Today many ill-informed “truthers” swear that there is “overwhelming” proof that Adolf Hitler was “financed by the Jews” — but what they do not know is that the first newspaper to make this public accusation against Hitler was the communist newspaper Berlin Vorwaerts (Forward) — which Hitler successfully sued for libel, as reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in 1923:
Berlin Vorwaerts To Pay 6,000,000 Marks Damages For Saying Hitler Got “Jewish and Ford Money.”
Adolph Hitler, leader of the Bavarian Fascisti, was awarded yesterday 6,000,000 marks, damages in his libel suit against the editor of the Vorwaerts, the Socialist daily of Berlin.
The libel proceedings against the Socialist editor were instituted by the reactionary leader of Bavaria following the publication by the Vorwaerts of a report that the Hitler Organization was receiving financial aid from “American Jews and Henry Ford.”
The fact that Hitler was awarded that magical sum of 6 million marks appears to be one of the great ironies in Hitler’s life — a number whose significance to Jewish occultists was not widely known at that time in 1923.
It would be interesting to find out if Hitler had demanded that amount in damages — or whether the court came up with that amount on its own — either way, it will be used by “conspiracy theorists” as more “proof” that Hitler must have been a “Rothschild agent” or secret “Mason.”
Evidently, the results of this lawsuit did not stop Hitler’s enemies from continuing to make false allegations against him in order to subvert his credibility among his enthusiastic followers — even long after his death.
Ironically, those false allegations made by his enemies are repeated as “fact” today — almost 100 years later — by the same usual suspects — often pro-Holocaust Jews like Henry Makow and Christopher Jon Bjerknes who claim that Hitler was a satanic agent in a secret masonic plot to destroy Germany and help usher in the New World Order.
This lie is a classic example of a communist demoralization psy-op — all your leaders — even your God — are in the pocket of the Jews.
Jews continue to work incessantly to convince everyone that Hitler wasn’t exactly what he appeared to be — a wildly popular leader who was loved by his people, who loved them in return — and who had their overwhelming support to wage war against the Jews who sought their destruction through a worldwide bolshevik revolution.
We wouldn’t expect the facts about this lawsuit change anyone’s mind who believes that Hitler was an “agent” of the Rothschilds — we should never let facts get in the way of our agendas.
I love this. Hitler always met them with a fight.
the man of 6 million three times.
Not just getting 6 million for his lawsuit. Also helped 6 million people to a job.
And supposedly gassed 6 million of certain people.
So yeah, the 666 is complete there.
He was created by the Zionists, no way to deny that these days.
They should not hate him but thank him, because if not for him there would not be an Israël.
“666 is completely there” so says the Jews, just to make sure you don’t believe that anything about Hitler is legitimate. Well, done, you think exactly how the Jews want you to think. Great insight into your own brainwashing.
Absolutely correct.
Kees, You are so very wrong just as 90% of the world are about Adolf Hitler. Why dont you do some serious, proper research like I did before you open your mouth to spew lies and hatred and channel your evil “propagandering” somewhere else. When you eventually realise the truth, I hope you spend the rest of your life regretting what you have done.
Once upon a time there was a man named ‘Bertie’. Bertie actually held a title, The Prince of Wales. He also had a reputation of being a little shall we say risqué, as unfortunately many of the idle wealthy are. However, being heir to the throne of England ‘Bertie’s’ peccadilloes were frowned upon. Nonetheless, ‘Bertie’ was eventually crowned King Edward VII. In due course, Edward VII had an heir which, was crowned King George V. King George V had a cousin, a first cousin actually, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/king-george-tsar-nicholas-1913/). This 1st cousin of King George V was taken out to a remote location with his family and assassinated in the basement by Jew Bolshevik Marxist Yarofsky, under orders from Lenin. Lenin took sick and was succeeded in power by Stalin. Meanwhile back in England, King George V had an heir, which was Prince of Wales and then crowned King Edward VIII. This monarch had a very cordial relationship with the Chancellor of Germany, which was a great admirer of the British Empire and also of the monarchy (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35765793). Therefore King Edward VIII had to go and the public were sold nonsense about a US mistress. His majesties’ PM Churchill had already hopped in bed with the Jews to whom he was heavily indebted, like his father before him….
Sir , British history has suffered enough . You seem to have personalities confused. Bertie was actually King George the VI : never Prince of Wales. The true heir was as you write, Edward the VIII. His abdication in 1936 is probably still mystery but historically he preferred the vulgar trade of obdurate divorcee from America for the dubious British throne. Though the Third Reich tried to “save” him when he was in Franco’s Spain the English were diligent to place him far way as governor of West Indies dominion . He could have been important to prevent the war had the king any influence. Bertie was an obedient and loyal servant of the hostage called parliament and gave the new , pejorative definition to the word, king or sovereign . Perhaps this insult is why Edward the VIII rejected the throne to be another dissolute aristocrat without the essential qualities of ambition and purpose.
6 million in 1923 during the end of their hyperinflation of 1922-23 would be valued at a few cents. 2 months later in November the nomination of a $1 was over 4 trillion. Basically a dud story.
I have no idea why you all are Christians but I do like it when you post articles like this one, nonetheless.
Any reason, not to be ? I mean most people who oppose christianity do so because of personal, emotional reasons, often related to their parents, or simply because they want to be degenerates.
Logically you either follow a religion because it’s the religion of your familly and your relatives, or because you had a specific experience with God. And that is the case for most people who happen to be white.
You do realize that of the 8 billion people who inhabit this planet, over 5 billion of them are not Christian, right? Also, a person’s specific experience with God can be the main reason to not be a follower of Christianity or any other religion. Some people’s spirituality has transcended the need for any religion.
The true people of Israel, the aryan European people, or the Adamic race. Is not like any other people, this is our personal god YHWH and we are his chosen people. This is why I became a christian after being an atheist for fiftheen years, I still love science and everything that comes with it. https://www.bitchute.com/video/3jkx36QJzNMX/ — https://www.bitchute.com/video/OHQ8ZDwScKNm/ I found that many of the dogma’s that science did not answer or answered incorrectly were answered in the books. Like we’ve now confirmed in genetics that it is not possible for Adamic people to have evolved from sub-saharan people. It also explains the giant structures like pyramids, in South America, Antarctica, China, Middle East, Eastern Europe which are covered with mummies with blonde and red hair and so on. In many aspects my religion is ahead of scientific stupidity and political correctness. In many things science is a better judge. Bitchute the name i use if you want more.
Because if you add up the Christian holocausts and holodomor, they killed about 300 MILLION Christians
I apologize for the long post …………………
.When you buy your ticket you pay both the good guys and the bad guys. The success of the presentation depends on the ability of the theatrical company to get the audience wrapped up in the plot. The greater the audience participation the greater the success. Real success is achieved when the audience becomes so emotionally involved in the plot that they begin to think it’s the real thing. The profits from these theatrical extravaganzas go to those who put up the ‘seed’ money and stage the shows. Don’t misunderstand! The Americans, Canadians, English, Germans, Russians, Japanese and other nationalities who fought and died in the various theaters of war’ during this century weren’t play-acting. They were deadly serious about what they were doing. FTo them war was a life and death struggle. What few of them realized was that everything was carefully programmed to a carefully prepared script.p54
https://chinhnghia.com/Griffin-DescentIntoSlavery1980.pdf
Eustace Mullins states:
Sennholz claims that the Federal Reserve System was drafted in 1917 for the purpose of financing government expenditures for World War I. I proved in my work that it was secretly drafted in 1910 by Paul Warburg at the behest of the Rothschilds in order to finance World War I and provide capital for the various belligerent powers, not merely the United States. Here again, one is appalled at the consistent disinformation.
http://www.whale.to/b/mullins14.html
Provisioning Germany in WW1 to keep it, the War going:
A patriotic British woman who had operated a small hospital in Belgium for several years, Edith Cavell, wrote to the Nursing Mirror in London, April 15, 1915, complaining that the “Belgian Relief” supplies were being shipped to Germany to feed the German army.
The Germans considered Miss Cavell to be of no importance, and paid no
attention to her, but the British Intelligence Service in London was appalled
by Miss Cavell’s discovery, and demanded that the Germans arrest her as a spy.
Sir William Wiseman, head of British Intelligence, and partner of Kuhn
Loeb Company, feared that the continuance of the war was at stake, and
secretly notified the Germans that Miss Cavell must be executed. The
Germans reluctantly arrested her and charged her with aiding prisoners of
war to escape. The usual penalty for this offense was three months
imprisonment, but the Germans bowed to Sir William Wiseman’s demands,
and shot Edith Cavell, thus creating one of the principal martyrs of the First
World War.
With Edith Cavell out of the way, the “Belgian Relief” operation continued,
although in 1916, German emissaries again approached London officials
with the information that they did not believe Germany could continue
military operations, not only because of food shortages, but because of
financial problems. More “emergency relief” was sent, and Germany
continued in the war until November, 1918.
https://ia802705.us.archive.org/10/items/TheSecretsOfTheFederalReserve_294/0388.Mullins.The.Secrets.of.the.Federal.Reserve.pdf
Harry, sorry but we had to edit your comment, as it was far too long. People do NOT read long comments regardless of how good the information is. Please keep them short. Submit a number of shorter comments rather than one long comment if you actually want people to read them. And make sure they are directly relevant to the article. Do not use an article as an excuse to talk about some other unrelated issue.
great info … Eustace Mullins is the best.
Dear makers and readers of Christians for Truth,
Deo gratias for your love of the truth, also in matters concerning my storm-tossed fatherland Germany.
Indeed Adolf Hitler was right, whilst the governments of the WW2’s allied victors – Russia, USA, England, France – were and still are the true lakeys of the Jewish globalists.
I include you all in my Rosary. Only our Lord Jesus Christ sets us free.
Greetings from Germany.
Lang lebe das Heilige Römische Reich deutscher Nation!
Danke, my friend. You are a good man.
Only a Jew would have the ‘chutzpah’ to accuse European resistance to international, Jewish-led Financial System and Jewish-led Bolshevism of also being financed by Jews, because they will use anything that has a chance to destabilise any real resistance.
Of course in modern times it’s also to do with people being unstable and always wanting another layer to conspiracies.
Believing the NSDAP were controlled opposition or secret occultists/ Neo-Pagans (or Freemasons) is resigning yourself to the belief that there has not been any proper resistance to Jews and Shabbos past a certain point in history, it also implies that what the Germans said about the International Clique is intentionally misleading.
Some people associate Nihilism/ Nietzsche with National Socialist Germany because he was a German Philosopher, and there is overlap with the ubermensch-untermensch ideas, but Nietzsche has never been opposed to Jews or their power. He basically said Anti-Semites were moronic and he advocated for the mixing of European nobility with Jewish barons and said they were not only no threat at all to Europeans but had ‘proven themselves’ to be Eugenic. Many of his ideas centred around developing a “Neo-Nobility.”
The National Socialists obviously weren’t staunch Eugenicists or Darwinists, because they didn’t despise the lower classes and tried to look after the most unfortunate within their national group and raise them up to their best potential. It was all about dissolving the barriers between classes that had developed and making them all one team. It wasn’t just all talk like politicians now, they showed it through action.
here’s a great link to a friend of mine – Mike (MS) King
https://www.realhistorychan.com/slandering-hitler—-from-the-far-right.html
To this day, nothing strikes fear into the black hearts of Jewish Mafia Globalists like the name of Adolf Hitler aka “The Great One.” He was, at least for a while, the only man who had totally rid his nation of the Marxist Globalist pestilence. For that reason, his name must be dirtied on a daily basis.
If you are actual friends with Mike …………… what is his deal with his interest in Trump? Actually believing Trump is not an Insider. I simply don’t get it. I’ve followed Mike for a decade now it seems. Purchased several of his books. I just can’t understand, for as bright as Mike is, why he believes Trump is independent from the Jew World Order.
Can you explain?
Fash The Nation had a deep dive on Trump…..he and his dad are totally jewed up. Roy Cohn was Trump’s mentor. And of course Trump’s daughter married a Chabad pos.
I’m still confused about the jew hatred of Trump especially when you consider he bent over backwards to kiss their butts.
It might be that because he refused to start a war with Iran they wanted him out.
And because he didn’t completely embrace open borders globalism.
But no….Trump was not our guy….he was better than Biden but not our guy.
There are different factions in Jewry. The Zionists loved Trump. The Hollywood, mainstream liberal Jews that control the media hated Trump and saw him as the incarnation of Hitler despite being a life-long registered democrat.
Those liberal media Jews are lukewarm about Israel, and if they support it, they are not rabid about it the way the Zionist Jews are. It’s impossible for Trump to please both of these factions of Jews at the same time, despite his complete lack of morals. He pandered to the Jews his whole life and it got him a one-term presidency.
Whoever the next Republican president will be, he or she will be another Zionist but even more liberal than Trump on social issues. Every Republican since Nixon has been more liberal than the previous. That’s how they play the game.
No! Sorry but the ALL hated him, even those who’ve said they love him (which I doubt no one has claimed).
Frankly, I suspect that Ivanka was a natural born kike. Neither now nor before her plastic surgery did she look like a shiksa to me, and that she underwent such extensive plastic surgery strongly suggests, I submit, that she is a typical NYC J-A-P.
(“Jewish-American Princess”, in case that’s a bygone term)
While Trump was forced to grow up with Jews and work with Jews, there’s some evidence to suggest that he does not like the Jews personally. I’d almost bet on that as no one who knows the Jew likes Jews.
So could the Jews hate him because he is not one of them and they know that their hate is reciprocated? With the kicker being that he wouldn’t fight their proxy wars.
Ivanka’s mother, Ivana, certainly appears to be a Jewish person. Have you seen her recent photos? Ivana’s mother’s maiden surname was “Frankova'” https://www.myheritage.com/names/marie_zelníčková
If you read Ivana’s wiki page there are some clues in there; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivana_Trump
Here’s info on her father was an engineer behind the “iron curtain”: https://www.geni.com/people/Miloš-Zelníček/6000000009656529359
And here’s an article about the Czech Republic spying on Trump during the 1980s when he was married to Ivana. Ivana’s father would give the StB (Czech intel svcs) info about them. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/29/czechoslovakia-spied-on-trump-to-exploit-ties-to-highest-echelons-of-us-power
One must ask why certain people were allowed to be “married” and get out from behind the ‘iron curtain’ and most others were not allowed to leave.
I met Ivana Trump about 20 years ago, and she didn’t look Jewish to me. And I have a pretty good idea of what Jews look like after living in NYC for many years.
It’s because you haven’t studied what DJT has done to them. Mike explains it very well in his articles and so does Mark inseveral articles at TUT. Read them and try to understand. Thank you.
http://theuglytruth.xyz/judea-speaks-changing-israels-mindset-about-the-boundaries-of-the-jewish-state/
Do you think this source you’ve quoted is Christian? Does Christianity appeal to you in any way?
I have talked to him on the phone a few times and we’ve exchanged emails, about 2 yrs ago. His Qanon stuff is hard for me to understand. He’s off the rails on that clearly
I cannot and I’m as baffled as you on the Trump belief. I last talked to him before his Q stuff came out
Mike King is obviously enamored with Hitler, and he seems to believe that we can defeat the Jews with another Hitler, another strong, authoritarian leader who speaks the truth. He still believes in the political process enough to think that the Jews will allow another Hitler to be elected and have a popular mandate from the people to do whatever it takes to “clean up America”. Mike King is deluded if he thinks this.
Kurtz,
Nothing wrong with “admiring” Adolf Hitler. I really believe that if we do not correct History in regards to that period of time — the Jews will continue to have a strangle-hold on our peoples. This is speaking strictly from a secular point of view. We know here at CFT that the only solution to our problem is Spiritual.
But let’s assume our Lord’s return is 100 years away. The Holocaust narrative is literally Kryptonite to our peoples. That and the “god’s chosen people” myth/narrative has literally caused a whole Generation of White people to fall away from the Faith.
I am totally fine with Mike King’s admiration of all things Adolf Hitler. This is when Mike is at his best, in my opinion.
“But let’s assume our Lord’s return is 100 years away.”
What good do you think could possibly come from that assumption? Matthew 24:48 says, “But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’” Postulating over His delay is a tacit admission of wickedness.
Except there’s a difference between correcting history and admiring Hitler. One does not need to admire Hitler in order to correct history. Absolving Hitler of the false accusations against him doesn’t necessitate admiration.
Unfortunately in this narcissistic society the only way we vilify one or absolve another is through partiality. For any Christian, admiration for Hitler is little more than partiality.
It’s the kind of partiality which could take a Godless man who when he sings our tune, we cynically and patronizingly call him “at his best.” His best isn’t good enough for the Kingdom of God, so why should our sensibilities be tickled by it… unless we are partial indeed? Unless our sensibilities are corrupt?
The Kingdom of God isn’t nostalgic fascination with the horror suffered by millions of people. Rather, we should bear the knowledge of their and Hitler’s fate with grim determination in light of the harsh lesson: There is no savior but Christ Jesus. There is no volksgemeinschaft except the Kingdom of God. All others are fakes and counterfeits.
Hi Clock,
As always, my ‘point’ did not come across as concise. It is a shame we can’t all be in the same room.
Let me re-explain — there are many, mostly judeo-christians, who will say that God is in control of all things and therefore we shouldn’t do anything but give reverence to God and pray that He comes soon to take care of our problems.
A good example would be my own family shortly after 9-11 when I was trying to prove to them that International Jewry was behind that event. Because they believe the jews are god’s chosen, they would not listen to one word I had to say. Their response was always something like —- “……we wrestle not the flesh ….. so there is nothing we can do about it and you should be ashamed of yourself for looking into the “who” of 9-11 and should be just praying and sitting on your butt…..”. In other words — shut up.
Something like that. If I did not have an interest into finding out ‘who’ was behind 9-11, I may not have ever found Identity. It was all part of my Spiritual Awakening.
I see many “christians” take this attitude of not doing anything to expose Evil, as if it were a sin to do so (you know ….”works salvation”), and then shame people who actually do care by saying we are not trusting Christ ….. etc., etc.
My personal testimony —- learning about Adolf Hitler was a significant part of my own Spiritual Awakening. “Breaking” that spell in other words. I suppose I fell into the Christogenea camp where they place AH into a sphere he does not belong — so, I am now finding the right “balance”.
I was merely making the point that if the Lord’s coming is still a Generation away — maybe it is our duty to expose Evil.
Now in regards to the word I chose — Admiration — I will acknowledge that perhaps this was not the best word to chose.
So, I will ask you — what word would you chose?
I like Henry Ford. He inspires me. Is that ok to say?
Charles Lindbergh would be a secular man that I admire or am inspired by.
The Wright Brothers ……………. I admire them. Stonewall Jackson. And I could go on and on and on.
Are you suggesting it is a Sin to admire secular men from History who did great things? It is a sin to compartmentalize at times?
I have “March of the Titans” on my bookshelf. I often find myself thumbing through that book when I am feeling beat up by the world for being White. I am proud to be White even though many White men before me were secular.
I totally understand Jesus’ lesson when He told us to not call our earthly dad “Father”. I totally understand the message He was conveying. I am also very careful to not call my biological dad — father. But sometimes I slip. I do not believe saying the actual word is “sin”. It was what Jesus was conveying — i.e., don’t hold your earthly father higher than your Spiritual Father. Was it the “word” that He doesn’t like — or is it the message. Obviously it was the spiritual lesson He wanted us to learn.
Speaking of my dad —- I do not believe he is in heaven. He was not a great dad to me in many ways. But there were qualities about him that I greatly appreciate and certain things he did in his life inspire me. Although he failed me, can he not be my hero in certain ways?
Is it a Sin to find reverence in secular men from history who did great things and “inspire” us in one way or another?
If YES …………… I will seriously consider it.
Maybe you could volunteer a better word to use in the future.
Because I agree very much with the overall point you were making.
Thanks.
“I was merely making the point that if the Lord’s coming is still a Generation away — maybe it is our duty to expose Evil.”
I know you were merely making that point, that’s the problem. Let me reiterate then… No good can come from postulating about Christ delaying. The Scripture is clear. I would suggest abandoning that line of thinking entirely.
Personal testimonies can be vicious idols in our minds. So easy to fall in love with our own journey and our own story. We become oblivious to the fact that even the truth (when not seen through the lens of Christ and the Holy Spirit) can corrupt us… or has corrupted us. I know because I’ve been there. Maybe I’m there now, but may Christ reveal it to me. Let us look forwards at what we want to be, not backwards at what we hope we were.
At the end of the day, “out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45) What fills your heart, WestWins? Fill your heart with Christ and these men of whom your mouth speaks will fade into the insignificance they deserve…
Clock,
Sorry …….. I still do not understand your rebuke. Please try again. Understand that I was only saying that to “counter” those who do nothing to help God fulfill His will on earth. “Truth” only resides in Heaven — so I would think our Lord would want us to fight for Truth here as well. “….on earth as it is in Heaven…”
How about the second part of your original rebuke …………
Do you have a better word for “admiration”?
Surely you have respect for many White secular men who have come before us.
How would you describe your affinity towards them.
I would appreciate your opinion. You didn’t seem to like the word “admiration”. And you could be right. What would be a better word in your opinion?
Cheers.
“Surely you have respect for many White secular men who have come before us.”
At the end of the age, their bodies and their works will be burned to nothing. The only thing those in the Kingdom will remember of them is the smoke of their torment.
Why would I have any respect for them? Aren’t these basics..?
Clock wrote — At the end of the age, their bodies and their works will be burned to nothing. The only thing those in the Kingdom will remember of them is the smoke of their torment.
Of course. I don’t disagree with you.
On a different topic, I would be interested in your opinion on my marriage thesis. But please do not comment here. I will see you over at my blog. Thank you.
Your marriage thesis states a woman can only ever be married by losing her virginity. Every man who sleeps with her thereafter does not marry her, but only commits adultery. The whole thing falls flat under 1 Corinthians 6:16,
Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”
By quoting Genesis 2:24, Paul says that a man marries a prostitute when he sleeps with her (Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:8, Ephesians 5:31). Therefore, a prostitute herself marries repeatedly as a part of her job (albeit in adultery), because she marries every man she sleeps with. Paul shows that a new marriage can happen in sin by adultery. That’s why adultery is so terrible… because you are no longer one flesh with the previous spouse, but tear yourself from the former and become one with the latter.
Also, if your thesis were true, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 wouldn’t exist. The passage forbids a man from ever taking his original wife if she has married another man. If your thesis were true, the law would encourage a man and woman to be reconciled, even if the woman had “married” someone else in the interim. But because 1 Corinthians 6:16 is true, in the case of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, the man may not be reconciled with his original wife because she is no longer his wife.
Also, a man may commit adultery against his wife as well (Mark 10:11)… Something your thesis fails to take into account. The ancients didn’t realize that, so it isn’t counted against them (Romans 5:13)… Despite them being polygamists. The only true marriage is one to one, as Genesis 2:24 makes clear. Also the bride of Christ is only ever referred to in the singular… one to one.
I’d suggest you drop the idea and decommission your blog. What you are teaching on there is little more than your own tradition of man.
Clock,
I politely asked you to speak to me about this topic on my blog. CFT has been very gracious to me and has asked me not to discuss this topic here.
You have no honor Clock.
You swing your mighty hammer of righteousness at FLIES and ignore the Camels that pass before you.
WestWins, yet the topic shift and your website reference was approved… In spite of you going against CFT wishes, as you said.
Feel free to swat my flies and my camels. Reprove me, and I will love you (Prov 9:8).
I only ask that when you do so, you use the Bible to do it.
“……you use the Bible to do it……”
I did. But the Spirit has not been given to you. Matthew 19:11.
Every argument you made has been addressed. But you chose to ignore it.
WestWins, Matthew 19:11 doesn’t prove the truth of your thesis… It only assumes the truth of your thesis. You are begging the question. Matthew 19:9 says,
whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery [and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery].
Likewise, Mark 10,
11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
I accept that. Once married, a man and women are not to marry (adulterate with) another.
Sorry, I don’t see how you’ve address my arguments.
“……….. once married ……………”
Key word “married”. Put me out of my misery. I’ve been asking “Christendom” for 20 years —
” When does a girl become a wife and a man become a husband? Where in the Scriptures are the proper procedures and rituals required for a righteous marriage?”
A non-virgin girl is “joined” to a man and only death can sever this union — Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39.
There is not ONE example of a non-virgin girl (excluding widows) having a husband and is found righteous in all of Scripture. Not one. But yet the world assumes it is ok to take a non-virgin* girl for a wife. (*excluding widows)
Take it or leave it.
WestWins, you said you’ve refuted my argument with Scripture, but you’re ignoring my argument. 1 Corinthians 6:16 combined with Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:8 and Ephesians 5:31 show without a shadow of a doubt that sex is marriage… and that sex creates a new marriage. Yes, Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 show the lawful/sinless way a wife may be released from marriage. I’m not denying that.
The punishment for adultery is death… I’m not surprised no such woman was found righteous in the Bible. Even king David was punished over such an act. But we don’t have to have an example of an adulterous woman being righteous to confirm the truth of 1 Corinthians 6:16. Nothing you’ve said invalidates 1 Corinthians 6:16.
Your argument begs the question. What’s worse is that if anyone were to accept it, it could ruin a perfectly happy and righteous marriage. If we have a devoted husband and wife who serve God diligently, what good could come from withholding sex from one another? There’s no actual righteousness which comes from your thesis.
You openly argue for the admiration of secular men and postulate over Christ’s delay to do so… Obvious contradictions of the Bible. Obviously having that pointed out has offended you, and you wanted to change the subject to something you have misplaced confidence in so you could supposedly correct me in return.
What, should I remain silent because your feelings might get hurt? Are we helping each other to pursue the righteousness of God, or are we tip-toeing around one-another’s feelings? You cannot have Spiritual unity with anyone so long as you reserve the right to get offended. Getting offended and making it personal is a sign of self-righteousness. You’ve revealed how thin a layer your “nice image” is.
What’s more, you’ve claimed I don’t have the Spirit, making yourself sole arbitrator on who does and doesn’t have the Spirit… And you said that before you even proved anything…
Clock,
In the end, I truly hope your “rationalization” is right, but my fear is that it is wrong.
Paul taught that the second marriage can never be righteous — “…So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man…”
If we had one example of a second marriage being found righteous in Scripture, I would side with you.
I am not advocating breaking up Civil marriages. I myself am in that boat. Just stop having sex. As Jesus Himself advised — “…and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”
It may not seem like it to you, but I am trying to save my people, not ruin their lives.
WestWins, you need not fear, because it’s not a “rationalization”… It’s the truth.
Paul didn’t teach that the second marriage can never be righteous… You’re begging the question again. He said that if a woman marries another man while she is still married it will be adultery. It certainly will by the standard of 1 Corinthians 6:16.
Like I said, 1 Corinthians 6:16 proves it already. You don’t need another example. You’re contriving a need for evidence, because you don’t want to believe the evidence in front of you.
You’re not trying to save your people, you’re trying to show everyone how righteous you are… And you hate it when your righteousness is “trodden on” in your own view. Your fruit has been revealed… Best to accept it and don’t look back.
It seems like you have a dog in this race. Do yourself and your wife a favor… Decommission the blog and be with your wife. You’re doing no one any good by withholding yourself from her. Least of all the people on the internet who you’re trying to convert to your view…
Clock,
“Adultery” can never be Righteous, despite how you want to distort it.
This is going nowhere. I am willing to talk with you on the phone. I will call you. Send me an email to westwins at protonmail
Sincerely.
WestWins, you’re begging the question again. That saying of yours “‘Adultery’ can never be Righteous” might sound convincing to you, but that’s only because you want to believe it. That saying assumes your argument… It doesn’t prove your argument.
In Romans 7:3, if the woman commits adultery, “she will be called an adulteress.” In the same way, if someone committed murder, “they will be called a murderer.” The act of giving herself to another man (or literally becoming another man’s in the Greek), will be an act of adultery. She will be called an adulteress. That’s all we can conclude from Paul’s argument… Nothing more without begging the question.
In the same way someone called a murderer after committing murder isn’t constantly murdering people, the woman called an adulteress who committed adultery isn’t constantly committing adultery.
As for the phone call, thanks but no thanks. I’m happy to discuss it here.
“….That’s all we can conclude from Paul’s argument… Nothing more without begging the question…..”
No, you are being dishonest. You left out the critical part — “…So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.” DEATH is a very important part of this discussion.
This is why Jesus said to the woman at the well — “…..go call out your husband….” in which He continued to say that she had 5 husbands and the man she was living with at the moment was not her husband. The woman at the well is the perfect example of God’s law of marriage described in Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39. The woman at the well was still joined to a man, therefore it is impossible for her to be ‘married’ to a different man. DEATH must happen before she can ever be joined to a different man and it be righteous.
A woman can only be “joined” to one man at a time and the marriage bed be righteous. There is not one example in the Scriptures of a woman who is joined to more than one man at the same time and is deemed righteous. Not one. The Scriptures declare that only virgin girls and widowed women can take/have a husband.
You would allow the harlot of 1 Corinthians 6:16 to have a husband. In other words — you would allow your brother to take a harlot for a wife. Let’s give her a name — Sally.
“….Or do you not know that he who is joined to the harlot Sally is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. “
Having sex with Sally the harlot is sexual immorality according to Paul. It is a sin against one’s own body.
Are you trying to convince me that Sally the harlot could have a husband and it be righteous???
Please explain. When does the sex with Sally the harlot turn from an act of Sin to an act of righteousness ???
No, you are being dishonest. You left out the critical part
I didn’t leave anything out. If her husband died, she would not be an adulteress. If her husband did not die and she became another man’s, she would be an adulteress. All we can conclude from Paul’s statement is she is called an adulteress. Paul doesn’t say she would be an adulteress in perpetuity. You’re saying that, and you’re begging the question to do so.
This is why Jesus said to the woman at the well — “…..go call out your husband….”
Christ calls the woman’s current partner “your husband.” The woman says, “I have no husband.” Having no husband is impossible for a woman who is sleeping with another man. We can both agree on that, albeit for different reasons. So we can agree the woman definitely has a husband, but she doesn’t see it that way. Therefore, Christ is referring to her ACTUAL HUSBAND. But Christ says, “you have correctly said, ‘I have no husband'”. We already ascertained that to be an impossibility, so He is pandering to her, not agreeing with her. She can’t not have a husband and be sleeping with a man.
The only conclusion which makes sense… Christ originally called the man her husband… and that is true! Christ got it right the first time, because she must be sleeping with him. He says, “for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband.” “The one you now have” refers to her current husband. He’s one of the five husbands she has had. So He is saying, “the husband you now have is not your husband.” How is that possible? Again, He is pandering to her. She can’t have a husband who is not her husband. What He is actually doing is PROVING to her that the man she is with is indeed her husband, despite the fact that she doesn’t see it that way. He does this by telling the woman how many men she has been with… Something in her eyes He couldn’t have known unless He was a prophet.
So no, the woman at the well doesn’t prove your point. In fact, it proves very little other than that Christ has prophetic knowledge and He uses it to prove to the woman that her current “partner” is her husband.
You would allow the harlot of 1 Corinthians 6:16 to have a husband.
No, Paul allows the harlot of have a husband by quoting Genesis 2:24. WestWins, you’re ignoring my argument, but you accused me of ignoring your argument. You have to address this point before continuing to use 1 Corinthians 6:16. Paul calls it marriage. You’re calling it not marriage. You’re simply disagreeing with Paul…
As for the woman at the well, let’s switch it the other way around. Let’s say when Christ said, “call your husband”, He was referring to her “partner” or “live-in mate”. Let’s say Christ was pandering to the social norm, rather than accurately identifying her husband. You still have to explain why both Christ and the woman said she has no husband.
The only way the events could make sense with this assumption is if she literally didn’t have a current husband. Thus her current live-in mate (i.e. “the one you now have” v18) is not her husband and neither does she have any other husband. How could her live-in mate not be her husband if she has slept with him? Simultaneously, how could the woman have no husband at all? According to Mark 10:11, if her live-in mate had recently slept with another woman, he would no longer be her husband. She would also then have no husband.
No matter which way you look at this, your view on the woman at the well doesn’t work.
“…..Paul allows the harlot of have a husband by quoting Genesis 2:24…..”
No, no…… I get you now.
Just took me some time because I have only ever heard of this “theory” from one other person. And ironically, that person used to be a frequent commenter here on this site who doesn’t seem to comment here any longer. His name was Johan.
I reject your “theory”. Your theory states the following —– The first act of Adultery is Sin. The second Act of Adultery is marriage.
No thank you.
I reject your “theory”. Your theory states the following —– The first act of Adultery is Sin. The second Act of Adultery is marriage.
You’re begging the question to conclude that the second act of sex is adultery.
It’s not a “theory”. It’s literally what Paul said. I suppose you merely disagree with Paul then…
We are going to find out one day aren’t we. I am quite at peace right where I am.
You may want to get together with Johan, however. You and him disagree on Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7:39.
Johan throws it out completely …. says those passages have nothing to do with marriage.
You on the other hand — accept those passages. But twist them nonetheless.
It is illogical for Paul to have said in “death” can a woman remarry. But then also allow a woman to remarry by simply having sex.
Who is “begging the question?”
And you have not ONE witness to your contention. Not one.
Poor Tamar ……………… little did she know that she could still have a husband.
westwins, one thing is clear to me at least from reading this exchange between you and clock, and that is that, as clock suggested, you seem to have a “dog in this fight”, while he does not. This all comes across as personal to you in a way that it does not come across that way with clock. For clock it seems to be about the Scripture, but for you it feels like I’m listening to someone try to justify certain decisions he has made in life and is using the Scripture to confirm what he wants to believe, and that the personal decisions he’s made are supported by Scripture.
In that sense, this is not an entirely honest debate. If your life and how you are living it is personally tied up in this subject matter, it will be very difficult for you to be able to concede any of clock’s points, because to do so would mean you would have to completely change your life as you are living it, and it doesn’t sound like you are open to such a prospect given the tenacity with which you latch onto every point. You seem to have too much personally invested in your doctrine on marriage to be objective about it. That’s how it comes across to me.
“Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.”
–Proverbs 21:2
Burton,
I take 1 Corinthians 6:9 very seriously.
“Marriage” has to be the second most important decision a man or a woman will make in their lifetime. To error here could spell ….. well ….. everlasting destruction.
Of course I have a dog in this fight. It started when I asked the question to myself 20 years ago —- ” …. When does a man become a husband and a woman become a wife?”
I was coming out of the false church (judeo-christianity) at the same time. God opened my eyes to the Truth of His Salvation and it was then that I realize that for most of my adult life, my “church” lied to me about how to be saved.
So, at that point in my life, I couldn’t trust anyone. I had to only trust the Word of God.
So, I went to God in prayer and I studied his word all the while asking the question — “how does one marry”? Genesis 38:8 stopped me in my tracks.
My dog in this fight is saving those whom I love — James 5:20.
If you are interested in hearing more, my invitation extends to you as well. You can email me at westwins at protonmail. We can exchange emails and I would even call you.
I hope you have a dog in this fight.
Truth is the most important Virtue a man can attain. As Jesus Christ is Truth.
To know Truth is to know Him.
WestWins, except you don’t know the truth. You would place a heavy burden, a tradition of your own making, on men and women around you. A debasement from which no righteousness may come.
You wrote, And you have not ONE witness to your contention. Not one.
I’m going to explain this to you in full, just in case you didn’t understand it the first time. 1 Corinthians 16:6,
Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”
When anyone has sex with a prostitute, they become one body with her. Paul quotes Genesis 2:24,
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Matthew 19,
5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Mark 10,
7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Ephesians 5,
28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
This saying, “they shall become on flesh”, literally means marriage. It’s only ever used in the context of marriage. It’s used MULTIPLE times in the Bible in the context of marriage. Four witnesses show that when Paul says “the two will become one flesh” in 1 Corinthians 6:16, he’s talking about marriage. He is saying that when you have sex with a prostitute, you marry her.
There’s absolutely no way around this for you. It’s a quorum of witnesses you cannot overcome. The fact that you continue shows your absolute bias in this matter. The Bible has an answer for all your peripheral points you’ve raised, as I’ve shown you. You still have no answer for 1 Corinthians 6:16. Matthew 7,
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
You’ve shown a good few thistles in this conversation, WestWins. Your case fails when tested by the Bible, and it fails when tested by your character. Virtue signal over your views all you like, the writing is on the wall…
Yes, that’s exactly the kind of self-justified response I expected from you. You are so deep in it that you twist every point in your favor in a self-congratulatory way, without a hint of humility or self-awareness. It’s astonishing really. Instead of James 5:20, you should read James 3:1 over and over and take it to heart, because if clock is right and you are in error, you have created a serious problem for yourself:
“Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” James 3:1
“…You are so deep in it that you twist every point in your favor in a self-congratulatory way…”
What did I just say to you that you find so offensive?
I was being very open and honest about my journey of discovering the Truth of Jesus Christ.
“……except you don’t know the truth……..”
Like I said, we will find out the Truth one day won’t we. I am at peace with where I believe the Spirit has brought me.
And you are also very confident in your own belief.
There is nothing more for us to say.
If an man and a woman (ignorant of the gospel) sleep together adulterously, they are then married. Every act of sleeping together thereafter is not unrighteous. But… The act of adultery incurred the death penalty. According to Mosaic law, they must die. According to the law of Christ, they must die eternally.
But they didn’t die according to Moses and they come to a knowledge of the truth… the law of Christ. Through repentance for that one act of adultery, Christ staves off the eternal death penalty and cancels their guilt. Now their marriage doesn’t pay the price of death. They are still married, because they are still one flesh. Therefore, the marriage itself and subsequent sexual encounters aren’t unrighteous.
So adultery is forgiven, never made righteous. So long as the man and woman continue together in that marriage, once they have come to a knowledge of the law of Christ. Once we come to the knowledge of right and wrong, the gospel of Christ, we must continue in whatever situation we find ourselves in.
If in marriage, then stay married. If divorced, but neither spouse has taken another partner, then be reconciled, or stay single. If truly unmarried, through virginity or an adulterous spouse, then find a marriage partner not bound to a marriage.
But beware, “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (Heb 10:26)
The verse preceeding verse 16 sets the context.
1 Corinthians 6:15
“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.”
God forbid.
Christ also said marrying a harlot (a woman divorced due to fornication) was a sin.
Paul was mentioning the flesh becoming one with a harlot as a warning.
I find this debate a bit perplexing. I think both Clock and Westwins agree that adultrry is a sin, but disagree as to whether or not adultery produces a marriage.
I think it does, as Paulnsays in 1 Corinthians 6:16, however as i posted above the prior verse provides the context as a warning. Just as one should not marry another god, nor should we marry (fornicate with) another spouse.
Westwins is saying that only a virgin girl or a widow can be righteously married. I am not sure what Clock thinks of that – the debate gets kind of convoluted and drawn out.
But Paul points out that a spouse in unbelief is not held to these standards, and so if a believing man (or woman) has an unbelieving wife (or husband) who chooses to divorce, no.sin is imputed and both are free.
Other than that add on I don’t see anything wrong with what Westwins is saying about adultery.
However i don’t agree that a rightfully married couple should remain chaste. Sex in marriage is valid in keeping both continent, so that neither stray.
I find this debate a bit perplexing. I think both Clock and Westwins agree that adultrry is a sin, but disagree as to whether or not adultery produces a marriage. I think it does… However i don’t agree that a rightfully married couple should remain chaste. Sex in marriage is valid in keeping both continent, so that neither stray.
That’s all there is to it, really.
Can’t we? At least we have to try and DJT did. And he did it so smart that even ‘truthers’ can’t grasp his actions. Read his UPD and realize why they had to cheat to oust him. Thank you.
Thanks Waffen. Mike does great work and I am always tempted to recommend his books etc., but then his Trump love affair and Q stuff makes me hesitate. I wish he would just stick to history. Maybe he will read this.
Thanks.
There must of been truth in that link, since it’s already been wiped out.
404
Error – Page Not Found
When Hitler came to power in 1933, 4 out of the five largest German banks were run by Jews. Hitler nationalized those banks, returning them to the German people. He also turned Germany from an economic basketcase to an economic miracle by kicking out the Juden bankers who were robbing Germans blind.
This is the real reason for WWII, World Jewry had to teach Germany–and the world–that there is a terrible price to pay when a nation takes back it’s money & economy from the Jew bankers.
Referring to Hitler as “The Great One” is really creepy.
There is only one “The Great One”… Christ Jesus.
Oh, you mean you’re not a fan of (((Mark Levin))) actively referring to himself as “The Great One”? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!
Personally, folks can call themselves great as Christ is greater still always. Though I’m not sure what Levin’s claim to “greatness” is.
Well, if you define ‘leaders’ as members of government[s] , financiers or ‘influencers’ in media or social life, they pretty much all ARE jews or shabbos goy doing their jewish masters bidding…
Chancellor Hitler was not one of them tho.
But you have to admit, 6,000,000 is a curious number given it’s prophetic role in Judaism, pre WWII media usage and it’s magical immutability with arithmetic-challenged postwar historians.
Up into the 2000s, it was still the 11 million, as that’s what 3 generations were taught out here in podunk’s public schools.
Only once I started going online more in the 2010s did I learn that the jews had kicked the fruits and gypsies out of their fiction and had settled down on 6 gorillion instead.
SIX MILLION???
You are right to point out the way the enemy tries to label our leaders as jews or Feds.
It should be mentioned however, that Hitler did have a transfer agreement with the zionists to move jews to Palestine. This doesn’t mean that he worked for the jews….it just means that he wanted to get them out of Germany because he knew what they did to Russia.
But I see some of that “everybody is a jew” here on this site as well. I see it everywhere. It is demoralizing because it takes hope away from our people…..and it diminishes respect for many beneficial voices in the movement.
If anybody can explain the Trump infatuation..please do so.
ALL I could ever see was Biff Tannen with thinner chrome.