Friday, August 18, 2017

CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT???

VERY  COMMON  ERROR  BY  CHRISTIANITY  OVER  “CANONIZATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT”

WHILE  THE  WRITER  WARNER  WALLACE  HAS  SOME  GOOD  THOUGHTS  IN  HIS  BOOK  “COLD-CASE CHRISTIANITY” ON HIS SECTION OF “THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  “CHAIN OF CUSTODY” - HE IS VERY WRONG ON WHEN THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS CANONIZED - Keith Hunt






A NEW TESTAMENT "CHAIN OF CUSTODY"

Life of Jesus (AD 1-33) [ACTUALLY  JESUS  WAS  CRUCIFIED  IN  30  AD   PROVED  IN   STUDY  ON  MY  WEBSITE   Keith Hunt]

Council of Laodicea (AD 363)

Those who are skeptical of the New Testament Gospels offer a similar objection based on the chain of custody. The Gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. These accounts were eventually entered into the "court record" when they were established as Scripture at the Council of Laodicea in AD 363. It was here that early Christian leaders first identified and codified the canon of the Christian Scripture, the official list of twenty-seven books and letters that became the New Testament. No council, prior to this meeting in the fourth century, formally acknowledged the list of accepted books and letters (including the Gospels); no "courtroom" recognized the evidence of the Gospels prior to this important church-council meeting. If the life of Jesus could be considered the Christian "crime scene," this council was undoubtedly the "courtroom" where the evidence of the eyewitness testimony was first formally acknowledged.
[WELL  ACKNOWLEDGE  BY  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  IN  363  AD   Keith Hunt]

That's quite an expansive period of time between the "crime scene" and the "courtroom," don't you think? A lot could happen in 330 years. I thought it was tough to trace and track the evidence in my cases, and they were only decades old! Imagine tracking the evidence for ten times as many years. Skeptics have considered this period of time and argued that the eyewitness evidence of the Gospels was "planted." Like the defense attorney who argued that the button was added to the collection of evidence sometime after the crime occurred, skeptics often argue that the Gospels were written well after the life of Jesus. They are not true evidence; they were manufactured by conspirators who wanted to fool those who were not at the "crime scene."

The best way to counter this sort of a claim is to retrace the chain of custody to see if we can account for who handled the evidence from the point of the "crime scene" to its first appearance in the "courtroom."


EVIDENCE, HISTORY, AND REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS


While it may sound like an easy task to trace the chain of custody, it can be extremely difficult in cases that are very old. This is often my dilemma as a cold-case detective. When I open a case from the past, the first thing I try to do is collect all the original documents that were written during the first investigation. That should be easy, right? Well, not always. While these cases were important to our agency, there are times when unexpected issues, unrelated to the investigation, can make this task difficult. Sometimes things are lost when a records database is upgraded as the result of new storage technology. Sometimes notes or other reports have simply deteriorated to the point that they are no longer usable. Sometimes documents are accidentally destroyed or purged. The longer an event slips into the past, the more likely I may have a problem retrieving all the information I need to trace the chain of custody. In spite of this, I have been able to assemble enough of the chain of custody to demonstrate a level of responsibility to the jury. Given the age of the case, jurors understand that we simply cannot expect the same level of precise record keeping when outside forces cannot be controlled over long periods of time.

Something very similar happens when trying to trace the chain of custody for the gospel eyewitness accounts. Imagine trying to control outside forces for thousands of years instead of just a few decades. The "original reports" in the "Christian cold case" were written on papyrus, an excellent material if you are looking for something that was readily available in the first century, but a terrible material if you are looking for something that won't fall apart when handled frequently. As a result, we no longer have the original writings (sometimes called "autographs"). The first eyewitness accounts were copied repeatedly so that they could be distributed throughout the church and retained in spite of the nature of the papyrus that was available. It's now difficult to precisely retrace the movement of the Gospels over time and establish a chain of custody.

In order to have any success at all, we first need to identify the players who would be involved in such a chain. In cold-case homicide investigations, the links in the chain include the responding officers, the crime-scene investigators, the first detectives, the criminalists, and then the cold-case detectives, who ultimately bring the case to the prosecutor. But who would we expect to be involved in the gospel chain off custody?

To trace the New Testament Gospels, we are going to need to identify the original eyewitnesses and their immediate disciples, moving from one set of disciples to the next until we trace the Gospels from AD 33 to AD 363. The New Testament gospel chain of custody, if it exists, would provide us with confidence that the accounts we have today are an accurate reflection of what was observed at the "crime scene." This link-by-link approach to the history of the accounts would also help us respond to the objections of skeptics who claim that the Gospels were planted late in history. We will examine this issue in much more detail in section 2, and we will identify the historical links in this important chain.


A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE CHECKLIST



As a detective, I quickly learned the importance of the chain of custody, and I eventually pulled this principle from my callout bag as I investigated the reliability of the Gospels. Before I became a Christian, I seldom held the same level of skepticism for other ancient documents that I held for the biblical accounts. I can remember having an intense interest in ancient history from the time I was in high school. I had an "honors" class with a wonderful, sage-like teacher, Mr. Schultz, who had the ability to bring the past to life using the ancient written histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, among others. He taught from these accounts as if they were reliable and true, and I accepted them without much question. Mr. Schultz never talked about the fact that the earliest copies we have for these ancient writers appear in history approximately five hundred years after the events they claim to describe. There is no clear chain of custody for these historical accounts during this period of time. We don't know whom Herodotus, for example, entrusted with his writings. We don’t know how Herodotuss record was preserved or what happened to it during these five hundred years. This is, of course, the nature of the vast majority of ancient historical accounts. Given that we accept these accounts as historically factual even though their history of transmission is missing for five centuries or more, wouldn't it be fair to reconsider our historical view of the gospel record if we discovered that the Gospels have a verifiable chain of custody? We need to keep this question in mind as we get ready to examine the issue more thoroughly in section 2.

Of all the documents written by Christians in the first and second centuries, the texts we most care about are those that made it into the canon of Scripture. Few of us are familiar with the noncanonical writings from the earliest period of Christian history. Many early Christian leaders wrote letters and documents that, while not considered canonical, are rich with theological content and historical detail. These noncanonical early church documents can tell us much about the teaching of the original eyewitnesses. They will eventually become part of the chain of custody as we examine the transmission of the Gospels in the first three centuries. We would be wise to have at least some understanding of the identity of the students and disciples of the apostles and some mastery of their writings. Many of these men (like Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement) became known as the "early church fathers." They led the church following the deaths of the apostles, and their letters and writings are widely available online and in print form. The earliest works of these church fathers are often interesting and enriching. They are worth our time and effort, particularly as we make a case for the New Testament chain of custody and the reliability of the Gospels as eyewitness accounts.
………………..

YES  THE  SO-CALLED  “CHURCH  FATHERS”  DO  ESTABLISH  EVEN  IN  THEIR  TIME [POLYCARP  WAS  MIDDLE  2ND  CENTURY  AD]  THAT  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WE  HAVE  TODAY  WAS  ALREADY  ESTABLISHED  BY  THE  END  OF  THE  FIRST  CENTURY  AD.
THERE  IS   FULL  BOOK  ON  MY  WEBSITE  BY  ERNEST  MARTIN [Now  deceased]  PROVING  WHO  AND  WHEN  THE  CANONIZATION  OF  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  WAS  FORMULATED.
THE  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  HAD  NOTHING  TO  DO  WITH  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH,  AS  MOST  OF  CHRISTIANITY  BELIEVE.
YOU  WILL  FIND  MARTIN’S  BOOK  UNDER  “HOW  WE  GOT  THE  BIBLE”  SECTION  OF  MY  WEBSITE;  SCROLL  DOWN  AND  LOOK  FOR  “CANONIZATION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT”  AND  “CANONIZATION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.”

ALL  CHRISTIANS  SHOULD  READ  THIS  BOOK  BY  ERNEST  MARTIN.

Keith Hunt

WHY IS THERE EVIL?

WHY  IS  THERE  EVIL?

THIS  IS  EXPLAINED  VERY  WELL  BY  WARNER  WALLACE   FROM  HIS  BOOK:
“COLD  CASE  CHRISTIANITY”


EVIDENTIAL SUFFICIENCY AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

A listener of the PleaseConvinceMe podcast recently sent me an email expressing his doubts in the existence of an all-powerful and all-loving God, given the presence of evil in the world. This is a classic objection to theism. If God does exist, why would He allow people to do evil things?

Either this "God" is unable to stop people
……

Epicurus and the Problem of Evil

The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus is credited with first posing the"problem of evil" as it relates to the existence of God;
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, 
but does not want to. if he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. 
If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, 
and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
(According to Lactantius in On the Wrath of God, ca. AD 313)
……

from acting as they do (in which case He is not all-powerful), or He is unwilling to stop them (in which case He is not all-loving). The writer posed this question to me because he knew what I did for a living:

"I bet you see many terrible things that people do to one another. How can you still believe in such a God?"

The problem of evil is perhaps the most difficult issue to address because it is emotionally loaded. Its at times like these that I try to help people walk through the distinctions between reasonable doubts (that are grounded rationally) and   possible doubts (that are grounded emotionally). Let me explain. We need to start by recognizing that there are many good reasons to believe that God exists (we talked about some of them in chapter 3). These pieces of the puzzle are already in place before we start talking about the issue of evil. Yes, there are some unanswered questions related to the existence of evil, but we have to begin our examination by recognizing that the puzzle is well on its way to completion even though this piece may seem to be missing. Next, we have to ask ourselves if the presence of evil truly represents a missing piece. Is it possible, instead, that the existence of evil may actually be an additional piece that helps make the puzzle more certain?

When people complain that there is evil in the world, they are not simply offering their opinion. They are instead saying that true, objective evil exists. They are complaining about evil behavior as though this behavior ought to be recognized by all of us, regardless of our personal likes, dislikes, or opinions about human conduct. If evil were a matter of opinion, we could eliminate it by simply changing our minds. People who complain about evil behavior must accept the premise that true, objective "right" and "wrong" exist in the first place. They must accept that some things are morally virtuous and some things are morally repulsive, no matter who you are, where you are located, or when you live in history. This kind of moral evil transcends all of us; if it doesn't, why complain in the first place? If evil is simply a matter of opinion, why doesn't the man who emailed me simply change his opinion?

You see, in order for true evil to exist (so that the writer has something legitimate to complain about), there must be a true barometer of right and wrong. In order for an act to be objectively "bad," there must be some standard of objective "good" by which to measure it. What might that standard be if not God? Can the standard come from some evolutionary process? Can it come from the slow development of cultural groups? If so, morals are simply a matter of opinion (albeit a largely held opinion), and there is nothing objectively evil to complain about. Remember that even the most heinous regimes of history identified their own behavior as morally virtuous. In order for true evil to exist, there must be a source of true good that transcends any and all groups that might make a claim about the existence of evil. In other words, the existence of true evil necessitates the presence of God as a standard of true virtue. It turns out that the existence of evil is actually another evidence for God's existence, another piece of the puzzle that reveals God's image.

But let's return to the very real issue of evil behavior. Why would God allow people to kill each other if He loves us and is powerful enough to stop it? While this question has emotional power, we have to ask ourselves if there might be a reasonable explanation. Are we thinking it through evidentially, or are we reacting emotionally? Are we rejecting the existence of God because there is no rational explanation for the existence of evil, or are we resisting volitionally because we stubbornly refuse to accept any explanation that might be offered?

I can think of a number of very good reasons why God would allow people to behave immorally, even though He loves His creation and is certainly powerful enough to stop evil.
……

Theodicy

"The theological discipline that seeks to explain how the existence 
of evil in the world can be reconciled with the justice and goodness of God" (Webster's New World College Dictionary, Wiley Publishing inc., Cleveland, Ohio, 2010).
……

Ask yourself this question: 

Which is more loving, a God who creates a world in which love is possible or a God who creates a world in which love is impossible? It seems reasonable that a loving God would create a world where love is possible and can be experienced by creatures who are designed "in His image." But a world in which love is possible can be a dangerous place. Love requires freedom. True love requires that humans have the ability to freely choose; love cannot be forced if it is to be heartfelt and real. The problem, of course, is that people who have the freedom to love often choose to hate. That s why freedom of this nature is so costly. A world in which people have the freedom to love and perform great acts of kindness is also a world in which people have the freedom to hate and commit great acts of evil. You cannot have one without the other.

In addition to this, from a Christian perspective, we are all eternal creatures who will live beyond the grave [WELL  CHRISTIANS  WILL  LIVE  BEYOND  DEATH,  IN   RESURRECTION,  NOT  AN  IMMORTAL  SOUL;  SEE  THE  STUDIES  UNDER  DEATH  AND  RESURRECTIONS   Keith Hunt].  If this is true, then questions about why God might not stop evil are a bit premature. At best, we can say only that God hasn't stopped evil yet. But God has all eternity to act in this regard. Our eternal life provides the context for God to deal justly with those who choose hate and perform acts of evil. God is powerful enough to stop evil completely, and He does care about justice. But as an eternal Being, He may choose to take care of it on an eternal timeline. 

Compared to eternity, this mortal existence is but a vapor, created by God to be a wonderful place where love is possible for those who choose it.

If there are good reasons why God might permit evil in this life (such as the preservation of free will and the ability to love genuinely), concerns about His failure to act are simply unreasonable. Doubts about God's existence based on the problem of evil may have emotional appeal, but they lack rational foundation because reasonable explanations do, in fact, exist. While one can imagine possible doubts related to the problem of evil, careful consideration of the nature of objective evil reveals that these doubts are not reasonable. We ought to be able to move beyond our reservations here because the problem of evil does not present us with a reasonable doubt.

COLD CASE CHRISTIANITY - pages 134-137.

THE RACIST FIGHT IN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA

THE INFAMOUS CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA.......FIGHT!!

AUGUST,  1917

BY  NOW  THE  WHOLE  WORLD  KNOWS  WHAT  WENT  ON.....

THE  WHITE  SUPREMACIST  GROUP  AND  OTHERS OF  LIKE  MINDS  HELD  A  MARCHING  RALLY  IN  CHARLOTTESVILLE.

I  UNDERSTAND  THEY  HAD  THE  LEGAL  AUTHORITY  TO  DO  SO,  AND  THE  USA  IS  SUCH THAT  CARRYING  ARMS, DRESSING  AS  YOU  LIKE,  CARRYING  BANNERS  AS  YOU  LIKE,  DOING  WHATEVER  WITH  YOUR  ARMS  AND  VOICES..... WAS  AND  IS  LAWFUL  IN  THE  USA.

NOW  I  DETEST  SUCH  GROUPS  THAT  HAVE  THEIR  IDEOLOGY;  THEY  ARE  A  CRAZY  BUNCH  OF  INDIVIDUALS,  WITH  WILD,  DEMENTED,  STUPID, FOOLISH,  IDIOTIC,  WEIRD,  RACIST,  MAD  AS  A  HATER..... IDEAS  AND  BELIEFS,  TOGETHER  WITH THEIR  OFTEN  NAZI  FLAGS  AND  "HIGH  HITLER"  ARM  GESTURES.

NOW  IF  THEY  LEGALLY  HELD  SUCH  A  MARCHING  RALLY  IN  CALGARY,  I  WOULD  STAY  AWAY  FROM  THEM  AS  FAR  AS  I  COULD,  EVEN  DETESTING  WHAT  THEY  STAND  FOR.  QUITE  FRANKLY  THE  LESS  ATTENTION  TO  THEM  THE  BETTER  IN  EVERY  WAY,  WATCHING  THEM  OR  GIVING  ANY  TIME  OF  COVERAGE  ON  THE  NEWS  ETC.  IS  NOT  THE  WAY  TO  HANDLE  SUCH  "OUT  TO  LUNCH"  GROUPS.  THE  WAY  TO  REALLY  HURT  THEM  IS  "STAY  AWAY"  AND  GIVE  THEM  ZERO  NEWS  COVERAGE,  IF  THE  LAW  ALLOWS  THEM  TO  DO  SUCH  MARCHING.

WHY  A  GROUP  OF  ANTI-WHITE  NATIONALISTS  WENT  TO  CONFRONT  THEM,  WITH  DIFFERENT  TYPES  OF  WEAPONS  AND/OR  THEIR  FISTS....DELIBERATELY  LOOKING  FOR  A  FIGHT,  IS  BEYOND  ME.  YES  THEY  WENT  LOOKING  FOR  A  FIGHT  AND  THEY  FOUND  ONE.

THE  MADNESS  OF  THE  WHITE  SUPREMACIST  GROUPS  AND  THOSE  AGAINST  THEIR  IDEOLOGY,  LED  TO  ONE  YOUNG  LADY  BEING  KILLED  AND  MANY  INJURED  WHEN  A  YOUNG  CRAZY  MAN  DROVE  A  CAR  INTO  A  CROWD.

IF  THE  ANTI-GROUP  HAD  STAYED  AWAY  THIS  WOULD  NEVER  HAVE  HAPPENED,  AND  THE  YOUNG  LADY  WOULD  STILL  BE  ALIVE [YES  SHE  SHOULD  HAVE  STAYED  AWAY  ALSO].

I  FULLY  AGREE  WITH  PRESIDENT  TRUMP,  WHEN  HE  ASKED  THE  GANG  OF  REPORTERS,  "THE  ANTI-WHITE SUPREMACISTS  WERE  FIGHTING  WITH  VARIOUS  OBJECTS  ALSO,  ARE  THEY  NOT  TO  BE  HELD  ACCOUNTABLE  FOR  THEIR  VIOLENCE?"

BY  THE  WAY  NEWS  REPORTERS  AND  SOME  REPUBLICAN SENATORS [DEMOCRATS  ALSO] ARE  ACTING,  THE  ANTI-GROUP  ARE  BLAMELESS;  HARDLY  ANYTHING  IS  SAID  ABOUT  THEIR  DELIBERATE  "LOOKING  FOR  A  FIGHT"  ATTITUDE.

WHAT  IF  THE  ANTI-GAY  GROUP  WENT  LOOKING  FOR  A  FIGHT  AT  A  LEGAL  "GAY  PARADE"?

WITH  OUR  PRESENT  ATTITUDE  FROM  GOVERNMENT,  IT  WOULD  OF  COURSE  BE  THE  ANTI-GAY  PEOPLE  IN  THE  WRONG  AND  CALLED  RACISTS.

WE  WHO  ARE  ANTI-GAY;  ANTI-SAME SEX  MARRIAGE;  ANTI- "BE  WHAT  EVER  SEX  YOU  LIKE"  -  BASICALLY  STAY  AWAY  FROM  "GAY"  PARADES,  UNLESS  WITH  A PEACEFUL  ATTITUDE,  MARCH  WITH  ANTI-GAY  SIGNS,  WHICH  I  BELIEVE  IS  WITHIN  OUR  LAWS  TO  DO  SO.

TO  MY  KNOWLEDGE  WE  IN  NORTH  AMERICA  HAVE  YET  TO  SEE  A  "GAY  PARADE"  ATTACKED  BY  ANTI-GAY  PROTESTERS,  THAT  LEADS  INTO  A  WIDE  OPEN  FIGHT. AND  WE  NEVER  SHOULD  SEE  THAT  HAPPENING.

YET  SOMEHOW  ANT-WHITE  SUPREMACY  PEOPLE  FEEL  THEY  HAVE  THE  RIGHT  TO  USE  VIOLENCE  ON  PEOPLE  WITH  DIFFERENT  VIEWS,  AS  FAR  OUT  AS  THOSE  VIEWS  ARE.

I  DO  NOT  KNOW  OF  ANY  LAW  IN  THE  USA,  THAT  ALLOWS  ANTI-WHATEVER  IT  IS.....TO  DELIBERATELY  COME  TO  START  A  LITERAL  FIGHT  WITH  A  GROUP  THAT  HAS  A  LEGAL  RIGHT  TO  PARADE.

IF  PEOPLE  OF  A  DIFFERENT  MIND,  WOULD  STAY  AWAY,  THEN  WHAT  HAPPENED  IN  CHARLOTTESVILLE  WOULD  NEVER  HAVE HAPPENED;  IF  A  GROUP  MARCHING  DECIDES  TO  SMASH  CARS,  BREAK  SHOP  WINDOWS  AND  ETC.  THEN  WE  HAVE  THE  POLICE  WHO  ARE  HIRED  TO  STEP  IN  AND  DO  WHATEVER  NEEDS  TO  BE  DONE,  TO  STOP  THAT  KIND  OF  MARCHING  PARADE  THAT  GETS  OUT  OF  HAND.

ON  THIS  SAD  ISSUE  PRESIDENT  TRUMP  IS  CORRECT,  AND  AS  HE  SAID,  IT'S  TIME  SOMEONE  PUT  THE  ISSUE  IN  FULL  PERSPECTIVE,  AND  ALSO  GIVE  BLAME  TO THE  ANTI- GROUP  FOR  THEIR  VIOLENCE.....BUT  OF  COURSE  THAT  IT  SEEMS  WOULD  NOT  BE  POLITICALLY  CORRECT  ACCORDING  TO  MOST  NEWS  GUYS/STATIONS  AND  MANY  POLITICIANS.
..........

P.S.

SO  NOW  THE  ONE--SIDED HEAD IN THE SAND, CEO AND POLITICIANS, ARE PULLING AWAY FROM TRUMP, LET THEM GO THEY HAVE HORSE BLINKERS ON, THEY ONLY SEE PART OF THE SCENE....TO THEM ONLY THE   WHITE SUPREMACIST GROUPS ARE TO BLAME, IT SEEMS THE ANTI-FOLK CAN DO AS MUCH VIOLENCE AS THEY PLEASE, AND NOT BE CALLED OUT ON IT, EXCEPT BY DONALD TRUMP...GOOD FOR  HIM; LET ALL THOSE WHO WANT TO WALK  AWAY WITH ANYTHING TO  DO  WITH TRUMP....LET THEM WALK AWAY, YOUR NOT NEEDED ANYWAY, AND YOU PROVE HOW INEPT AND  EMPTY HEADED YOU ARE AT SEEING THE ACTUAL INCIDENT IN ITS FULL FORM.

THINK YOU ALL SHOULD GET YOUR EYES CHECKED, MAYBE YOU ALL NEED NEW GLASSES OR CATARACTS REMOVED 
......


Wednesday, August 9, 2017

North KOREA ....attacking USA?

NORTH  KOREA  AND  ATTACK  ON  USA  GUAM!!

THE  YOUNG  MAD  DOG  LEADER  OF  NORTH  KOREA  HAS  SAID  HIS  COUNTRY  MAY  VERY  WELL  ATTACK  GUAM..... WITH  THOUSANDS  OF  USA  TROOPS  STATIONED  THERE.

PRESIDENT  TRUMP  HAS  SAID  HIS  COUNTRY  COULD  BRING  DESTRUCTION  LIKE  THE  WORLD  AS  NEVER  SEEN.

SO  BOTH  BIG  AND  SMALL  TOUGH  MEN  ARE  BOXING  EACH  OTHER  WITH  WORDS.

I  CAN  TELL  YOU  IT  WILL  NOT  BE  NORTH  KOREA  THAT  STARTS  THE  THIRD  WORLD  WAR!

AND  IF  THE  CHUBBY  LITTLE  MAD  DOG  OF  NORTH  KOREA  EVER  DOES  ATTACK  GUAM,  IT  WILL  MEAN  A  TOTAL  OBLIVION  OF  NORTH  KOREA..... THE  USA  CAN  AND  PROBABLY  WILL,  BLOW  NORTH  KOREA  AND  ALL  ITS  PEOPLE  OFF  THE  FACE  OF  THE  EARTH;  IT  WOULD  BE  SO  SWIFT  AND  MIGHTY,  NORTH  KOREA  WOULD  HARDLY  HAVE  TIME  TO  BLINK,  BEFORE  IT  WOULD  FIND  ITSELF  FLAT  ON  ITS  FACE  IN  TOTAL  DEATH  AND  DESTRUCTION.

SO  TIME  WILL  TELL  IF  THE  LITTLE  FAT  MAD  DOG  LEADER,  IS  MAD  ENOUGH  TO  TRY  ATTACKING  THE  USA.

WHEN  JAPAN  ATTACKED  THE  USA  IN  HAWAII  PEARL  HABOR,  TO  BRING  THE  USA  INTO  WW2,  THE  POLITICAL  LEADER  SAID,  "I  THINK  WE  MAY  HAVE  WOKEN  UP  A  SLEEPING  GIANT."

ANYONE  IN  THE  WORLD  WHO  THINKS  IT  CAN  ATTACK  THE  USA  WITH  NUCLEAR  BOMBS,  IS  SURELY  SO  INSANE....THEY  HAVE  SIGNED  THEIR  DEATH  CERTIFICATE.

AT  THE  PRESENT  THIS  IS  WHERE  WE  ARE  ON  THE  WOLRD  SCENE....BIBLE  PROPHECY  FOR  THE  FUTURE  WILL  BE  VERY  DIFFERENT.

..........

Saturday, August 5, 2017

ORIGIN OF THE NATIONS

ALL  THE  NATIONS  ON  EARTH  HAD  A  BEGINNING;  THEY  HAD  AN  ANCESTRY  -  THEY  HAVE  A  HISTORY  GOING  BACK  TO  WHERE  AND  FROM  WHOM  THEY  CAME.

YOU  NEED  TO  SEE  THE  STUDIES  UNDER  MY  "HISTORY"  SECTION  ON  MY  WEBSITE,  CALLED  "ORIGIN  OF  THE  NATIONS."

KNOWING  WHO  THE  NATIONS  ARE  TODAY  WILL  ALSO  GIVE  YOU  THE  KEY,  TO  UNDERSTANDING  BIBLE  PROPHECY!

FORGET  ABOUT  THE  YOUTUBE  PROPHETS;  FORGET  ABOUT  DATE  SETTERS [THE  LATEST  BEING  SEPTEMBER  23  2017  BY  SOME]

THERE  HAS  ALWAYS  BEEN  DATE  SETTERS;  GOING  WAY  BACK  INTO  THE  MIDDLE  19TH  CENTURY [ABOUT  1850]  AND  THEY  CONTINUE  TO  THIS  DAY.

AFTER  SEPTEMBER  23  HAS  COME  AND  GONE,  TO  BE  SURE  SOME  WILL  FIGURE  ANOTHER  DATEE  TO SET  FOR  THE  END  OF  THIS  AGE  ETC.

SO  IF  YOU  HAVE  NOT  DONE  SO,  IT'S  TIME  TO  STUDY  ALL  I  HAVE  GIVEN  YOU  ON  END  TIME  PROPHECY  LEADING  UP  TO  THE  LAST  42  MONTHS  OF  THIS  AGE.

Thursday, July 27, 2017

ARE WE GETTING TOO MUCH VITAMIN D?

Are Americans Really Getting Too Much Vitamin D? A Critical Look at Recent Media Warnings

  •       
  • July 03, 2017 • 182,542 views


Story at-a-glance
  • A recent study claims many Americans are taking dangerously high doses of vitamin D, warning 4,000 IUs/day is the recommended max and that anything above this can lead to calcifications and other health problems
  • Indeed, it is important to maintain not only the proper balance of vitamin D and calcium, but also magnesium and vitamin K2. Lack of balance between these nutrients is what causes symptoms of vitamin D toxicity
  • The study’s authors assume the vitamin D dosage recommended by the National Academy of Medicine is scientifically substantiated. In reality, it underestimates vitamin D needs by a factor of 10, due to a mathematical error that has never been corrected



By Dr. Mercola
Over the past couple of decades, tens of thousands of studies have evaluated the benefits of vitamin D, linking low blood levels to a whole host of chronic health conditions. In fact, this site was one of the leaders helping to catalyze interest in vitamin D over 15 years ago. Today, many doctors have finally caught on and are taking vitamin D seriously; testing their patients and recommending supplementation when necessary. The progress made makes the present backlash all the more shocking and disappointing.
"Many Americans Taking Too Much Vitamin D," Reuters recently announced.1 "More people than ever are taking way too much vitamin D," Popular Science declared, adding, "You may have a deficiency, but overdosing isn't the answer."2 ABC News warned its viewers that taking more than 4,000 international units (IUs) of vitamin D is "far above safe levels," and could potentially cause heart disease.3Ditto for Consumer Affairs4 and many others.5,6
Where is this coming from? If you've followed the progression of vitamin D science, you will be aware of the fact that recommended vitamin D levels — and the dosages typically needed to achieve those levels if you're not getting regular sun exposure — have dramatically risen over the years.
Researchers have also pointed out a basic mathematical flaw that led to vitamin D recommendations being underestimated by a factor of 10. Unfortunately, the study now being promoted by the media takes none of these things into consideration, instead promulgating decades' old fallacies.
Are Americans Taking Too Much Vitamin D?
According to the featured study,7 nearly 20 percent of American adults are taking supplemental vitamin D, and many are taking "excessively high doses" — amounts linked to "an increased risk of fractures, falls, kidney stones and certain cancers" — even an increased risk of death from all causes.8
An "excessively high dose," the study warns, is anything over 4,000 IUs a day, adding that this is the maximum recommended dosage, and that anything higher than this may result in dangerous side effects. Senior author Pamela Lutsey, public health researcher at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, told Reuters:
"Vitamin D is essential for bone metabolism, as it helps the body absorb calcium and maintain appropriate concentrations of calcium and phosphate in the blood. Excessive intake of vitamin D can, however, be harmful, as it can cause over absorption of calcium. Excess blood calcium can, in turn, lead to detrimental deposition of calcium in soft tissues, such as the heart and kidneys."
Reuters does note that the study was "not a controlled experiment designed to examine the risks and benefits of varying amounts of vitamin D supplementation." Unfortunately, that important piece of information is likely to get lost in the fearmongering, no matter how flawed the conclusions.
For starters, the study's authors assume the vitamin D dosage recommended by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM; formerly the Institute of Medicine, IOM) is scientifically substantiated. As it turns out, it is not, and dedicated vitamin D researchers have for a long time urged NAM to update its recommendation, as it is based on flawed math.
Flawed Math Vastly Underestimates Vitamin D Need
ror occurred.Try watching this video on www.youtube.com, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.
In this video, Keith Baggerly, Ph.D., explains the key problems with respect to NAM’s stance on vitamin D requirements. You can also read his report here.  NAM (formerly IOM) chose 20 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) of serum concentration of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as an adequate level for bone health, and to maintain a level of 20 ng/mL, NAM says you need to take 600 IUs a day up to age 70, and 800 IUs if you’re over 70. However, both of these measures are too low due to a mathematical error.
Using the same raw data, and correcting the math, you get an estimate of about 30 ng/mL as an adequate level for bone health, and given the logarithmic nature of the dose response curve for vitamin D, increasing the target serum level by 50 percent may require increasing the RDI in IUs by several times. 
In 2014, two investigators from the University of Edmonton published a paper9 that explicitly showed NAM had made a calculation error in defining the intake needed to reach and maintain 20 ng/mL. Had it been calculated correctly, the RDI would have been at least 10 times greater than what was publically posted.
Importantly, 30 ng/mL is merely indicated for bone health; it may not be sufficient for general health or diseases prevention. When studying a native African tribe, the physiological levels were found to be in the 40 to 60 ng/mL range, which is the range suggested by GrassrootsHealth’s panel of experts for general health.  As explained by the late Dr. Robert Heaney in a previous interview (included below for your convenience):
"The [RDI], as I think most of us know, is the intake that is reckoned to be necessary to meet the nutritional need of 97.5 percent of the population … How much is enough? The [IOM, now NAM] said 600 IUs was enough. But what's very clear is that 600 IUs would not get 97.5 percent of the population above 20 ng/mL. That's what the Edmonton investigators showed.
As a matter of fact … as many as half of the people getting 600 IUs a day wouldn't get up to 20 ng/mL … The Edmonton investigators calculated a number of 8,895 IUs per day, using the same set of studies on which the IOM had based its calculation ... When I was able to access the GrassrootsHealth (GRH) data, a completely different set from the one used by the IOM, we could directly calculate the intake needed …
That's because, in the GRH database, we know exactly how much of an increase in 25-hydroxy D the participants got on whatever dose they were taking. Our calculation showed that about 3,800 IUs per day, in addition to everything they were already getting [from sun and food], would have been necessary to get 97.5 percent of that population to 20 ng/mL.
Factoring in the basal intake in the GRH population, we showed that you need about 7,000 IUs per day in order to get 97.5 percent above 20 ng/mL. That's very close to the figure that the Edmonton investigators had used: 8,895 [IUs]."
The public health implications are tremendous. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has created a statistical panel to review NAM’s calculations. This panel has now completed its review, but the results have not yet been made public. It is imperative that the panel’s results be published as soon as possible, especially in light of the current misinformation being disseminated, suggesting Americans may be taking dangerously high levels of vitamin D, when in fact most are not getting nearly enough.
NAM Needs to Own Up to Its Mistake and End Catastrophic Misinformation Campaign

An error occurred.
Try watching this video on www.youtube.com, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.
Heaney would know what he was talking about, seeing how he was one of the leading, most well-recognized vitamin D researchers in the world. Up until his death he was also the research director of GrassrootsHealth, which is compiling data from a number of population-based studies like the D*Action project.
Trained as a clinical endocrinologist, Heaney spent a large part of the last 50 years of his life doing clinical research, most of it in the field of vitamin D, working on quantifying the vitamin D economy. This includes defining:
  • How much vitamin D is necessary to reach a certain effect
  • How large of an effect you might get at a particular dosage
  • How much vitamin D you make in your skin in response to sunlight
  • How long it lasts
Heaney and colleagues challenged NAM's vitamin D recommendation,10 warning the RDI underestimates need by a factor of 10. Most vitamin D experts also agree that a serum level of 20 ng/mL is too low for optimal health, which means the requirement for most people is even higher than that.
Moreover, any public guidance on vitamin D really should be based on your blood level, not a daily dosage, because the dosage response from one person to the next can vary significantly. As noted in a 2015 study evaluating the response to vitamin D supplementation:11
"In response to a given dose of vitamin D, the effect on 25(OH)D concentration differs between individuals … For this review, a comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify those factors and to explore their significance in relation to circulating 25(OH)D response to vitamin D supplementation …
Response to vitamin D supplementation can be explained by several environmental and demographic factors. Recently, Zittermann et al. (2014) published a systematic review concerning the importance of body weight for the dose-response relationship with circulating 25(OH)D.
The authors demonstrated that 34.5 percent of variation in circulating 25(OH)D was explained by body weight, followed by type of supplement (D2 or D3) (9.8 percent), age (3.7 percent), calcium intake (2.4 percent) and basal 25(OH)D concentrations (1.9 percent), leaving approximately 50 percent of the variations to unknown factors."
One such unknown factor could be related to differences in single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPS), a common genetic variation. At any rate, the only way to ensure you're taking a dose that is appropriate for you is to test your blood level, which should be between 40 and 60 ng/mL year-round.
Research suggests potential toxicity does not occur until you reach a level of about 200 ng/mL, and no evidence of toxicity has been found in trials using dosages of 10,000 IUs a day12,13 — a far cry from the recommended maximum of 4,000 IUs a day.
What Is an Ideal Vitamin D Level?
Based on the accumulated data collected and research done by GrassrootsHealth, a vitamin D level of 40 ng/mL is a more appropriate minimum level. To prevent chronic disease and optimize health, a level between 40 and 60 ng/mL appears to be ideal. According to Heaney, evidence shows that 20 ng/mL is not even adequate for the prevention of osteomalacia.
"The point is the [IOM, now NAM] is dead wrong; not because it chose the wrong number, but because it made a mathematical mistake. They miscalculated, which is really kind of embarrassing if you think about it. Somebody didn't check the work," Heaney says.
"Now, having made that mistake, bureaucrats being bureaucrats, they're unlikely to want to change. They're not going to say, 'Oops, we made a mistake. Here is the right answer.' They seem to say, 'We are not wrong, [and] if no federal agency asks to have it reviewed, it could be 10 years from now before anybody ever looks at it again.'"
Lutsey's study is a perfect example of why NAM needs to rectify its mistake. We cannot move forward when researchers are making assumptions based on flawed recommendations. That Lutsey was unaware of this mathematical error just goes to show that scientists cannot keep up with all the relevant papers being published relating to vitamin D. Lutsey also ignores the many studies showing higher vitamin D levels in fact correlate with improved health outcomes and a lower risk of all-cause mortality, not higher risks.
The Interplay of Vitamin D, Calcium, Magnesium and Vitamin K2
Lutsey points out that excessive vitamin D may cause over absorption of calcium, which in turn may result in calcium deposits in your heart and kidneys. Indeed, it is important to maintain not only the proper balance of vitamin D and calcium, but also magnesium and vitamin K2. Lack of balance between these four nutrients is why calcium supplements have become associated with increased risk of heart attack and stroke, and why some experience symptoms of "vitamin D toxicity."
I use quotation marks here, because the problem is not so much excess vitamin D as it is a lack of vitamin K2. Part of the explanation for these adverse side effects is that vitamin K2 keeps calcium in its appropriate place. If you're K2 deficient, added calcium can cause more problems than it solves, by accumulating in the wrong places. Similarly, taking megadoses of vitamin D supplements without sufficient amounts of K2 can lead to inappropriate calcification, which is what Lutsey is alluding to.
While the optimal ratios between vitamin D and vitamin K2 have yet to be established, Dr. Kate Rheaume-Bleue (whom I've interviewed on this topic) suggests that for every 1,000 IUs of vitamin D you take, you may benefit from about 100 micrograms of K2, and perhaps as much as 150 to 200 micrograms (mcg).
Maintaining an appropriate calcium-to-magnesium ratio is also important, as magnesium helps keep calcium in your cells so they can function better. Historically, mankind ate a diet with a calcium-magnesium ratio of 1-to-1,14 but Americans tend to have a higher calcium-to-magnesium ratio in their diet, averaging about 3.5-to-1.
Magnesium and vitamin K2 also complement each other, as magnesium helps lower blood pressure, which is an important component of heart disease. So, all in all, anytime you're taking any of the following: magnesium, calcium, vitamin D3 or vitamin D2, you need to take all the others into consideration as well, since these all work synergistically with each other.
Discouraging Vitamin D Supplementation Is Inadvisable
So, to recap:
The best way to optimize your vitamin D levels is to expose enough of your skin for long enough periods to increase your vitamin D levels so they are between 40 and 60 ng/mL.
If you cannot get adequate sun exposure, then it would be wise to use oral vitamin D3 in the dosage recommended below
Current RDI for oral vitamin D underestimates need by a factor of 10 due to a simple mathematical error. Correcting this error would result in an RDI of 6,000 IUs, and 8,000 IUs if you're over 70
Ideal dosage can only be determined through blood testing, as dosage response to supplemental vitamin D varies widely from one person to the next
You need a blood level of at least 40 ng/mL to significantly impact your risk of chronic disease, including heart disease, cancer and all-cause mortality
No toxicity has been found in trials using 10,000 IUs per day of vitamin D, and toxicity does not become a concern until you reach a level of about 200 ng/mL
The risk of calcification is ameliorated by taking vitamin D supplements with vitamin K2 and balancing your calcium and magnesium ratios
Considering this, the notion that many Americans are endangering their health by taking in excess of 4,000 IUs of vitamin D per day is unreasonable at best. Research shows higher vitamin D levels can help prevent and/or treat:
Dry eye syndromes15,16 and macular degeneration17,18
Autoimmune diseases
Neurodegenerative diseases, including multiple sclerosis19,20
Gastrointestinal diseases and related cancers21
Infectious diseases, including influenza and HIV22,23
Inflammatory rheumatic diseases24
Neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's disease25,26 and epilepsy
In one study,27 epileptics given a one-time megadose of vitamin D3, ranging from 40,000 IUs all the way up to 200,000 IUs, followed by a daily dose of 2,000 to 2,600 IUs a day for three months, to bring each individual's vitamin D status to at least 30 ng/ml, resulted in significant improvements.
Ten out of 13 had a decrease in the number of seizures, five of which experienced more than a 50 percent reduction. Overall, the group had a 40 percent reduction in the number of seizures
Lupus
According to researchers in Cairo,28 most patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have some level of vitamin D deficiency, defined as a level of 10 ng/mL or less, or insufficiency, a level between 10 and 30 ng/mL
Depression
A vitamin D level below 20 ng/mL may raise your risk for depression by as much as 85 percent, compared to having a vitamin D level greater than 30 ng/mL
Pregnancy complications
Optimizing your vitamin D during pregnancy is crucial not only for your own health, but also for the short- and long-term health of your child.29
Studies30 reveal you need a vitamin D level above 40 ng/mL to protect your baby from serious complications such as premature delivery and preeclampsia, and studies have confirmed there's a lifelong impact of vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy — ranging from childhood asthma,31,32 colds and flu, dental cavities, diabetes and even strokes and cardiovascular disease33,34 in later life
Cancer
Studies indicate a dosage range of 1,100 to 4,000 IUs a day and a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration of 60 to 80 ng/mL may be needed to reduce cancer risk.
One 2011 study35 led by vitamin D experts Drs. Cedric Garland and Heaney found the supplemental dose ensuring 97.5 percent of the study population achieved a vitamin D blood level of at least 40 ng/mL was 9,600 IU/day. It also concluded that intake of up to 40,000 IUs per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity.
Vitamin D also helps improve health outcomes for cancer patients. A 2009 study36 showed cancer-free survival during four years of follow-up was 77 percent higher among patients receiving calcium and vitamin D supplements compared to those receiving a placebo.
Here, the minimum year-round blood level of vitamin D required to prevent breast and colorectal cancers was 40 to 60 ng/mL. According to the authors, "The time has arrived for nationally coordinated action to substantially increase intake of vitamin D and calcium."
Breast37 and prostate38,39 cancers are just two examples where low vitamin D also renders you more vulnerable to more aggressive forms of the disease. Recent research40 has also found that low vitamin D levels are associated with more severe peripheral neuropathy in cancer patients
Falls, fractures, dental health and more
A 2006 review41 looking at vitamin D intakes and health outcomes such as bone mineral density, dental health, risk of falls, fractures and colorectal cancer, found "the most advantageous serum concentrations of 25(OH)D begin at 30 ng/mL, and the best are between 36 to 40 ng/mL"
Obesity
Research42 has shown vitamin D supplementation (4,000 IUs/day) combined with resistance training helps decrease your waist-to-hip ratio — a measurement that is far better at determining your risk for type 2 diabetes and heart disease than BMI 
Diabetes
Abdominal obesity in combination with a low vitamin D level has also been shown to "synergistically influence" your risk of insulin resistance.43 According to this study, 47 percent of the increased odds of insulin resistance can be explained by the interaction between insufficient vitamin D levels and a high BMI
All-cause mortality
A meta-analysis44 of 42 randomized controlled trials found supplemental vitamin D significantly reduced mortality from all causes when taken for a minimum of three years



Vitamin D and Omega-3 — Two Crucial 
Nutrients for Optimal Health
Considering there are well over 30,000 studies on vitamin D, and vitamin D receptors have been found in virtually all bodily tissues, from your brain to your bones, the above list is far from complete. The main point is that your risk of experiencing adverse effects from vitamin D supplementation are slim, and the notion that people are endangering their health by taking 4,000 IUs or more of vitamin D3 per day is not supported by a majority of the evidence.
On the contrary, vitamin D experts are becoming increasingly convinced that an ideal vitamin D blood level is somewhere between 40 and 60 ng/mL, and the most appropriate dosage is whatever dosage will put you within that range. For some, that may be 2,000 IUs a day; for others it may be 10,000 IUs.
I don't know ANY single physical factor that could improve your health more than understanding and finally applying what we now know about vitamin D. Getting your blood levels tested and making sure your vitamin D levels are in the optimal range is especially important, no matter what your age is, or where you live.
GrassrootsHealth has now released a consumer-sponsored research kit that includes both vitamin D and omega-3. This kit is part of the D*Action + Omega-3 Project, and you can get it either from my online store or directly from GrassrootsHealth. To learn more about this project, see their FAQ page.
Vitamin D and omega-3 are two of the most important nutrients your body needs to maintain optimal health, and the only way to evaluate your status is to test them. GrassrootsHealth D*Action + Omega-3 Project is the largest project in the world that allows scientific researchers to study the links between these nutrients, and participating in the project is an inexpensive way to take control of your health and help advance science at the same time.

……….