Dare To Be A Radical Christian Believer
Dare To Be A Radical Christian Believer
OneCloudyDayAL: By Nathan E. David
If you give people a chance, you will learn that most, if not all, of the various Christian congregations around the world, including those who often are considered to be cults (or sects), have some valuable thing to offer the believer of the Gospel of Christ. I have actually discovered that some beliefs in non-mainstream congregations could legitimately label the mainstreamists as sects or cults all the same, so I do not wholly reject ANY congregation that offers itself as Christian. Not everyone in their denomination is led by the blindest of guides.
I Timothy 6:20
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
As time progresses, and as the world becomes more evil, you are going to need the above verse. I suggest that you learn to treasure it!
Having once sat thru a lecture at the University of Alabama at Birmingham whose orator was guest lecturer Stanley Miller, the father of DNA replication, I do not consider myself ignorant of the science of DNA replication. Homosexuality is not an inborn trait, as modern so-called scientists would have us to believe.
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
I want to share one other belief with you that no longer is mainstream among the modern churches, but it is an abomination that it is not honored today. This belief dwindled from the mainstream church as the result of modern medical science. You may disagree with me on this point, but I cannot stress enough that until you have read all of this short blog, you just may be missing something. I, myself, missed this for 32 or 33 years. No person showed me this. I learned from reading in my own Bible, during a time that I was a member of a Southern Baptist church, that the early church was instructed to abstain from blood. There is more to this than meets the eye. Trust me!
Although stressed to the early church, in the book of Acts, to abstain from blood, as the result of scientific "discoveries" from late 1800's and early 1900's, the world has overshadowed the presence of certain verses in the New and Old Testaments. This belief, today, is particularly unpopular, because it is commonly associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Christian Scientists, two denominations who maintain very deviant interpretations of the Bible in some vital areas, yet two denominations who just happened to get this one doctrine right.
I stumbled on these two Bible verses one day (1996 or 1997), while reading in The Acts Of The Apostles.
Acts 15:20, 29
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from thing strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
These two New Testament verses support this often-despised belief that was first discarded by the Roman Catholic Church many centuries ago. In 1492 a very crude blood transfusion was given to Pope Innocent VIII following his stroke. (Some claim that three children died as the result of being participants in the blood transfusion). The transfusion, before its time, did not save Pope Innocent VIII's life. Ironically, Pope Innocent VIII was known for having instigated witchhunts in Germany only a few years before his death. I find Pope Innocent VIII's witchhunts to be quite interesting, considering that the word for "sorcery" in the Bible is the Greek word "pharmacia," hence, "pharmacy." Sorcery is drug or medical science abuse. Medical science is a wonderful thing, as long as it does not contradict God's Word, but when today's modern medical doctors' practices conflict with Biblical teachings, then it is time to draw the line on some of our doctors.
If the Word of God is only forbidding the eating or drinking "any manner of blood," but transfusions aren't to be considered eating or drinking it, then what about swallowing medicines that were derived from blood? The early church was instructed to continue in abstinance of blood. This was for the sake of honoring Christ's blood on the cross. Swallowing a pill that is derived from blood, e.g., "a blood product" most certainly IS EATING A "MANNER OF BLOOD," as is detailed in Leviticus 17:10 (below) as an abomination.
When a person, say, a coma patient, is intravenously fed, nutrition is fed directly into that person's bloodstream. This is how the person's body receives nutrition and survives. When a person receives a blood transfusion, that blood is fed into the person, also to nourish the body. The recipient of a blood transfusion is being "fed" blood.
By looking at the above two verses in Acts 15, there is nothing written that indicates anything less than absolute abstinence from blood. The early church was simply instructed to abstain from blood. That instruction had nothing to do with ceremonial or non-ceremonial use of blood. It had only to do with the sanctity of blood, as given us by God in Leviticus 17. Blood is sacred because it is Christ's blood that is given on the alter of the cross for atonement:
10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
Notice in verse 11 that blood is called the life of the flesh. God's has given blood to us upon the alter to make atonement for our souls. God has instructed us to esteem blood as sacred, because of the atonement.
Verse 13 even goes so far as to instruct that an animal's blood is to be drained following the hunt/kill, and that that blood is to be covered with dust; it is to be given burial. Blood is STILL sacred, and the early church was clearly informed of this fact.
Another way of looking at all of this is like this: The Bible says that it is a sin to commit murder. The Bible does not "explicitly detail" that it is murder to abort a baby, yet most modern mainstream Christians say that abortion is murder. Why is abortion murder when the Bible doesn't explicity say that it is, yet taking blood in the veins to nourish the body is not drinking nor eating blood, "just because" the Bible doesn't "explicitly detail" that it is? Are not both of these abominations the result of modern medical science that was not available when the Bible was being penned? Didn't we already see that the Bible DOES PLAINLY STATE that there are falsifications of science, falsely so called?
God said, "I change not;"
6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
I do not reject modern medicine as a whole, but if I am ever to need a blood transfusion, then I will have my own blood drawn prior to having the procedure which requires the transfusion. I would rather die than to go to hell.
This view of abstinence from blood, as are all religious points of persuasion, IS VERY MUCH rejected by the anti-Christ movement. The anti-Christ movement took on its present form only about a decade (or less) before medical science allowed for the practice of administering blood transfusions. I, myself, did not even embrace the belief that blood transfusions are an abomination until about four or five years after I began publishing that the Red Cross is the anti-Christ (via the United Nations' Resolution 666 and more. See my blog titled "One Cloudy Day").
This abomination of teaching people to drink blood intraveneously is not what founded the anti-Christ movement. As I have already stated in this blog: science had not endorsed this sin at the time that the current form of the anti-Christ movement really took off and began taking shape. This abomination, however, became obsolete as a being sin in public eye as science advanced into typing blood, which took place very shortly after the creation of the Red Cross. The Red Cross was not originally established as a blood bank, but as a relief society for wounded soldiers during war.
Over the years, because of medical break thru's of the late 1800's and early 1900's, and because so many denominations own hospitals, our churches have allowed medical science to replace the Bible truth about the sanctity of blood. Our allowing medical science to somehow "sanctify" our intravenously drinking blood is no less of an evil than our allowing medical science to replace creation with godless versions of evolution. This is the same evil that now allows homosexuals to gain political asylum as "minorities," as they seek public support for gay marriage and even run gay churches. Today, gays and lesbians are even ordained as ministers of the Gospel of Christ, within some of the more liberal Christian denominations. Medical science is now trying to tell us that homosexuality is inborn. This is the world's way of excusing bad behavior.
One's idea of a cross today is the axes by which engineers fly us to the moon. In the center of science's cross, however, there is a big fat zero, a big fat nothing. God's cross carries the weight of the sins of the whole world. At its center is His Son, whose blood was spilled that we could find redemption from sin. It is a very fool thing to replace God's cross with man's cross, the nothingness axes of science, falsely so called.
True science does not discard the Word of God before attempting to move forward. Carl Sagan, a very pronounced non-believer, has had great influence on science. His close personal friend, Thomas Wedowiack, was my cosmos instructor in college. I learned from Carl Sagan's teaching that some people actually believe that time travel is possible. That is so ludicrous. I dispute such a ridiculous fallacy by stating that since space is infinite, if one really could move beyond the speed of light, there would be no way to move forward or backward in time, because in infinity there is no origin by which to measure time. There would be no sense of direction as to whether the movement was forward or backward. It is clear to me that modern science is content to move the world backward, and call it progress. There is MUCH falsification of science, falsely so-called in the world today!
My crosshairs have Jesus in the center, but disbelief is behind him!
I do not believe that giving blood is the mark of the beast (hence a needle mark in the arm), but it is an abomination to endorse or take part in sharing blood. Blood, simply, is not drawn from the forehead. I myself used to give blood, but I have not given blood since 1992. Even though I did not know that sharing blood is an abomination back in 1992, I was just afraid to keep sticking my arm out to the Red Cross after reading the United Nations' Resolution 666.
I believe that the mark of the beast will be a computer chip or some other identifying mark, like a tattoo, or possibly a choice of one or the other of these two means of identification. It WILL be a physical mark, and it will be distributed in order to identify the individual for whom the individual is, among mankind. It will be justified by governments as a necessary means for international security reasons, and for other such reasons, as it will replace money. The United Nations already has been delegated the right to coin money.
Seventh Day Adventists have some wonderful understandings of what is going on in the Revelation, but I do not endorse any of the books that they use in their denomination, other than the KJV Bible. I only know their belief about the mark of the beast, and the spiritual view of what is going on between government and man in government denials of God. Their spiritual view had some of the most advanced thinking of its time, back when the Seventh Day Advent Church was formed, but they casted untimely figs and adopted many books and beliefs which should be rejected.
The Seventh Day Advent belief about the mark of the beast is that the mark in the forehead or in the right hand, as stated in Revelation 13, is merely symbolic of the individual's acceptance of man's works and laws over God's laws. This belief is VERY WRONG, but it certainly does hold an ideological truth about what is going on in the issuance of the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast, however, is going to be a physical mark. The Seventh Day Adventists jumped ship and aborted the fact that the Bible describes a physical mark of the beast. They were simply impatient with God, and their error can cost one his or her soul, if embraced fully according to the denomination's teaching.
Many people believe in and perform works of evil, and they are living in the Spirit of the same evil that soon shall issue the mark of the beast, but those persons today only have the mark of death on their souls in that they deny God. Their sins can be washed clean by their accepting Christ and following him in baptism and in their lives. Once the physical marks of the beast are in place, however, it is absolutely over for those lost souls who wear the beast's mark. Make sure that you keep this in mind, because the Seventh Day Adventist doctrine will surely come back to bewitch you if you do not maintain an absolute and clear understanding that the mark of the beast is a physical mark. Seventh Day Adventists have never been denied their rights to buy and sell, as will be denied all persons who refuse to take the mark of the beast in the very near future.
Please keep this in mind so that you do not become confused by the Seventh Day Adventist's mixture of wonderful truths and damning errors.
The person who I believe to be the anti-Christ false prophet was actually raised as a Seventh Day Adventist. Given his denomination, he had a much closer Spiritual view in the Word of God than most mainstreamers of the day, when it came to the Revelation, but rather than cleaning up the errors in his upbringing, Jean Henri Dunant turned his back on God. Again, just be mindful that the Seventh Day Advent teaching on the mark of the beast is very accurate to a point, but that they cast untimely figs in their denominational teaching, with which many have lost their souls. You cannot monkey around with the Revelation. EVERY WORD AND EVERY DETAIL of the Revelation is vitally important:
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.