Free Republic

20 or so 10” C-clamps would make a nice set of stairs up and down each side. Next...

>>>I KNEW 10 MINUTES AFTER IT WAS RELEASED THAT IT WAS A FAKE.<<<

I knew 10 seconds after it was released that it was a fake.

Prior to publicly releasing the birth certificate Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health went to the state archives in 2008 and 2009 and inspected the document. She reported that she found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten. During the second inspection Fukino was accompanied by an Archive official who did not contradict Fukino's assertion that the document was half typed and half handwritten. Her media testimony was pointed at as proof of Obama's citizenship.

But as can be seen here the released birth certificate is 100% typewritten (signatures by definition are handwritten and need not be noted as such - nobody would expect them to be typewritten).

The new official unemployment rate came out today, down to 5.3% from 5.5% last month.

 

 

Don't be impressed. Here's why:

Jobs Report Disappoints, Participation Rate Falls to Lowest Since 1977

 

>>>Sadly as long as BHO is in office nothing will get better.<<<

Too true.

>>>If we did not have SS, 2 yrs of unemployment insurance, food stamps and welfare people would be starving in the streets right now. The soup kitchen lines would be a mile long.<<<

The irony is that if there never were SS, 2 yrs of unemployment insurance, food stamps and welfare, and these things were instead left to the free market and charities, along with no mandated subprime mortgages and Obama's total failure of a stimulus plan, the American economy would probably be leading the world in the midst of a technology and energy boom.

All one has to do is look at history. The Roaring Twenties proves that austerity works to produce incredible prosperity. The Dirty Thirties illustrates without a doubt that stimulus economics and bigger government produces malaise.

There were two rates used during the Roaring Twenties and the Dirty Thirties, with the Nonfarm rate being the official rate. New measurement methods were implemented in 1940, the U-1 to U-7. In 1994 they were revamped again into U-1 to U-6. Despite the similar labels there were many methodological changes.

What makes today's rate measures seem so different from the rate measures in the recent past (like the low unemployment rates during the middle part of the Bush 43 administration), is that the number of people who have dropped out of the workforce completely is so much higher today. So at a 5.5% rate during the Bush years there was a much higher proportion of the population employed than at a 5.5% rate today with a much lower proportion of the population employed.

The Nonfarm Unemployment Rate used for the Roaring Twenties and the Dirty Thirties is somewhat similar to the U-6 rate today, with less caveats. The current U-3 official rate is 5.5%, while the current U-6 rate is 10.6%.

It is also an interesting comparison between how Canada measures unemployment and the U.S. If America used Canada's method, the result today would be close to 9%. Canada's current rate using their methodology is at 6.8%. So when comparing numbers, the official rates (apples and oranges) for each country shows that unemployment is lower in the U.S. than in Canada, but when similar methodologies are used (apples to apples) U.S. unemployment is much higher than in Canada. This is hardly surprising, since Canada was one of the only western nations that went through the 2008 financial crisis relatively unscathed, because there was no real estate bubble bust (they had virtually no subprime mortgages or corresponding derivatives market). There is no Obama malaise in Canada.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau Statistical Abstracts from 1931 to 1939 the U.S. Nonfarm Unemployment Rate averaged 29.2% with a peak of 37.6% in 1933. By 1939 it was still 25.2%. This was a result of the "stimulus" economic measures enacted by Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, which included much higher taxes, much more regulation, huge increases in government spending, and a tremendous expansion of government (sound familiar?). The consequent malaise lasted right through WWII until the end of the 1945 recession, with hyper-inflation in 1946, and a falling GDP until 1947. (Liberals like Paul Krugman today insist that the war stimulated the economy – except that the malaise in non-war sectors of the economy persisted and the war ended with the whole economy in a recession, as do most wars. Living standards under war rationing and price controls had still not returned to the level of the late 1920s.)

As a comparison, following the 1920 Depression (which was deflationary and worse than the Great Depression), President Harding responded with austerity measures of drastically reducing taxes, regulations, government spending and the size of government. The depression was over in less than two years. From 1923 to 1929 unemployment averaged 5.5%.

Using a similar unemployment measurement standard today results in an average rate since the 2008 financial crisis above 14%. It would be much higher, except that unlike then, today there are many government entitlement programs.

You can read more about it here.

Same-old, same-old...

Oh, and one last thing. When you said:

>>>That you would write a book promoting this tangential error is revealing<<<

I'd be curious what it reveals, if this wasn't such a pathetic example of how you don't actually read what I post, but only skip through my posts looking for something to get upset about. I never said that I included the "keys" doctrine in my book. The only reason I brought up my book is because you veered off the road into the ditch with the two-Gospels controversy of Mid Acts Dispensationalism, despite that I never in any way talked about the two-Gospels controversy of Mid Acts Dispensationalism. In fact, the "keys" are only significant to Roman Catholic doctrine and add nothing to a discussion of Mid Acts Dispensationalism.

But by all means, just go ahead and write reams of objections to what I have not addressed, and continue to ignore what I have. It is all you have done so far anyway...

Again you have just regurgitated the same-old, same-old (and just expanded it), none of which is pertinent. I have said from the beginning that there are other bindings and loosings - why you think you have to provide example after example is beyond me. Who are you arguing with?

But there is only one binding and loosing with “keys”, given to Peter by Christ, directed at him with singular grammar. In Mt.18.18-19 Christ addressed binding and loosing in the plural, indicating that there were other bindings and loosings, but without mention of the “keys”, because, of course, they were for Peter alone, for a specific purpose - to bind and loose the Law.

By the way, Christ’s and Paul’s beliefs were considered “fringe” as well. I’ll take your accusation as a compliment.

I’m done.

Why did you place words in my mouth? I did not say, "Your reply makes zero sense."

>>>That you would write a book promoting this tangential error is revealing, yet it remains that the idea that the extent of the binding and loosing that Peter had with the keys given was to bind and loose the Law on the Church is absurd. For it depends upon restricting that power to a doctrinal decision, contrary to Scripture, and presumes that Peter is the one who provided the final judgment as to this and what should be done in Acts 15, which is not the case.<<<

I already explained this - I will not do it again.

>>>As explained, binding and loosing (both in judicial and spiritual application) was not new, and Peter exercised such in preaching the gospel in Acts 2 etc., before Acts 15. In addition he did so in binding Ananias and Saphira to their sins and unto the death in Acts 5.<<<

I also already accounted for other binding and loosing. Do you actually read what I post before responding, or do you just skim over it looking for things you can object to?

>>>Moreover, Peter did not judicially loose anything in Acts 15, as it was James who provided the conclusive judgment, with Scriptural substantiation, in Acts 15, confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and testimony and that of Paul and Barbabas, who prior to this were also preaching salvation by faith, without needing to obey the ceremonial law.<<<

James' and the council's decision was based on Peter's testimony.

>>>And which has been said and dismissed, and instead comes verbiage from your book which utterly fails to show or warrant the conclusion that the extent of the binding and loosing that Peter had with the keys was to bind and loose the Law on the Church.<<<

The quote was to illustrate that the disciples kept the law - the elephant in the room.

Peter alone was given the "keys". Christ addressed Him directly and in the singular. The Law binds and removing the Law looses. Peter was instrumental in both.

Unless you have something new to say, don't bother repeating the same old stuff. I have already explained your objections, even though you keep bringing them up over and over again. I will no longer respond to your posts to me if you continue with the same repetitions.

Wow! You sure did not read my posts very well, but instead ran off on a tangent about preaching two Gospels. I have actually written a book dispelling Mid Acts Dispensationalism, so relax (and it is much more convincing than your linked post). Here is the elephant in the room that you failed to address:

How does one explain that there is only one Gospel message (grace through faith), even while the early Church was administered out of the temple in Jerusalem for almost two decades?

There is a choice to be made. Either for nearly two decades the early Church operated out of the temple and the disciples kept the Law, and that is how they kept from being driven out by the other sects of Jews or being stoned to death. Or the other choice is to believe that the early Church was allowed to preach against keeping the Law in the temple for nearly two decades and the other Jewish sects just ignored them. The second choice is completely unrealistic and unbelievable.

I know there is only one Gospel message of grace without Law. But the disciples were not clear about how the Church would work in the first two decades. Christ taught keeping the Law, because He was under the Law and so were the disciples. The disciples knew nothing else at the time of His crucifixion and resurrection. Christ never told them to stop keeping the Law. That was to come later. They were all Jews who ran the Church out of the temple in Jerusalem. They could never have done that if they were not keeping the Law (did you miss where I said, "despite that this directly contradicts the gospel" in my earlier post). Christianity began as a sect of Judaism - hardly surprising given the circumstances.

From my book, MetaChristianity - Unlocking Dispensation Bible Mysteries:

Quote===>

Ac.2.5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.

On the day of Pentecost 3000 Jews "from every nation under heaven" (Ac.2.41) were converted and subsequently went home to their own countries with little or no teaching about their new religion. They would not even know it was a new religion. They were waiting for a Jewish Messiah and He had now come and it was promised He would return. As far as they were concerned their conversion was just one more step in being a Jew. Why would they think otherwise? They would not have been warned that the Law was abolished on the cross for saints (the eleven apostles did not even understand this), and that the Gentiles would also be included in this new religion (again, the eleven did not understand this either), so naturally they would continue to keep the Law along with their newfound faith in Christ, and they would also continue to see themselves as separate from the Gentiles. This point cannot be over stressed - understand this: The early Church was barely distinguishable from other Jewish sects except for the upholding of Christ as messiah. The early disciples focused their religion in Jerusalem at the temple (Ac.2.46, Ac.5.12, Ac.5.21) and would have upheld the Law as any Law abiding Jews would. Indeed, had they not upheld the Law, but instead denounced it as did Paul later, they would have been persecuted as heretics. This new sect would have ended right there. Christ would have died for nothing. There would have been no one to preach the good news. Indeed, Peter and John were jailed for preaching "Jesus and the resurrection of the dead" (Ac.4.2, Ac.5.17-18, Ac.6.8-7.60), not for breaking the Law and advocating against keeping it. They still saw themselves as Law abiding Jews and expected their disciples to do the same. No wonder it took almost two decades to establish the gospel message without the contamination of the Law (and even then the Law continued to creep back into the practice of the early Church). The council of Ac.15 was not the end of the battle against the Law, but the beginning. Indeed, even as late as the latter part of Acts the Church was seen as nothing more than a "sect" of Judaism (Ac.24.5,14 Ac.28.22), and the Jerusalem Christians are described as still being zealous for the Law. It is a testament to Paul's perseverance and God's work through him and others that the one and only "gospel of God's grace" has prevailed (mostly). Just as it took decades (forty years in the desert) for the Jews to accept the LORD as their God after He brought them out of Egypt , it also took decades for Judaism to be removed from the early Church.

<===/Quote

It was in Ac.15 that the yoke of the Law was finally separated from the early Church, regardless of what they were preaching about the Gospel beforehand. Peter had believed for quite a while that the Law should be abandoned, and it was his testimony that persuaded the council to formally act.

You seem to think that I am defending the RC church - where did you get that idea?

>>>Neither the binding and loosing function and power nor the use of the keys to the kingdom was unique to Peter's authority, nor flowed from him (as per Rome). The use of the keys to the kingdom was the gospel, which Peter first preached to the Jews, as providing for forgiveness and regeneration by faith in the crucified and risen righteous Lord Jesus, was exercised by Peter before he was given the revelation of Acts 10 (which Paul received independent of Peter).<<<

You are flailing - I can tell that you have never heard any of this before. You have not thought it through, you have not studied it, and are operating by the seat of your pants.

I never said it was "as per Rome", and I resent that you imply that I am defending Rome. Hardly! The "keys" of Mt.16.19 were given to Peter alone as I illustrated in post #169, for a specific application (Rome claims it was universal and forever). The Church would have gone nowhere if the leaders were stoned to death for opposing the Law, which would have definitely happened the first time that they opposed it. Christ would have died for nothing! The Church had no choice other than to start out as a sect of Judaism until Ac.15, keeping the Old Covenant Law as any Jews did (despite that this directly contradicts the gospel). The disciples actually believed that this was right and proper at the time. In the beginning not one even imagined that Gentiles would be admitted into the Church without becoming Jews, because they all believed that Christ died only for Israel. Peter was the leader of the Church when they adopted this policy of keeping the Law in Ac.1, and was the deciding voice in abandoning the Law in Ac.15. Neither of these occurrences could have happened without God's sanction. God did this by giving Peter the "keys" to bind and loose the Law - both one-time events.

Of course, binding and loosing have a larger function than what I addressed:

Mt.18.18-19 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

I was referring to the specific “keys” given by Christ only to Peter. Go back and read my original post and see for yourself - #169.

>Christ addressed Peter alone. The three words “you” in this passage are all singular.<

>>>A GROUP cannot be addressed as singular?<<<

Sure a group can be addressed as a singular, but that is not what happened here. Read the preceding verse: Christ is specifically speaking to Peter. And the following verse: He refers to the group as plural.

>>>As to the “keys,” this refers to the church universal, catholic, small “c.” God answers prayer. We have all (hopefully) seen “loosing and binding” that seems to have been tied to our prayers to Our Blessed and Wonderful Lord, though it is His action, not ours.<<<

Mt.16.19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Christ addressed Peter alone. The three words "you" in this passage are all singular. Christ was not speaking of prayers by members of the "universal, catholic, small 'c'" Church. He was speaking specifically to Peter and gave him "keys" for a single purpose. I explained what those "keys" were for in post #169.

Mt.16.19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

I will explain the "keys of the kingdom of heaven", and binding and loosing on earth and in heaven.

The keys both bind and loose.

Peter first binds the Church to the Law at the beginning of Acts. For 15 chapters the Church is run as a sect of Judaism out of the temple in Jerusalem based on keeping the Old Covenant Law. If the disciples had not kept the Law they would have been stoned to death at the orders of the leaders of the Jews. God abided by this decision, blessing the Church in many ways - what Peter bound on earth was bound in heaven.

The Law binds:

Ga.3.23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

Ga.4.9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?

Freedom from the law loosens:

Ro.8.1-2 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

Ga.5.1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

At the council of Ac.15 it is Peter who again uses the keys of loosening to cast off the Law from the Church:

Ac.15.5-7a,10 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: 10 "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?"

The Law was abandoned. The Church was freed from the Law, and God again honored that decision as loosed in heaven. That is the extent of the binding and loosing that Peter had with the keys given to him by Christ - the keys to bind and loose the Law on the Church.

Sorry, my last post was to CynicalBear not Diamond.

>>>NO, you didn't. You simply dismissed it.<<<

I did not "simply dismiss it". I explained it. And frankly, I am tried of you ignoring my explanation and claiming that I didn't.

>>>You also ignored who it is that inhabits that New Jerusalem.<<<

I also addressed this. Again, you are becoming very tiring. I am beginning to think that you have a comprehension problem.

>>>And I showed you that "Greek - hyiós - equally refers to female believers<<<

Of course it includes female believers, but the Church is symbolically represented as a whole as a "son". By your tortured logic, no men could be included in the bride of Christ, even if it was the Church - nonsense. (Of course, Scripture flat-out tells us that the heavenly Jerusalem is the bride, not the Church.)

>>>And you contend that Israel turned from a female wife to a male.<<<

I did no such thing. I simply pointed to Scripture that flatly states that:

Church = Israel + Gentiles = "one new man" = "one body"

Again, your argument is not with me, but with God. Good luck with that...

>>>So God promised to bring back His wife but she has become a male per your analysis.<<<

I simply revealed what Scripture says about Israel + the Gentiles. It wasn’t me that said that the Church = Israel + Gentiles = “one new man” = “one body” in Ep.2.15b-16. God did - go argue with Him.

I explained Mt.13.33 in my first post. Why do I have to explain it again?

Again, Revelation tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is the bride, not the Church, and Galatians tells us flat-out that the heavenly Jerusalem is also our mother (of the Church - her son). No errors.

But by all means, go ahead and cling to your tradition...