(/\ /\ Click above to go Home, or Back to MainSection, or to other Tuesday Reports.) 

------

Subject: The 3 major obstacles to the Logos Kingdom come on earth.

(Tues., August 16, 2011)

(approx. 5995, 11 pp.)

(or)

(or)

(or)

We are looking in this series at the problems surrounding "seeing" basic common sense truths of life, and how people tend to "see" different things, and how there are repeating clusters of different opposing beliefs, which we have already seen in law regarding "legal positivism" versus the "higher moral law," and in how Epicurean hedonism squares off against the Rational Moral Theism of the Justinian Christians as well as of Solomon, Socrates and Cicero. And now, today, we will look at so-called "higher criticism" and love-as-the-only-absolute Liberalism in Christianity versus a supernatural, all-Righteous as well as Loving Creator God of Genesis 1:1 with a sin-and-salvation message of the Gospel and new being and spiritual life in Christ.

To begin at the end, with a little history, yet again...

In the 19th century leading Christian thinkers or "scholars" became convinced (for reasons we will see later) that the Bible was mostly myth, or conspiracy, or forgery, etc., and simply not true as written and as written to the plain meaning of the text. For better or worse this exercise of deconstructing the text as basically not true but fable, fake, forgery etc. was known as "higher criticism," and with time in the seminaries just as with "legal positivism" in the law schools, the question would become not if "higher criticism" was a valid exercise, but rather which theory of "higher criticism" is most true, just as in the law schools the question became not is "legal positivism" (that is no "higher moral law") true but which theory of "legal positivism" is true?

And as with the "legal positivists" in law and the Epicureans in education, the "higher critics" at first only wanted a seat at the table in the seminaries, and then slowly equal time, and then dominance, and then they do a flat-out attack on the traditionalists and exclude them from the discussions and participation because they are now seen as "the enemy" to a new Christianity, etc. It is not allowed to even question the whole process of deconstructing the Bible text, often with the most ridiculous of "higher criticism" theories.

Hence, we are about to get the third verse of almost exactly the same song

Hence, we are about to get the third verse of almost exactly the same song as in law and education. And out of this ultimately irrational deconstructing demise of the historical Christian faith, a faulty and also irrational Christian Liberalism is born (though sometimes claiming Rationality for itself), which will come to be known as the famously prophesied Great Apostasy in the New Testament. (2 Thes. 2:3, 1 Tim. 4:1, etc.)

The traditionalists, however, simply will not be able to "see" the supposed brilliance of the 1% "higher critics," who are able to "see" the Bible text is actually false, fable, fake, forgery etc., any more than the traditionalists could "see" the supposed brilliance that there is no mind-body problem and the supposed brilliance that the state can do no wrong and the supposed brilliance of an Epicurean hedonism.

The Church (that is, the entire Body of Christ of all orthodox believers) is in the Great Apostasy with a remnant within that entire Body still holding to a true, Bible historical faith, and the bottom-line here is that true remnant within the Body must now act as salt and light to purify the whole Body in terms of spirit and truth. Very simple. Very, very simple.

And, again, I am going to take you thru this step by step, and you must stick with me, please, because at first it will not seem very relevant, probably, but we are in the Church having serious problems of "higher criticism" for well over 100 years, and, hence, well into it for 3 or 4 generations such that the falseness and even absurdity of the position seems "normal" to many "educated" people (as do "legal positivism" and Epicureanism).

However, the Church is I would say in her greatest crisis in her history. However, many people, especially the corrupted 1% ruling elite ministers and seminary professors, can no longer "see" what the average person in the pew or the average person generally, even non-Christian can "see"! This is crazy but true!

You doubt me on this?

You doubt me on this? Well, the Bible may be true in its basic message and its theological and historical claims, and it may be false, but it is not a chocolate chip cookie recipe! Even the outright atheist can "see" this! But not the trained seminary postmodern "higher critic"! He just cannot "see" it, he really cannot, and he is not joking, and this is just as some people cannot "see" we have minds and causal intentionality, or that the state can on a bad day really make a bad law or the court a bad ruling, etc.

So how did this total disaster of the Great Apostasy and its "higher criticism" (postmodern and otherwise) as standard fare today come about, and how do we fix it? Very simple question, and actually fairly simple answer if you take it step by step. So, let’s take it step by step...

Again, some of this, not all, will be a repeat of Great Books video series where I did the Christian Bible faith in terms of "do it, or don’t do it, but don’t re-do it" and why. And some of this is "my" re-construction of the story as it actually happened in its essentials, because at times not every figure fits neatly into a short, broad brushstrokes story. Shall we begin...

The Great Apostasy traces back to the 18th century as does the re-emergence of the Stoics versus the Epicureans, and it tends to center around the incompatibility of the Biblical supernatural with the naturalistic Reason of science, and of course in the 18th and 19th centuries everyone on both sides of the great debates was still trying to be most "Reasonable." This was, of course, what the Enlightenment was all about, and, hence, the question in and after the 18th century was who was really being "Reasonable"?

I will tell you now, first, how this ends, and then how we got to this end. Quite simply, the supernatural is not necessarily un-Reasonable, if there is a God of Genesis 1:1. So, in fact "Reason" does not necessarily give a problem to the supernatural in order to even begin this 200 year plus story which ends today with the New Testament as chocolate chip cookie recipe (that is, anything other than the plain meaning of the text) or, that is, in postmodern "high criticism," which still to this day cannot see this very point, namely, that the supernatural is not necessarily un-Reasonable, if there is a God of Genesis 1:1. Very simple.

So, what happened in Biblical analysis?

So, what happened? After the 18th century Enlightenment the process began, in earnest anyway, in the 19th century with trying to deal with and get rid of the supernatural because it was thought that it could not possibly be Reasonably true because it violated natural known Reason of science, and the supernatural almost certainly does, so it has to go, but, again, that does not mean God cannot do it, if He actually exists as traditionally and Biblically defined.

So, right off the bat the "higher critic" whose goal is to get the supernatural out of the Bible text because it could not possibly be true has gone into major demonic error, re-defining God in an essential manner, but let us not digress. If the supernatural is in the Bible, and it (supposedly) could not possibly happen in history, how did it get there or, that is, into the text?

Initially, the early "higher critics" had an easy and they felt obvious answer, and we will stick with the New Testament here because it is easier to do than the Old Testament. The answer was in what is called "long oral tradition," which some lightweight non-postmodernist "higher critics" still hold to to this day. What is "long oral tradition"?

It is a technical term meaning many generations of un-written historical record which eventually gets written down, and of course by the time the stories finally get written down the supernatural (which supposedly never happened) has been added in over the course of many generations. In other words, for the initiated or "educated" scholar and not mere layman, the "supernatural" is actually "myth."

This is actually a good and plausible argument and even a Rational argument because it is a Rational explanation of how the supernatural could have possibly gotten into the text. BUT the argument hinges on the "long oral tradition" assumption, that is, the many generations theory or speculation, without which it collapses entirely for a Reasonable explanation of how the supernatural may have gotten into the text. Very simple.

So, initially, the early "higher critics" went with the idea that the New Testament must have been written well into the second century AD, or that is, many generations after the historical occurrences and eyewitnesses in order for the supposedly impossible supernatural to get into the Bible as we finally have it (nothing complicated here).

The "higher critic" gets his name from his trying to get to the supposed real occurrences and meaning behind what a supposed superficial reading gives. And in fact the "long oral tradition" assumption or, that is, the many generations theory or speculation worked very well for the Liberal because it allowed him to walk a line between throwing the faith out entirely and accepting it whole cloth. However, things begin to go bad fast for the "long oral tradition" idea, that is, many generations theory.

Scholarship by the end of the 19th century, which virtually all can agree on, has the entire New Testament text "in the can" (so to speak) by the end of the first century at the latest, well within the lifetime of John the Apostle, who died around 100 AD, and John is known by people outside of Scripture who live well into the mid second century. This means not only there are not "many generations" from the Apostles and eye-witnesses to them to the text, there is not even a single generation! And in fact the eyewitness historical record can be traced back to Pentecost, fairly easy in fact, or that is day one, no less!

So, by the beginning of the 20th century the better "higher critics" are furiously working on Plan B, so to speak, as to why the supernatural did not happen, that is, Rationally speaking. And even though there is not always a neat progression here, the basic shift is going to be to "conspiracy," which is a variation on the stolen body theory of the Jewish leadership of the days of the Apostles (and it is even a variation on the later swoon theory).

The problem with the "conspiracy" theories is that unless you have an ax to grind for a particular "conspiracy" theory, they just do not appeal to the un-involved intellectual as plausible or, that is, as "Reasonable," which is the whole point of the exercise, of course. The great humanist historian H. G. Wells says, in effect, in the early 20th century that clearly the New Testament is the Apostles’ faith, and it is either true or basically true or they made it up, and he says he thinks they made it up because their charismatic political zealot leader was killed by the Roman authorities, and they turned their essentially political movement into a religious one. When you have lemons make lemonade, and it also saved their skins, at least initially, to boot.

This is a very brilliant insight by the atheist Wells, and it actually makes the situation worse, not better for the "higher critic." Why? Historical Christianity that Christians practice is not the faith of Christ but the faith of the Apostles (Wells' point), and it is all written down in their lifetimes and by them or people interacting with them, so the faith is either true or the Apostles are making it up. (And some "higher critics" go so far as to claim much of the New Testament is supposedly forged and snuck into the faith community by outside impostors, who just happen to be writing brilliant orthodoxy as well as fooling people as to their personal identity, etc.)

Game over for the "higher critic"! Satan is in big, big trouble!

So, this means the text is by definition not myth or so-called "long oral tradition," and conspiracy appeals to no one except its desperate advocates. What does this mean? "Higher criticism" by the 1920s or 1930s is dead in the water for the New Testament for any serious Rational analysis of the text, and in fact the supernatural was never really a problem in the first place if there is a God of Genesis 1:1! Game over for the "higher critic"!

Satan is in big, big trouble! However Satan is no fool, and just as with modern atheistic humanism he is going to have his higher critics bail out on Rationality rather than "higher criticism" and its assertion of an impossible supernatural intervention of God in history, which is the whole point of the Bible, no less! And this is just as the modern atheist could not over this same time period establish his atheism on Reason, and he also bailed out on his supposed beloved Reason, his supposed reason for being, no less, rather than his bail out on his atheism! He is now atheist because it is absurd! And he is a postmodernist because it is absurd. But in order to do this the "higher critic" Liberal as well as the atheist outright must bail out on "ordinary language" generally as Wittgenstein is famous for pointing out (indeed about his only claim to fame? Not much to be famous for?)

So, for the postmodern literary critic no text, the Bible or otherwise, really means what it says because for the postmodernist ordinary words do not have clear ordinary meanings, and from this one gets in mid 20th century the infamous postmodern "theater of the absurd" full of meaningless conversations, and the words in the U.S. Constitution living to mean virtually anything the judge wants on a given day or that is currently popular politically, etc. And the New Testament is not about sin-and-salvation; it just appears to be to the un-trained reader, but rather for the 1% truly enlightened to "see" it, the New Testament is really some other unknown and ultimately unknowable thing like a chocolate chip cookie recipe (anything but what the text clearly says!) and if you cannot "see" this, you are supposedly blind as a bat, and truly "uneducated." Not complicated?

For the higher critic the question becomes which way to re-do or deconstruct the text and not whether one should be basically re-doing it at all. As best I can tell virtually all of the major mainline seminaries from mid 20th century on have been sitting around debating whether the New Testament is a chocolate cookie recipe or an apple pie recipe, and naturally there is a lot of room for endless debate and "scholarship" here.

You will note this is no different than debating endlessly which theory of "legal positivism" you want to go with once you decide there is no "higher moral law." However, there are a good number of myth, conspiracy and forgery hold outs, who are in essence still trying to do something of a semi-Rational "higher criticism" rather than an overtly irrational or, that is, postmodern "higher criticism" which holds the text means anything but what it plainly says. If the book of Romans, Paul's letter to the Romans, is not a great theological treatise to the Gentiles, what in the name of Christ is it? It is flatly ridiculous and outrageous to suggest that it is anything but a great theological treatise or at least an attempt at one by Paul.

And, of course, all of this absurdity and nonsense is being funded by the men or women in the pew in the mainline denominations, who have no idea what is going on in their own seminaries, but regardless the underlying larger point is there is little or no good Reason to think the New Testament is not true basically as written, and in fact it really is the faith of the Apostles and not a conspiracy to fool future generations.

The underlying starting assumption of the "higher critic" is the faith is false in its essentials, and just as "any excuse serves a tyrant," so too any excuse or supposed minor inconsistency serves the "higher critic" to throw out book after book of the New Testament, in a truly superficial fashion but in a fashion that seems "brilliant" to him or her, but you the mere layman footing the bill for all this demonic outrage and deception are just too stupid to "see" the brilliance of it all!

I even heard of a project back in the mid 1990s to try to get at least one actual Christian professor, that is "non-higher critic" professor into every mainline seminary. I do not know if it was successful. One does not want to be too strident here! Why? The situation as it plays out tends to be a bit complicated, just as we saw with the legal positivist law professors and Epicurean teachers. Why? What is the practical point of fixing this problem and getting Satan’s ridiculous absurd "higher criticism scholarship" out of the seminaries?

The first point is just as with "values are not facts" and no "higher moral law," the ideas with "higher criticism" started off slowly and seemingly innocuously. Initially "higher critics" actually wanted to hold on to orthodox professions of faith, as well as to the idea that the supernatural was impossible. But by the early 20th century both sides are going to agree that cannot be done. Most of the "higher critics" are going to be known as Liberals for reasons we will get to later, and the traditionalists will be known as Bible Christians or fundamentalists. (The Liberals succeeded in mis-defining the fundamentalist position and the term was dropped.)

Still, what practical complication will emerge here from the early 20th century on, no less, and is still with us today, and as our central problem for restoring the Church and establishing the "Kingdom come" in our lifetimes? Most, indeed perhaps all, young men and these days women go to seminary because they feel a "call" on their lives, from God, no less. The point is people do not go to seminary because they are non-believers in the actual text of the Bible (that is, because they are "higher critics")! No, just the opposite!

People go to seminary because they are young believers and want to serve God! However, as a friend of mine whose daughter graduated from a very prestigious East coast seminary said to me recently, "She survived it," meaning she went in a believer (in her heart and mind) and came out a believer, and her doing this or "surviving" seminary with her faith intact was a true accomplishment by her, and it was no doubt. The "higher critic" professors could not "break her" try as they might, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year! I think he is one of the proudest fathers I have ever known! His daughter "survived" a very major world famous mainline seminary with her faith intact! What does this mean?

Tragically many young people do not "survive" seminary. They come out of seminary saying the traditional words, but they no longer really believe them, and sometimes young ministers lose even the words themselves. I have heard of a case where a young minister came out of a top seminary preaching nutty Plotinus or Tillich to their congregation, and their congregation had no idea what the preacher was talking about for his 30 or 40 minute sermon weak after week. And out of respect and in deference to their pastor, they would say of him, "He is so smart, no one can understand him."

The truth is the pastor may really be a Christian, but because of his training he does not know what else to preach but nutty Tillich or Plotinus. Why? That is, presumably, all he learned. Indeed, if I personally had pursued my own seminary experience I could have gotten a degree in the various theories of "higher criticism" just like everybody else does, and I could have then taught the various theories of "higher criticism" in detail because I would know them all, but I did not care to learn or teach that so I dropped out of school, not complicated.

I certainly would not have learned in a major seminary what is wrong with "higher criticism" just as one does not learn what is wrong with close-minded Epicureanism in undergraduate studies and "legal positivism" in law school. So too with "higher criticism," in seminaries, one only gets one side of the story these days, be it true or false. But I would not have necessarily have lost my personal faith as some, perhaps many do, or started preaching and believing Tillich and Plotinus!

Other young ministers do not survive seminary, and rather than preaching Tillich and Plotinus they say all the right words of the Gospel, but do not believe any of them or give them radically different meanings. As a matter of fact this past Easter just a few months ago I heard a relatively young nationally known pastor give such a sermon, no less.

This pastor had studied the Bible for some years, and presumably been seminary trained and had figured out or presumably been taught that Easter was not at all about the historical fact of the Bodily Resurrection of Christ, no that cannot be proven. What Easter is supposedly really about, if you only learn to read the text correctly (as this pastor said Tillich can do, no less) is that fact that Jesus loves us, and if you want you can know and experience this love in your life.

What’s the "higher critic's" problem here? Jesus may or may not love us, and Jesus may or may not have risen from the grave, but the Easter story is claiming he did so rise as the point of the story, and not simply "Jesus loves us." The pastor went so far as to say the supposed point of Easter, the love of Jesus, is no more provable than the Easter bunny's Easter eggs or some such ridiculous thing. This can sound learned on the surface, but the pastor was in reality doing classic de-mythologizing, but presumably the congregation was clueless because the whole things sounded so profound and loving and used Bible words, etc., with only an indirect reference to the infamous apostate Tillich, but in the end with a similar apostate message.

But, let’s say I "survive" seminary or my friend’s daughter or anyone "survives" seminary what will I or she or anyone preach in that case? THIS is the practical problem. A person can only teach or preach what they have been taught! It does not come to you in a dream or something! The whole point of the seminary is to impart to students what to teach or preach, but the mainline seminaries are not only not doing that but actually teaching what appear to be demonic blasphemies!

At best "higher criticism" seminary is a waste of time, energy, and money, at worst it destroys one’s faith or makes one very, very confused, which is what it did to me, and it took me personally about 10 or 15 years to un-scramble my brains after my seminary experience and from all the myth, conspiracy, and postmodern utter nonsense I was taught. I can say from personal experience that it is no easy task to unscramble eggs, and one should avoid putting one’s self in that situation if all possible because it will save you a lot of time, trouble, money, and heartache.

I asked my friend if he had ever heard his daughter, who had "survived" seminary, preach? And he said he had. And then I asked him what she preached on. But I already knew the answer with almost certainty. Why? Because he said she had "survived" seminary. Do you, my dear reader, know in advance what she preached on, or do I need to tell you? I need to tell you, right? Right.

Did my friend’s daughter really "survive" seminary? Yes and no

What does my friend’s daughter who "survived" a major mainline seminary with her faith intact preach on? He said, "Love, that is the key to everything, and helping the poor. She always preaches on that!" And this is exactly what I speculated she preached on, but how did I know that, and had she in fact "survived" seminary?

The way I knew what she would preach on is if she went to a "higher criticism" seminary, she learned "higher criticism," and she also learned it is a true Christian thing to do to love others and help the poor, and it is. And if she "survives" seminary she will throw out the false "higher criticism" she had learned and preach the true Christianity she has been taught, namely, loving others and helping the poor. What is wrong with this? There is nothing wrong with it, and it is a fine thing to do, and it is exactly what her Liberal "higher critic" professors wanted her to do, so she was a good student!

She, in her mind, is beating the system because she is still personally a believer (in a literal Gospel message), and further she has now graduated from a prestigious seminary (and is making good bucks presumably) and is preaching a true Christian message of love! It does not get any better than this! But has she (and of course countless others like her) really "survived" seminary and is she really preaching a true Christian message? We can say "yes" and "no" to both of those. In fact in my personal experience the vast majority of pastors emerge from seminary in exactly her condition, namely, still personally believing the Gospel as well as preaching love and helping the poor, all wonderful, wonderful Christian things to do, no doubt. So, what’s the problem?

The problem here is Paul said he preaches something entirely different, namely, "Christ and Christ crucified" and not only will you never learn that in a Liberal mainline seminary, it is anathema to them and the whole point of the Liberal "higher critic’s" rejecting the historical Biblical faith! But the poor daughter presumably could not preach Paul’s message if she wanted to because no one in the seminary, by design no less, had taught it to her.

This is the battle that goes back to the beginning of the 20th century and why the "higher critics" are virtually all theological Liberals. The traditional Bible Christian wants to preach a literal sin-and-salvation message as the central point of the faith, as Paul, along with a loving others and helping the poor, while the entire point of the "higher critic" is not to preach a sin-and-salvation message because it is not literally true because it involves the supernatural and a real "higher moral law" and a real God of Genesis 1:1, all thrown out and removed by the "higher critic" and Liberal, as the very point of their "higher criticism" and Liberalism.

The situation here is a bit like the old joke/ skit (on television) where you go to a restaurant with many things on the menu, but no matter what you order all you get is a cheeseburger because that is all they know how to cook. For the Liberal "higher critic" all they can "see" in the Bible is a God of love or unconditional love or love as the "only absolute" or only attribute of God, and everything has to be reinterpreted to be about love if you only have eyes to "see" it. (Here we go again!) All the essentials are reduced to the "God of love."

This is a heresy as old as the Christian faith, and it is a bit like the heresy of Marcion of the 2nd century no less because he, as today’s Liberal, cannot square the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament, when in point of fact that is the whole point of the Atonement and Christ’s dying for us, but the Liberal with "another Jesus" and "another Gospel" simply cannot "see" this, but I would guess that 99% of people can. The God of perfect Righteousness and Justice and the God of perfect Love met at Calvary, as it were, otherwise Calvary makes little Rational sense.

But, again, the presumably 1% Liberals (who happen to be running most seminaries?) simply cannot "see" this, and they insist on only their "Gospel," their "Jesus," and their "God" be taught to the exclusion of the now condemned traditional and clear Biblical Gospel, Jesus, and God. Paul says of any new or other Gospel, Jesus, and God than that clearly of the Bible, let it be accursed and those who preach it. The (love only) Liberal and preacher is in Paul’s analysis a high priest or priestess of a demonic Christianity, sad to say, and tragically to say, but one cannot get more off track in spirit and truth than to deny the atoning sacrifice of Christ, his death, burial, and bodily Resurrection.

All Liberals are higher critics but not all higher critics are necessarily Liberals. Liberalism (love only) is just one way of deconstructing the text, by far the most popular I would guess. It has more appeal and surface plausibility than a chocolate chip cookie recipe, but that is about all you can say for it. The "higher critic" virtually by definition, no less, does not believe in the supernatural nor does the Liberal, who formulates his position in terms of "love is all you need" and "love is the only absolute." ("Cheeseburger, cheeseburger")

That is, correctly, God is perfect Love for the Liberal, but God is not for the Liberal also perfect Righteousness, yet another radical blasphemous re-definition of God, you will note (and this is virtually identical to the denial of the reality of the "higher moral law" of the "legal positivist"). In point of fact, if you stop and think about it, if you believe in a conscious Creator God who is both perfect Love and Perfect Righteousness, there is nothing to be "Liberal" about, and you are, presumably, not a Liberal, and this is a big "duh" to 99% of Christians and people generally, even to atheists, who do not believe in God but understand the clear meaning of the text, and so this is clearly where the Gnostic component comes in for the Liberal. Why?

The ancient Gnostic had a higher irrational (non-Logos) vision and experience (of the chosen 1% few) about supposedly what the text really means if you have "eyes" to see it. For us today this is "love only," and this "love only" nonsense is said to be what most mainline seminaries teach today, presumably cranking out priests and priestesses of Satan by the truckload? Or, if not, good Christian people who could not preach a true Gospel message if they had to (such as my friend’s daughter), or if their lives depended on it?

And to make matters worse for the Liberal, if that is possible, if God is not all-Righteous, then his Liberal perfect Love becomes license so that even the "Love" the Liberal preaches is a false one. Liberalism is truly a demonic deception and pretty pathetic, Rationally speaking, when you get right down to it. Of course, again, if God is not all-Righteous, this is almost identical to the "legal positivist" saying there is no "higher moral law," but in Christianity this means a sin-and-salvation message is not true and cannot be true since there is supposedly no real sin and no need for an Atonement.

So, by the time you get to the end of the 20th century if the Liberal has thrown out sin-and-salvation and the very idea of a "higher moral law" all to be replaced by an irrational "Love as license," what to do with hedonism generally or homosexuality in particular is now not even a question; it is to be accepted without question, though you yourself are not embracing hedonism as an activity. And the person who makes moral distinctions, Christian or otherwise, is not to be accepted because he is not doing "love as license" or "love as the only absolute."

The way this works out, as best I can tell, is to maintain "unity" in the mainline denominations where there are many wonderful believers sitting in the pews, no doubt, there is like an unspoken compromise between Liberals and traditionalists, namely, we can all agree to preach that "love is good" and so is "helping the poor," but we will not preach on anything else because we cannot all agree on anything else.

However, in reality the Liberal wins in this "compromise" because "love" is all he wants preached, so my friend’s preacher daughter as countless others, no doubt, is personally a believer, but she is preaching exactly what the apostate, faith-denying Liberals want her to preach and what she was taught to preach, and she does not know how to preach a real Gospel message because she has not been so taught. In short, she did not "beat the system." In fact she is doing exactly what her Liberal professors and the Devil want her to do, but she does not know that and cannot "see" it because who can deny it is a good thing to preach love and helping others? No one, of course.

"Satan is so good at what he does!" Yes, he is, but not that good. Time is up for the old guy on this planet with his foolishness, darkness, and deception, and his complete corruption of law, education, government, and the Church.

Revelation says the "Marriage Feast of the Lamb" takes place in heaven not on earth before the famous battle of Armageddon, after which Satan is bound for 1000 years to "deceive the nations no more." But how may this actually play out, if indeed it is going to happen, and play out in our lifetimes, quite possibly?

We will attempt to answer these questions next time in Kingdom Come, Part V, now planned for Tuesday, August 23, 2011 ...