truth. I’ll tell them I did it.”, I shot back.
“Very well, Mr. Hard-Sell. Have it your way!” Bob stated, and walked away.
“What are you two talking about?”, Derek asked, now standing.
“Nothing, Dude! We’ll talk about it later!”, I said.
“Fuck that, Dude! I heard the word “Deal”, you’re not going solo like Satriani and Vai, are you?”, he asked.
“What?”, Corey asked, still covering his lip.
“Mikey! You’re leaving?”, Ricky asked, concerned.
“No, Guys! I’m not making any deals! I’m not leaving!, and I’m not going solo! We… Will Talk… About this… LATER!”, I shouted.
“Alright, Man!”, “Okay, Dude!”, “Sorry, Mikey!”, they all said in response.
Derek and Corey then went to get a beer, then sat at the table.
Ricky just stood there.
Rebecca then came back through the curtain, bouncing like she did before.
This time she wore a “Naughty Nurse’s outfit, cut lower, and higher than the stewardess outfit.
She had a Stethoscope around her neck, white stockings on her legs, a Red Cross on her hat, and a pair of those comfortable white walking shoes that real nurses wear, carrying a suitcase sized first aid kit.
“Tell me where it hurts, Boys!”, she said smiling.
“REBECCA!”, Bob yelled, as the girls stared her down.
“It was worth a try, Daddy!”, she responded, and then went to tend to the unconscious.
She used one pack of smelling salts to wake up Stephen and the girls. But had to use three to wake up Tony, who, after waking up, ran to his girls, just like I did, and began to console them.
They all appeared to be uninjured, except for a severe headache.
“Oh no! My accordion!”, Tony said loudly, then rushed to retrieve it.
He put the strap over his shoulder and played a few notes. They kinda rocked to be honest.
“Still works, Mike!”, he said and gave me a thumbs up.
Anyway, Rebecca wrapped Ricky’s head in gauze, put a huge blue Band-Aid on Derek’s forehead, after using a Sani-wipe to remove all the blood.
She then went to Corey.
In true Rebecca fashion, she slowly bent over, her cleavage directly in his face, then slowly bent her knees until they hit the floor.
She slowly leaned forward, and began dabbing his bottom lip with a gauze, softly moaning, puckering her lips, and moving closer to Corey’s face, as he tried to pull away.
She gently opened her mouth, and moved in fast to kiss Corey, when the black haired girl stood up and screamed, “Hey, He’s mine!”
She then took a step toward Rebecca, who stood up quickly, dropping the gauze, and turned to face her.
Rebecca’s eyes were extremely bright, and her tail was fully erect behind her.
I thought we were gonna see a “Cat Fight”.
But Bob intervened, as he stepped in between them, looking intensely at Rebecca.
“Stop This! Go tend to Edgar, NOW!, and stay there until you are called!… Go!”, he shouted.
Rebecca then huffed, stomped her right foot, turned around, and muttered, “Bitch!”, as she walked through the curtain.
She never did apologize.
Now, in case you’re wondering why the plane was in pristine condition, after I said what I said, but there was shit everywhere, and some of us were still injured.
Well, it’s because you have to be very specific when using this “Gift”. All I asked for was the plane to be whole again, NOT to clean up the mess, or that there wouldn’t be any injuries. Got it?
Ok! Moving on!
Slowly, we all started resuming the things we were doing before Bob had his little talk with us, and Rebecca lost her mind.
After a while, Derek stood up, and said loudly, “Are we just going to ignore the fact that we were spiraling, out of control, headed for certain death. Well, some of you were! And then all of a sudden, WHAM! BAM! THANK YOU, MA’AM! Everything is back to normal. WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT, BOB?”
“Yeah!”, Corey said.
Everyone, including Tony and the girls, began asking questions and making comments in unison, all directed at Bob.
Bob just looked at me.
I nervously stood up, put my coffee cup on the table, cleared my throat and said loudly, “Okay! Okay! Settle down!… Um, Guys!…That was me!”
They all stopped talking at that point, and just stared at me questionably.
“You?”, Donna asked.
“Yes, Babe!… Me!”, I answered.
“You see, Guys! I have a gift…” I started to say.
“What kind of gift”, Tony asked.
“Yes, Please! Tell us, Mr. Hard-Sell!”, Bob said smirking.
“You’re an asshole, Bob!”, I remarked.
Bob then took both hands, and pointed to himself. “Devil!”, he said, still smirking.
All the girls screamed in fear, “The Devil!”
“Yes, Girls! But he’s a really nice guy, once you get to know him!”, I said, “Now, do you wanna hear what I have to say or not?”
“I wanna know!”, one of the blonde girls said.
I just looked at everyone, as they looked back at me.
“Well, Um!”, I started to say, dreading their response once I said it.
I took a deep breath, exhaled, and said, “I have the ability to get anything I want, all I have to do is say I want it.”
I used air quotes when I used the word want the second time.
I expected a barrage of requests, just like my parents did, but that did not happen.
The only question I got asked was from Stephen, “Have you ever used it on us, Dude?
I paused, then answered, “I’ve only used it a couple times, but, um, as far as I can remember, I only used it on you guys twice.”
“When?” Ricky asked.
“Um! Once, at the house, when we played all the songs perfectly, and once, also at the house, when Derek was doubting himself!”, I replied.
Everyone just looked at each other individually.
Derek than shrugged his shoulders, and said, “Cool!”
Everyone just agreed, and went back to what they were doing.
I sat down, wiping the sweat off my brow.
“I… want… you!”, Donna said smiling, and then kissed me.
The sun was starting to set as nightfall was slowly creeping in.
We sat and watched the sunset together, my arm around her shoulder, her head on mine.
I know you probably don’t care about all the lovey-dovey stuff between Donna and I, but it’s my story, so deal with it!
Anyway, the cabin lights turned on, dimly lighting up the room.
“Who wants to jam?”, Derek said.
The four of us then screamed, “Rock and Roll!” and began heading toward the “Gear” room, excited and ready to play
Tony grabbed his accordion.
Tony, Bob, and all the girls followed behind us.
Derek opened up the door.
What we saw… was the most horrific sight that any musician ever wants to see.
Our gear was completely destroyed.
I guess Bob only cleaned up the mess in the Hangout Room, because he knew about that mess. He had no idea what happened in the Gear Room.
Anyway, Two of the Marshall stacks had fallen on the drum kit, smashing them to the ground, all the guitars, except for one, were broken, their necks severed from their bases, with strings still attached, and strewn all over the room.
The one fully intact guitar, my coffee cup one, was spare headed, neck first, into one of the stacks.
The pedals and plug-ins were scattered everywhere.
The microphone stands were bent, and laying on the floor.
“Our endorsements!”, Ricky said.
“They’re trashed!”, Corey said.
We all just stood there in awe of what we saw.
“Can you fix this?”, Tony’s redhead asked.
“Yeah, Man! Do something, please!”, Derek said.
I walked into the room, thought about what I was going to say, took a deep breath, and said, “I want all of our gear to be returned to the condition they were in when we first toured this plane.”
In the blink of an eye, all our gear was back to pristine condition.
“Yeah, Baby!”, Derek shouted.
“You the Man, Dude!”, Corey said.
“No Fucking Way… You Rock!”, Ricky said, slapping me on the back.
“That’s freakin’ awesome!”, Stephen said.
“You did good, Babe!”, Donna said smiling.
We all then took our places,
Stephen went behind the drum kit. I grabbed my coffee cup guitar, Ricky grabbed his skull guitar, Derek grabbed his Black bass, and Corey stood behind the microphone. Ricky, Derek, and I plugged in, Corey turned his mic on, and we all just stood there.
We must have looked like something out of a car wreck, with Ricky looking like a mummy in his head wrap, Derek with his big blue, not noticeable at all, bandage on his forehead, and Corey with his busted lip.
Tony, holding his accordion, all the girls, and Bob, gathered in front of us.
“In My Heart!”, I called out. That’s a another song I wrote.
Stephen counted it off, and we jammed that song, while everyone, including Bob, was head banging, and rocking out.
Tony was mimicking playing the song on the accordion.
“Tear it down!”, I called out, when we finished “In my heart”.
That’s yet another… you get the idea, right?
Anyway, we played two more songs.
After the fourth song, we heard Edgar’s nasally voice once again, but it wasn’t from the intercom.
“Bravo!…Bravo… Encore!”, he said clapping from the doorway.
Everyone in the “audience” turned to look at him, the band just stepped to the side.
“Who’s flying the plane?”, Stephen asked.
“Rebecca!”, Edgar replied laughing.
We all began to freak out.
“Nah! I’m just kidding! I put the autopilot on!” Edgar quickly said, “I tried to page Mr. Belz to the cockpit, but he never came. I guess he couldn’t hear me. So, I came down here to get him. I heard your little concert, and came to have a listen. You guys rock!”
“What do you need Edgar?”, Bob asked.
“Well, Sir!…”, Edgar replied, “It’s almost time to land, and Um! I don’t know how to do that, Sir!”