Sunday, March 15, 2026

10 QUESTIONS



by Michael Bradley


1. If the New Testament message was for all humanity across all time, why do the writers repeatedly say their prophecies would happen soon?
Examples:
Matthew 24:34 — “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
Revelation 1:1 — “things which must soon take place.”
Revelation 22:10 — “the time is near.”
Hebrews 10:37 — “in a very little while.”
Question:
If these events were actually thousands of years away, why did the apostles consistently say they were near and imminent?
2. Why do the New Testament writers say they were already living in the “last days”?
Examples:
Acts 2:16–17 — “this is what was spoken… in the last days.”
Hebrews 1:2 — “in these last days.”
James 5:3 — “you have stored up treasure in the last days.”
1 John 2:18 — “it is the last hour.”
Question:
If the last days are happening today or will be in the future, why did the apostles repeatedly say they were already in the last days?
3. If salvation is about saving all humanity from sin, why does the Bible define sin as violation of the Law?
1 John 3:4 — “sin is the transgression of the law.”
Question:
If the Law belonged to Israel (Rom. 9:4), how can people today be guilty of breaking a covenant law that was never given to them?
4. Why does Paul say the Law speaks only to those under it?
Romans 3:19 —
“whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law.”
Question:
If the Law defines sin and guilt, and the Law speaks only to those under it, how are people outside that covenant condemned by it?
5. Why did Jesus say the coming judgment would fall on that generation?
Examples:
Matthew 23:36 — “all these things will come upon this generation.”
Matthew 24:34 — “this generation will not pass away.”
Question:
If the judgment Jesus warned about is still future, how did it not happen to that generation?
6. Why were Jesus’ warnings about the coming judgment directed specifically to people in Judea?
Example:
Luke 21:20–21
“When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies…”
“let those in Judea flee to the mountains.”
Question:
If the judgment was global and future, why were the instructions specifically for people living in Judea?
7. If Christianity is meant for all humanity, why did Jesus say he was sent only to Israel?
Examples:
Matthew 10:5–6 — “go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Matthew 15:24 — “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
Question:
If Jesus’ mission was global from the beginning, why did he repeatedly say it was directed to Israel?
8. If the gospel was meant for people with no connection to Israel, why did the apostles always preach first in synagogues?
Examples:
Acts 13:5
Acts 17:1–2
Acts 18:4
Question:
Why were the audiences consistently Jews, proselytes, and God-fearers already connected to Israel’s Scriptures?
9. If the gospel message applies equally to everyone today, why does Paul say the covenants and promises belonged to Israel?
Romans 9:4
“the covenants, the giving of the Law, the temple service, and the promises belong to Israel.”
Question:
Where does Scripture ever say those covenants later expanded to include all humanity indefinitely?
10. If the New Testament warnings were meant for people today, why do the writers repeatedly say the end of the age was approaching their time?
Examples:
1 Corinthians 10:11 — “the ends of the ages have come upon us.”
Hebrews 9:26 — “now at the end of the ages.”
James 5:8–9 — “the Judge is standing at the door.”
Question:
If the end of the age was thousands of years away, why did the apostles say it had already arrived in their time?
BONUS QUESTION: If the New Testament message was written to people living 2,000 years ago, about events that were about to happen to them, why do we automatically assume those warnings are about us today?

Islamic Dilemma

 


https://youtu.be/tjUiZ8JcXPQ?si=DBZQaBMTJYdMTkzJ


Dr. David Wood presents an argument known as the Islamic Dilemma to challenge the foundations of Islam. He argues that the Quran affirms the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Bible, creating a contradiction for modern Muslims who claim the Bible has been corrupted.


Key Points:


The Islamic Dilemma Defined: (1:31 - 2:03) Dr. Wood explains that Muslims face a dilemma: if they accept the Quran's claim that the Bible is preserved, Islam is false because of doctrinal contradictions. If they claim the Bible is corrupted, Islam is still false because the Quran asserts that Allah's words cannot be changed.

Affirmation of the Bible: (3:12 - 4:18) The Quran (e.g., Surah 3:3-4) affirms the Torah and the Gospel as guidance. Furthermore, the Quran claims Muhammad is prophesied in these earlier scriptures.

Preservation of Scriptures: (5:40 - 7:36) Dr. Wood cites Surah 18:27, which states that no one can change Allah's words. He argues that if the Bible was corrupted, then Allah failed to protect his message, undermining the authority of the Quran itself.

Instructions for Christians and Jews: (7:55 - 9:44) Contrary to modern Islamic belief that the Bible should be abandoned, the Quran commands Christians and Jews to judge by their own scriptures (Surah 5:43, 5:47, 5:68).

Conclusion: (10:24 - 11:20) Dr. Wood concludes that because the Quran simultaneously supports the authority of the Bible and contradicts its core teachings (such as the death and resurrection of Jesus), the Quran is inherently logically inconsistent.

Leftist Green Climate Change Democrat Commies WASTE WATER to Save a Fish or Bug BS

 

Leftist Green Climate Change Democrat Commies WASTE WATER to Save a Fish or Bug BS

https://youtube.com/shorts/2dQlI4HLyno?si=mjPPIhomJrAgKsWO

Saturday, March 14, 2026

Why do the majority of Blacks today support the Democrats who ENSLAVED, OPPRESSED and MURDERED their Black Ancestors???

 



The question of why many Black Americans support the Democratic Party, despite the party's historical association with slavery, segregation, and opposition to civil rights in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is a complex topic that involves significant political realignment
.
While historical records show that the Democratic Party of the 1800s and early 1900s—particularly its Southern faction—defended slavery and enforced Jim Crow laws, a major ideological shift occurred in the mid-20th century.
Historical Shift and Realignment
  • 19th Century: The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s with the goal of stopping the expansion of slavery, and it was the party of Abraham Lincoln, who led the efforts to abolish slavery.
  • The New Deal (1930s): Black voters began moving away from the Republican Party during the Great Depression, attracted to the economic relief provided by Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal.
  • Civil Rights Era (1960s): The most significant shift occurred in the 1960s. Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through Congress.
  • Party Realignment: Following these actions, southern segregationists and conservative Democrats began switching to the Republican Party, while Black voters became a key constituency of the Democratic Party.
Reasons for Continued Support
  • Policy Positions: Many Black voters today view the Democratic Party as the champion of civil rights, voting rights, and government intervention to assist the underprivileged, aligning with their political priorities.
  • Racialized Social Constraints: Researchers have argued that in addition to policy, social networks within Black communities have historically enforced a norm of supporting the Democratic Party, prioritizing group solidarity in party politics.
  • Opposition to Oppression: Black Americans often associate the modern Republican Party with policies they view as against their interests, such as "states' rights" appeals and opposition to certain civil rights measures, which caused a long-term trend of over 90% of Black voters supporting Democratic candidates.


Dems are great spin doctors at accusing their opponent of committing the crimes that they committed and then history by brainwashing future generations from knowing their satanic sins!

SEGREGATION by Democrat Party

 














DEMOCRATS CREATED THE KKK TO MUSCLE AROUND THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS, THE REPUBLICANS & BLACKS!














Historically, the Southern wing of the 
Democratic Party was the primary force behind segregation, implementing Jim Crow laws after Reconstruction to enforce racial separation. These "Southern Democrats" resisted civil rights gains, often operating as a bloc within the party until the 1960s when the party national platform endorsed civil rights, causing segregationists to break away and eventually align with the Republican Party.
Key Details on Political Segregationists:
  • Southern Democrats: For nearly a century, white Southern Democrats controlled the South and upheld segregation through voting restrictions, violence, and discriminatory legislation.
  • Dixiecrats (1948): A splinter group known as the States Rights Democratic Party was formed by Southern Democrats who walked out of the 1948 Democratic National Convention to protest civil rights policies.
  • The Shift: After Democratic Presidents JFK and LBJ championed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many segregationist voters and politicians shifted to the Republican Party over the following decades, a transition sometimes described by the "Southern Strategy".
  • National Parties: While Southern Democrats were the architects of Jim Crow, northern Democrats and some Republicans often offered little challenge to these policies during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 
It is important to note that the platforms of both major parties have undergone significant transformations since the late 19th century.

American Japanese Incarceration/ CONCENTRATION Camps Initiated by Democrats

 










The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was authorized by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a 
Democrat, who signed Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, reflecting a broad, bipartisan, and West Coast-driven effort fueled by wartime hysteria, fear, and racism, rather than a single party's actions.
Key details regarding the political landscape of this action include:
  • The Democratic Administration: Executive Order 9066 was signed by FDR (Democrat), with his administration and military officials executing the removal of over 120,000 Japanese Americans from their homes.
  • Broad Political Support: While initiated by a Democratic president, the move had significant, often bipartisan, support, particularly from politicians, media, and organized groups on the West Coast, such as the Native Sons of the Golden West.
  • Limited Dissent: While most politicians supported the actions, notable exceptions included individuals like Republican Governor Ralph Carr of Colorado, who opposed the internment, and Senator Robert Taft of Ohio.
  • Internal Views: Some organizations, such as the Communist Party, failed to oppose, or even supported, the internment.