Commentary & Notes: Colossians 1:12-20 Debunking Modalism

I have addressed the error of Sabellianism or modalism on this blog in various ways including uncovering the misuse of language that backs the Oneness platform of confusion on the nature of God. Recently, I had the opportunity to display why the particular teachings of a heretic were insufficient and non-biblical, only to find out that many believers, who claim to adhere to trinitarian doctrine, really didn't think it was a "big issue" to believe otherwise because they felt that since "belief" of doctrine wasn't an issue at salvation and that adherence to doctrinal teaching along this line was also not a matter or issue of salvation. 

Sentiments of this can be dangerous and could also be unbiblical. Not that it was the case in this particular situation, but it seems that by far and large the church has abandoned indepth teaching as it pertains to the nature of God and the examination of who God is, what HIS nature means to the world, and why those teachings are relevant to the day to day life of every believer. 

The need and longing to know and explore the nature of God has been replaced by the the sentiments and desires to be "peaceful" and "unified" with all them who claim to be "believers" no matter what those "said" believers actually believe.

This is devastating because the fact is that people gave their lives for what they "believed", in the early church and those beliefs were without compromise. What one believes is of great significance and vitally important to the life and relationship and even fellowship of every believer with Christ. In addition, if one can simply redefine God to meet ones own terms and beliefs, then HE is not the God of the bible nor the God of history. When men invent or create a God that they can readily understand or compartmentalize, then it is questionable whether faith is truly placed within the God who has both defined himself as he is and the faith that we were told to earnestly contend for. (Jude 3) 

What do you say? A case of circular reasoning? Well, I don't think so. I believe it is a demand and persistence to seek and know truth. The truth of the matter is that God the Father and God the Son exist eternally, have never changed hats, are not merely defined by their role, and, though distinct, are yet ONE God. This is what the scripture repeatedly affirms and what the Holy Writ, when examined for what it says, certainly affirms. 

Let's review a portion of the first chapter of Colossians in a verse-by-verse study on the nature of God.

Colossians 

Delivered by Tychicus, the epistle to the Colossians was written by Paul while under house arrest in Rome. Written to the mostly Greek Saints and believers who lived in an area located in what was known as Greater Phrygia which included the cities of Antioch in Pisidia , Colosse, Hierapolis, Iconium, and Laodicea . The church itself, probably founded by Epaphras sat on the river Lycus. 

The aim of the letter was to counter false teaching regarding the majesty, nature, mission and complete redemption of mankind found in Jesus himself. The epistle proved to be a strong and poignant stance against the backdrop of an early and developing gnosticism and theosophy of Judaizers who's mission was to redefine the faith. The letter was a direct assault on novel speculations of the day and false teachings which sought to redefine the Jesus of history and his unique place in all of creation and among mankind. 

In this segment, we will look at a section of Chapter 1 of Colossians (v.12-20) that is strong evidence that Jesus and God the Father acted, moved and operated in in relationship to one another and were not confused by early church believers as being one in the same, although they were certainly ONE God. This teaching itself is ample proof, that the nature of God was an issue of utmost importance within the church and among its most early adherents and should not be compromised.   

I have highlighted my commentary within the verses and provided 4 notes as supplement to make sure that context remains clear through and regarding what is being taught in this valuable Pauline epistle. 

Colossians 1:12-20

12-Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13-Who (eg: referring to the Father) hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:(aka: JESUS) 

14-In whom (eg: the "dear Son" aka: Jesus) we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15-Who (referring to Jesus) is the image (See note 1) of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (See note 2)

16-For by him (eg: the "dear Son" aka: JESUS) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (All of these are the acts of God Almighty himself)

17-And he is before all things, (eg: everything spiritual and natural can be credited in their existence to God the creator.) [In this case referring to JESUS himself] and by him all things consist.

18-And he is the head of the body, the church: (This is continuing to speak of JESUS) who is the beginning, the firstborn (See note 2) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.(See note 3)

19-For it pleased the Father (Herein is the distinction) that in him (the "dear Son") should all fulness (see note 4) dwell;  

20-And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Special Notes:

(Note 1) ~ v.15 ~ Image: the Greek word from which we get "Icon". Strong's "1504 (eikṓn) assumes a prototype, of which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn" (R. Trench). (eikṓn) then is more than a "shadow"; rather it is a replication (F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 226; see also Lightfoot at Col 3:10 and 2:21).

Something that is separate, yet drawn "from" something that exists and is in itself tangibly real as from the thing it was drawn from. By virtue of that (the image, eikon) would have to have the same "nature" and "essence" but is distinctly NOT the primary thing spoken of though it is identical in every way. 

(Note 2) ~ "firstborn of every creature". Deal with this in 2 parts.

1- "firstborn" ~ From a word group indicating first to experience or one who is in an pre-eminent position. From Strong's 4416 prōtótokos (from 4413 /prṓtos, "first, pre-eminent" and 5088 /tíktō, "bring forth") – properly, first in time (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); hence, pre-eminent(Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).4416 /prōtótokos ("firstly") specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416/prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16). [4416 (prōtótokos) refers to "the first among others (who follow)" – as with the preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life (Jn 5:26).]

2- "creature" ~  Strong's Cognate: 2937 ktísis – properly, creation (creature) which is founded from nothing (this is also the sense of this term from Homer on); creation out of nothing (Lat ex nihilo). See 2936 (ktizō) and 2939 /ktístēs ("the Creator") for lengthy discussion on "creation-facts."

These phrases combined in this verse do not indicate that Jesus is the "first one made" or "created" among creatures that God made. To the contrary, this verse indicates that Jesus is at the arch-pinnacle of all of creation, or the one to whom all creation and everything (everyone) that is made looks. This contextual understanding can be best understood in the antecedent phrase that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God". From that, if Jesus is the image "eikon" of the invisible God, sharing the same nature and essence of that "invisible God" as the scripture indicates, he could have not, in any manner, come into existence, operation or function whether by being created and or by being born of Mary. Thus Jesus himself precedes Mary tracing existence prior to John 1:1 as God would certainly have existed prior to any "beginning" and would have been present "in the beginning". Further, this concept takes better shape in light of the next verse or V.16.

(Note 3) ~ Strong's 4409 "proteuo" same word grouping as note 2, means to be chief, or to have first place, AS OPPOSED to being first as in a succession. Example, The Supreme Court has who is called a "Chief Justice". This Chief Justice may not be the "first Justice" or "first one" chosen to sit on the court, however he has leading or pre-eminent role of authority on the Court. Thus, as this word is used here, it indicates the one who has the preeminent role, place and authority.     

(Note 4) ~ Strong's  says a Cognate: 4138 plḗrōma – "sum total, fulness, even (super) abundance" (BAGD). See 4130 (plēthō). this word also indicates fulfillment or completion. This would be wholly and contextually consistent with the narrative as v.20 deals with the cross and redemption. Simply put, rather than "fulness" having to do with the embodiment of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the body and personage of Jesus, as some people contend, this phrase has everything to do with the PLAN of God and what was fulfilled or "finished" by Jesus himself. This verse (v. 19) is rendered as an indicator of the maturity of the plan of salvation contained within Jesus himself. So in this verse, "fulness" and later "fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9) is indicative of the salvation plan, or the highest point at which Heaven (God) speaks and acts in delivering men and mankind from sin and death.  

Blessed!

Read more!

Questions On Sexual Abuse? COGIC Law Day At The 110 Annual Holy Convocation

Well, I am quite sure that when this forum was designed that sexual abuse and sexual harassment weren't primary topics that the planning committee was thinking that would be addressed, but with the history of unresolved allegations of sexual abuse, clergy sexual sins and the current secular climate of sexual abuse and harassment even in the workplace, it just may be the opportune time for COGIC members, and others, to shore up their knowledge and information on how to handle allegations of sexual abuse and criminal misconduct even within the scope and sphere of the church itself. 

I plan to be there to pose questions and hear the questions of others addressed as well as hear the response of the legal professionals involved. I encourage all of those who are like-minded to meet me there for what I think may be a very special, informative session and unique occasion. 

Read more!

Gino Jennings. A False Apostle Teaching Heresy

 NEW--> Gino Jennings, Cult Leader, or Simply Bombastic Heretic?<-- dir="ltr" div="" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">  <--new b="">

<-- dir="ltr" div="" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">

Gino Jennings
Director Of Heretic Central

I was recently directed towards a debate in which AN ALLEGED Apostle Gino Jennings , the leader of a Oneness Pentecostal organization called First Church Of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ATTEMPTED to dismantle trinitarianism by "debating" a supposedly COGIC International minister during what I believe may have been a so called "Truth Of God" broadcast in which Jennings often attempts to debate those who don't believe what he does in order to make himself look good to his followers. 

In what appears to be a very shameful debate, shameful on Jennings part, (partially because he didn't follow a standard debate format, laying out both sides or cases and allowing proper rebuttal before a question/answer session) Gino declares that he is dismantling trinitarianism and making those who believe in it "lap it up off the floor".

In actuality, not only did Jennings, deliver a horrible format for debate, but he also delivered more false doctrine and heretical teachings than satanist Anton LaVey in his ode to satan himself called "satan speaks"... 

Yes, Jennings is really that bad! 

He and his docetic Jesus, that walked on water because he was a "spirit", and that did not physically raise in the resurrection,  is certainly a different Jesus than what is revealed and taught within scripture. 

Jennings not only ascribes to modalism, he also ascribes to Arianism and Marcionism and nearly every historically heretical teaching that one can name in his effort to be popular, famous and to deceive the masses. 

For all my apostolic friends and family, let's debate the trinity if you wish, but PLEASE don't make this man your champion. He doesn't know what he's talking about and his deceit and crafty handling of scripture will send you straight to hell.

In this post not only will you see the video of the event, but also read my detailed rebuttal to many of those man's false arguments, all of which have been placed on the video site itself.

VIDEO EITHER DELETED OR MOVED

Let's Critique This FIASCO Of A Debate And The Heresy Of Gino Jennings

(Much of this was posted on the video channel in the comments section)

Jennings says around 34 minutes in that one cannot use "Hebrew, Greek, and Latin" to discern truth (essentially) because what we are using is "bible"...

What this means, is that Jennings is committed to destroying context and the bible in order to bolster his point.

In other words, he feels that the meaning we pour into words today is more important than the original context in which the words were written...This is EMBARRASSING!!!!

The FIRST rule of biblical interpretation is ALWAYS and SOLELY CONTEXT...CONTEXT...CONTEXT!!!! The German schools called it the "sitz-im-laban" that is the interpretive is ALWAYS understood in light of the actual setting. 

What is written is and must be interpreted in light of the usage of words in that day and in that time... In other words, one cannot take a word and the use of a word from a later period of time and ascribe it to an earlier epoch, UNLESS, it is justified to do so. The situation itself will settle that issue. However, doing so without warrant is what is called a anachronism.

This is not only an error, but will lead to FALSE doctrines like the one he believes in. Jennings whole premise is something that a beginning bible student would not do! or at least one that I teach anyway...

  

SECONDLY...among an infinite number of FALSE narratives that he presents...

NO TRINITARIAN communicates that God has three "personalities". We communicate that HE is three "PERSONS" based on what is clearly taught in scripture and viewed by the FACTS that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, EACH display the capacity to have "will", "mind", "intellect", and we see those things along with awareness of one another clearly throughout scripture. 

Example, Jesus prays in the Garden saying, 

• "if it be thy WILL let this bitter cup pass from me, nevertheless not my WILL but THINE be done" (Lk. 22:42) 

• John 4:34 ~ "my meat (WILL, work and mission) is to do the WILL of him that has sent me and to finish HIS work" 

• Rom. 8:27 ~ And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 

The term "mind of the spirit" is the "WILL" of the spirit...That is NOT referencing your spirit, that is he spirit of God! Otherwise it (the verse) makes no sense at all.

  

Jennings misuses language suggesting that God saying "BY his Spirit", is simply a literary technique to reemphasize himself...

However, THAT IS NOT how language is used, nor Greek written...

God the Father has a MIND, 

God the Son has a MIND 

and 
the Spirit, has a MIND... 

In Acts 5...they lied to who? The Holy Ghost! Only a PERSON can be lied to, not a revelatory expression or mere manifestation or someone changing hats... 

Further: Like Isaiah (the scripture referenced in the video), the scripture is replete with scriptures that distinctly outline that HE (God) "AND" HIS Spirit are outlined...It NEVER says that "he IS his Spirit"! The scripture is CLEAR! 

Here's more: 

So far as Jennings, false and illiterate questions regarding "partners" of God...We see and affirm what are called DOXOLOGIES all over the scripture, where Paul and other New testament writers distinguish the difference between God the Father and Jesus... 

Examples: 

• Phil: 1:2 ~ Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 

• 1 Cor. 1:3 ~ Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 

• Ephes. 1:2 ~ Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 

• Gal. 1:3 ~ Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 

Jesus here is called God and Savior but is "able to keep you from falling" and has the ability to "present you faultless before the presence of his glory"....

• Jude 1:1-2 ~"1- Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: 2-Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied." Sanctified BY the Father and preserved "IN" Jesus Christ"...

Jude again: 

• Jude 24-25: 24--Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25-To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

• Romans 16:27 ~ To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. 

God, who IS God, is to be given glory THROUGH Jesus Christ, who the scripture clearly says is God. 

Because the words "through", "and', and "by" and others conjunctions like them, mean nothing to him. He (Jennings) needs a course in transitional grammar!

Jesus himself in John 14:16 says that he will pray "to" the father and the father shall send to you "another" comforter". 

(And this is partly why he doesn't want his followers to study Greek, Hebrew and the original languages of scripture) 

The GREEK word for "another" MEANS {IN CONTEXT}, "one who is of the same substance, but DIFFERENT" 

Example...Let's say that 2 chairs sit side by side, Both come from the same factor and look exactly alike. Are they the same chair? Of course not!!! The second one, does all the first one does, but is different...even has the same substance.... 

The difference here is that Jesus says that the Spirit, which is "another comforter" will testify of JESUS and not of himself... in fact he says this: 

• John 15:26 ~ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 

Now, Jennings doesn't believe the word...How do I know? 

At about 1:00 (hour) into this Jennings teaches that Jesus came into being while simultaneously teaching that he (Jesus) is eternal. Saying that because he was "born" of a woman, that he had a beginning. This teaching is not only false, it is HERETICAL. 

In referencing John 1:1, Jennings must not know what it means or says...In the BEGINNING was the WORD. ...

Now, since God is eternal (without time), this would also mean that he existed BEFORE (or prior to) the beginning. Therefore, the scripture (John 1:1)is pointing to the beginning of time in this sentence (John 1:1) and not the beginning of God himself as there is no such point or place as the beginning of God. He is TIMELESS and without beginning and end. Jesus being born is NOT his beginning. 

The BIBLE says that God TOOK ON the nature of man in what the bible describes as the "likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3) In John 1:14 the WORD "became" flesh. 

In order for something to "become" something else (even in it's most simple terms) means that it (whatever was to become something else) existed first. In other words, something had to be there BEFORE it began to be something else.

For Jesus to "BECOME" flesh, he had to exist PRIOR TO being flesh. 

Now the study of "how" Jesus is God in a fleshly body is called the study of the hypostatic union. Jesus is the ONLY man with 2 natures. A nature that is 100% man, and a nature that is 100% God. he is not a 50/50 union or hybrid, which is how Jennings argues. Modalism is the argument that the Son comes into being at a certain time. Which is EXACTLY what Jennings teaches in this video. This is scripturally and certainly false.

We know him as Jesus, or God with us, because he dwells in flesh like we do. Not because his presence has not previously been here. He was in the Tent of Meeting in the Old testament wasn't he? Wasn't he a pillar of fire and smoke by night and a cloud by day over Israel? HIS presence was always here. The "Spirit" is also not some lesser "agent" of God. The spirit is a being. not a force. 

He cannot teach that Jesus is both eternal and also created at a certain point in time. What he must do, if his desire is to teach accurately, is affirm what scripture affirms. God is eternal. The WORD is eternal. The WORD "took on the likeness of sinful flesh" or "became" man. This means that God took on ANOTHER nature. Simply put, he put on something in order to do something. This leads into the next failed Jennings argument 

So far as who is doing the work (which is a ridiculous argument) JESUS said this:

• John 9:4 ~ I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 

• John 10:37-38 ~ 37-If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38-But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 

• John 14:12 ~ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 

Of COURSE Jesus did the work. Of COURSE the Father did the work. It would have to be because there is only ONE GOD...not two of them and there is a hypostatic union 

Jennings LIED if anyone did, because he doesn't seem to know scripture and what he does know, he intentionally deceives the public on to draw men to himself. 

Then there is John 1:2-3 which for some reason Jennings continued to deviate from, and would NEVER allow the argument to go there: 

• John 1: 2-3 ~ 2-The same was in the beginning with God. 3-All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 

This verse says that the WORD (ie: "the same") was in the beginning WITH God. this displays a duality, of relationship and existence. to be WITH something suggests that there is more than one. One cannot be "with" themselves. One can either be ALONE or WITH someone else. 

Then the scripture goes on to say that everything (ie:"all things") were "made by him". Who is HIM? That is the WORD, who was God and who is WITH God. Now if you don't believe any of that, John 1:10 makes it even more clear: 

• "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." 

The world was made by HIM???...Who was "him"??? 

The scripture describes him further:

• John 1:11-13 11- He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12-But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13-Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 

Then concludes with John 1:14 as we already discussed the incarnation. 

As Jennings would foolishly state, "show me 1 verse that says incarnation"??? Well, there is no verse that says "incarnation" HOWEVER, there are verses that describe it just as there are verses that describe the trinity. Therefore his whole argument of chapter and verse to prove trinity is a false narrative and logically flawed...it is incoherent and therefore overcome!

I would suggest that this preacher, Jennings, also study the Granville Sharp rule . It would help illuminate his understanding and bring him out of the darkness that he leads his followers into as well. 

The bible said that FALSE prophets and Christs would arise and deceive many. We see this clearly in the teachings of Jennings and his lust for the spotlight. So sad, but yet so TRUE!

Second Posting
(which was deleted from the video comments)

At about 1 hour and 24 minutes, Gino references 1 Kings 22:19 and speaks of the vision of Micaiah which had been given a vision of the deceit that Ahab would be given by the false prophets to excite him to war.

Jennings says of this prophet, that he must be "put in the spirit to see the things of the spirit"...he said that this scripture indicated a man that was in the spirit looking on heaven and he "trusted' what he said. in other words he was excited about this beatific vision of the Lord.

Now, lets look at Revelation 5...
I wonder why this never came up?

We see John, "in the spirit" on the "Lord's day" as he says and he sees heaven too. Only John see's a heaven where God is on the throne, and all heaven bows down and casts down their crowns and worships him, THEN a Lamb come from the midst of the throne, wearing a robe that has been washed in blood, and receives a book from the one who sat upon the throne...immediately, ALL heaven, falls down and worships the Lamb, and calls him "Worthy, worthy, worthy, Lord God almighty"...JUST like they called the one who sat upon the throne previously...Who was this Lamb????

Why is not this scripture as venerated by Jennings as 1 Kings 22:19? 

Third Posting:
Now, Jennings is worse than I thought...at 1 hour and 31 seconds, he seems to deny the bodily, physical resurrection of Jesus, chiding Smith saying that "flesh" is in heaven. 

Now the Jehovah's Witness are the one who don't believe in a physical resurrection or Jesus with what the bible calls a glorified body...

Jennings, DO YOU DENY the physical and bodily resurrection of Jesus??? Since you seem to believe that the risen Jesus has no FLESH. That is according to your teaching and your false doctrine???

1 hour 37 minutes you say that Jesus was not a "natural" or physical body walking on water. But at the same time, Jesus claims that a spirit cannot and does not do what he was doing.

• Mt. 14:25-27 ~ 25-And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. 26-And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. 27-But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.

Now, Jennings spent a whole program affirming that Jesus was flesh. Why switch now? Maybe it was because that wasn't the focus of the scripture. Jesus was FLESH walking on the water, but he was also God. Remember???

Further, to deny this also denies another cardinal doctrine of scripture. The physical and bodily resurrection itself. It was that physical resurrection that gave credence to his doctrine and teaching. When Jesus shows up to the disciples, he did not say he was a spirit. READ what it says:

• Lk. 24:39 ~ Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

The RESURRECTED glorified body Jesus had FLESH AND BONES and that did not mysteriously change at the ascension. In fact Thomas who doubted it all was challenged the same way in John 20 and after seeing a PHYSICAL Jesus fell and hailed him as "my Lord, my God" John 20:20!

It is unbelievable that a teacher of the word teaches otherwise and contrary to scripture and yet has a following...

Now, or all the dissenters, and as you can see we have some in the comments, please deal with an argument...any argument here. We have a man, by his own words that proves he is either biblically illiterate or one who simply doesn't care what the word says. Deal with that instead of going off trying to defend this heretic when his very words and what the words mean are revealed. 

Some of you have made a god out of this man, and believe me, you will PAY for it, both here and in eternity. 

Blessed!

Read more!

Dog Whistles Pt. 1 The Genesis Of Distrust

I am proud to be a Black conservative. As I have written, it seems to be somewhat of an anomaly, as many people simply believe that a vocal Black person is automatically a liberal and in agreement with everything that liberals and especially liberal Blacks agree with. That is certainly not the case here. For example, I don't agree with big government, or the overhaul of the healthcare system by the government, I don't agree with abortion, the breakdown and redefinition of the family, or the imposition of penalties by taxation upon the rich for their success...I also don't believe that the public restroom open to my wife and daughter, should also be open to men who live as women...

With that said however, not only do I love Malcom X, but I DO agree with many of my liberal friends, both Black and White, that something more than a little bit is wrong with our current President. As I have seen and heard his discourse, he is more akin to a Hollywood personality or showman, than a political figure, and has displayed very much ignorance. He seems to have infected those around him with the same shoddy bias that he brings to the table and seems to demand as much to prove loyalty.

I held President Obama to a tough standard both terms. I did not pull any punches, and certainly did not agree with his agenda to push and proliferate homosexual marriage and some of the other more shameful values that he placed upon us as Americans. Be clear, I intend to do no less than speak with the same candor about this President. All Americans should seek to hold him accountable like anyone else, and if what we have all heard, seen and witnessed is any indication, he deserves more scrutiny than most.

Although the President is into publicly shaming his detractors, he is one of the most shameful persons I have seen in political office, and I have shaken hands with some that are currently in prison for one reason or another and find their presence more enjoyable.

I mean look at it, with his history of multiple marriage, insulting and demeaning rhetoric about women and nearly everyone, and name calling of anyone who disagrees with his political and social positions, he has displayed his own shame and has more than proven that he is anything BUT a true conservative. He is certainly not wise and is very ill-temperate...I mean his whole handling of Puerto Rico, and officials who were rightfully critical of his response, in my opinion, displays a person that has racial bias, loves to move the goalposts when he is loosing an argument or has been exposed, and wants everyone to believe that his bias is not "really" a bias or a prejudice... 

Although I give him kudos for making it a point early on in his term to provide more funding to HBCU's by Executive Order, and reversing some of the more intrusive Obama era rules and social regulations, our current President has said some of the more rather incredibly STUPID things and many within the Black community both conservative and liberal continue to distrust him and question his motives. 

I must admit, at first, I was saying that people just needed to give him a chance and that he would eventually "learn the job" and what he was supposed to do. I mean he was the same one that said that he could run the country and his businesses too, only to later come back and say that he made a mistake, and wasn't aware of how difficult the job of a President actually was???? But somewhere around his Charlottesville, VA assessment of "good people on both sides", I got off the sidelines and began to examine this______________(Loss for words here...although a phrase that he used for Colin Kaepernick does come to mind) for what he is and for the bias he stands for.

During that examination, I came across certain patterns that are unmistakable and not lost upon history. In this writing and the subsequent parts, I will attempt to share what I see as a calculated parallel between history our current President, and our condition of unrest. I only ask that even the critic will read objectively. Shall we proceed: 

"Dog Whistles"

One of the criticisms of this President, especially from those actively engaged in civil rights discourse, is that he uses and continues to use "dog whistles" to rally what he intends to be his base of support. Of course a dog whistle is literally only heard by the dog as opposed to the general public or crowd. This "whistle" inspires a dog to react without the one blowing the whistle, saying a word. What many Black leaders have said is that this President has issued some significant political "dog whistles" to activate his base and communicate his message. In Part 2 of this article I will explore this possibility directly by looking back at "dog whistle" politics. However, in Part 1 I will examine some of the circumstances and public perceptions that created the whistle itself and laid the foundation for what many Black and White leaders see and perceive as racism and racist behavior towards those protesting and fighting for liberation.  

Some may think that I am writing to "blame" or create a "negative" atmosphere...to them I ask, "Have you looked at the news lately? Not all of it is fake. How much more negative can things be in race relations within America?" However, the purpose of this writing is to inform as well as educate as to what many Blacks actually hear when racial equality is discussed by the current President and many "conservatives" that follow his path today, and why Blacks must continue to hold public officials accountable and make their case for racial equality and criminal justice reform, and for social change based on racial equality.

Ideas & Ideals Have Consequences

“A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on. Ideas have endurance without death.”― The Late President John F. Kennedy

The Foundation Of The "Dog Whistle"

"Dog Whistles" are based on ideas, values, concepts and ideals. Some of these values are more or less worthy or healthy to society. One should be careful on what ideas and ultimately ideals are embraced. The bible calls this protecting the heart. It is from the heart that the "issues" of life proceed.

My contention here is that ideas and ideals, historically embraced, have such a deep rooted foundation that they continue to effect modern society. As we will see, some ideas last as a way of life, even if they are not taught in books.

The Incubation Of Bad Ideas 

Let's look at a mini-timeline of some (since the Civil War 1861-1865) historical events. Please note the length of time or the gaps here from when laws were formed in favor of Black equality to when equality was actually realized, if it were ever realized at all. Some have said that certainly equality has been achieved, and that the election of a Black President proves it. However I ask the truly objective to simply hear me out and follow the argument, then make your decision. What's more, show me how the assertions that I will make are wrong based on the evidence.

To begin: 

Jan. 1st 1863 ~ President Lincoln signed the second or final Emancipation
Proclamation (specifically freeing Blacks in the Southern states that were in rebellion against the Union.) According to Wickipedia, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri—and those counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia, and also the three zones under Union occupation: the state of Tennessee, lower Louisiana and Southeast Virginia were excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation, therefore slaves in these states were not set free. The proclamation would only target to free approximately 3.1 million of the nations 4 million Black slaves at the time.

Next, over 2 and a half years later after Emancipation and after the Civil War was over:

June 19th, 1865 ~ On June 19, 1865, Major Gen. Gordon Granger came to Galveston, Texas, to inform a reluctant community that President Abraham Lincoln two years earlier had freed the slaves and to press locals to comply with his directive. There were approximately 250,000 slaves in TX at that time, most of which had migrated from the Eastern Southern Confederate States to escape the war and reestablish life in an area in which slavery was still allowed without restriction. The day (June 19th, 1865) became otherwise known as the day of true emancipation for Blacks from slavery. It is celebrated in approximately 45 States today as "Juneteenth".

Now, what is without historic dispute, is that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves or outlaw all slavery within the United States. It was primarily a "declaration" for civil unity. Also in 1865 the 13th Amendment sought to actually abolish slavery within the entire US which only worked to a degree.

Although TX had been a state since 1845, it had also been a part of the Confederacy and governed under a self-rule concept, until 2 years after the Emancipation. The State of TX continued in defiance of the Federal Law until after the war was over.   

Immediately, after the Civil War defeat however, Southern States sought to implement a new set of rules that governed the life and living of Blacks who were now technically free under the law. Although short-lived, these sets of regulations were adopted by varying degrees by all former Confederate States, and paved the way for what would later become known as Jim Crow Laws based and rooted on separate but equal doctrines which would be proliferated by the courts for nearly 100 years, in spite of efforts through Federal Regulation to eliminate inequality.

This set of what appears to be ad-hoc laws that continued to build upon racial injustice were called "The Black Codes" 

The "Black Codes" (1865-1866)

Although Lincoln was dead, Southern States, under President Johnson and the surviving, defeated, military leaders of the Confederacy, called for self-rule or what amounts to "States Rights" in constitutional conventions, demanding limitations and restrictions on Black rights. 

The mantra, "States Rights" therefore became an early rally cry in favor of racism and, over time, a theme song, not only against federal government "intrusion" but also a cry for self rule and ultimately the validation of classism and segregation.

1) The term "states rights" was a mantra repeated by racists over the years to encourage the power of the state over the power of federal government. The term has also carried the connotation of racism indicating a reversion back to a time when states decided how to engage their citizenry. Historically however, that engagement usually excluded Blacks and even made things worse for them in general. The term itself, "States Rights" was used later by segregationist and racist Alabama Governor and Presidential Candidate, George Wallace, who as a third party candidate received over 9 million votes for President. This phrase has rightfully been interpreted by many Blacks and Whites, both conservative and liberal, to be a "dog whistle".  

A New System Rooted Within Bias

After the Civil War, free public education was offered for the first time, with restrictions that persons of color could not qualify and were not allowed in the public system. The restriction of Blacks from public settings was called segregation. 

Additionally, according to most "Black Codes", Blacks could not vote, serve on juries, travel freely, or work in occupations of their choice. Even Black marriages were outside the law as the law focused on Whites and issues pertaining to Whites. 

Mississippi was the first State to implement a Black Code and their version was unusually harsh towards Blacks and condemning of Whites that partnered with Blacks for the cause of freedom and equality. 

During this and the subsequent Jim Crow era, the prevailing thought was that Blacks were not equal to Whites in any way and should not be introduced or provided for within society. Although the Civil rights Act of 1866 guaranteed equal rights for all people living in the US, many were unwilling to accept the rights and equalization of Blacks. Around 1867 the Georgia Daily Telegraph reported: 

"There is such a radical difference in the mental and moral [nature] of the white and black race, that it would be impossible to secure order in a mixed community by the same [law].”

Blacks, by far and large, did not see the local or State law or the legal system as anything that would work for their benefit. They depended upon the federal government which at this point was still not actively engaged.

The Criminal Justice System
Community Policing

Among many restrictions the Black Codes included vagrancy laws. A vagrant is considered to be a person without a "settled" home, job and one who appears to be living as a beggar. Of course anyone could see the problem here. Since a person would have just been freed from slavery, they certainly would not have any assets and would be seeking a job. 

In most circumstances the Police, specifically the County Sheriff's Dept., was used to enforce vagrancy laws. It was the police, who were to round up "vagrants" place them in jail and force them into servile work for who else? Rich or wealthy White people. 

South Carolina's Black Code laws on vagrancy facilitated the following actions:

• Immense pressure on freedmen to sign labor contracts. 
• South Carolina’s code did not limit these laws to unemployed persons, but included others such as peddlers and gamblers and those who otherwise were self sustainable. 
• Vagrants could be arrested and imprisoned at hard labor.
• Children of vagrants could be taken and forced into work through "apprenticeships" 

As stated, the codes allowed the County Sheriff (Law Enforcement) to “hire out” black vagrants to a white employer to work off their punishment. Many of the law enforcement personnel, especially in the South, were also former or active klansmen and or White Supremacists. So not only was the law unjust, but those who were to enforce the law were unjust and bias in many cases. 

2) This appears to be the genesis of the distrust among Blacks of law enforcement or the police in general. Certainly not a total or all inclusive reason, but the start of negative perceptions and reactions. These apprehensions would be compounded in the Jim Crow era at time in which the police would be out right used to take freedoms from Blacks.  

The Courts

Lynching: Defined as the killing of Blacks without a trial or proper due process. Between 1882 and 1892 it is estimated that over 900 Black persons primarily in the South, 

were lynched or executed in this manner.

The courts (aka: the criminal justice system) customarily waived punishments and sentencing for white vagrants, allowing them to take an oath of poverty instead. Crimes that whites believed freedmen might commit, such as rebellion, arson, burglary, and assaulting a white woman, carried harsh penalties. Most of these crimes carried the death penalty for blacks, but not for whites. 

3) Racial bias in a "justice is blind" setting was undeniably a part of the genesis of distrust in the courts as well. The design of the courts facilitated protection for the White man, not Blacks. Things would eventually get worse under Jim Crow laws and in spite of Civil Rights Acts and Constitutional Amendments 13 and 14, adopted at the federal level, the courts would be used to negatively affect the Black family in a very significant manner.   

Black Education

Black orphans and children of vagrants, could become "apprentices" for Whites. This "apprenticeship" was against the will of the worker, and created a "Master/apprentice" relationship which allowed the "employer" to even "inflict moderate punishment" on "unruly" apprentices as long as the employer or "master" agreed to provide food and clothing, and teach their apprentices a trade, and send them to school in exchange for their "service" (in this case SUBJUGATION). 

4) From a historical perspective we observe that it was not an unusual concept for the White, empowered, elite, to provide education to Blacks or support education for those who were otherwise "slaves" without being called such. As long as the education was separate from Whites there was generally no disagreement and the White "masters" felt a sense of obligation to do so.

Conclusion Pt. 1

In this section, we have observed the following issues from a historical perspective:

• Immediately after the Civil War both the law and the police were used to enforce unfair and unjust rules towards recently liberated Blacks and Black families. 

• The Black Codes and rules were implemented to replace slavery by creating classism and bias within the law based on race.

• The Civil Rights Acts of 1866 proved to be ineffective and was disregarded by former Confederate States in lieu of the doctrine of "States Rights". 

• The genesis of "dog whistles" were laid immediately after the Civil War in the following doctrines: States Rights, police injustice, court injustice and inaction, separate but equal doctrines which allowed Whites to fund Black education while making sure that it remained separate from White education.  

How does what happened in the late 1800's effect us today?

Although repealed by federal law, the Black Codes would eventually give way to Jim Crow laws rooted in separate but equal treatment of Blacks. These laws would go on to be the basis for understanding and teaching for white Americans for nearly 100 years. Rooted in the doctrine of "States Rights", segregation and a call to less government intrusion took shape over time creating and exposing some ridiculously painful relationships based on race.

If President Kennedy is to be believed, that "ideas have endurance without death", then it is very easy to see how the foundation of the treatment of Blacks within this country has an effect on all of us today. Without going back to the clear injustice of slavery and bondage itself upon which the nation was founded, each of us can point back to a time, when the banner that flew in effort to display our freedom, failed certain groups based on race, while securing the future of others, based on color.

Ideas and philosophies, all the way from what makes the country great, to how we protest for a better country and life, are rooted in our genesis. It is that point, that the foundation of what we believe is right and wrong, has been challenged and exposed in this time some 150 years later.

In the next segment, we will look at some of the "politics" that makes the best association towards the arguments that have been made in recent days. As we draw further away from the foundation of this country, we are forced to ask, are we actually more close to those foundations than we believed?

We will see.

Blessed!       

Read more!

A New Home For Podcasts & Radio Broadcasts

THANK GOD that the Lord has led us to a new place for all podcasts and non-live broadcast delivery.

We moved our service due to bad service from the Cyberears group and what amounted to "scolding" us for the amount of broadcasts we had.

Interestingly enough, that was the sign to drop a ZERO (Cyberears) and get with a hero.(Podbeam)

Hopefully, you will enjoy a more professional looking podcast. We certainly will. We will also enjoy increased functionality and the ability to embed individual episodes and offer a better search bar to the right of the blog.

So THANK YOU Cyberears for acting stupid! We WELCOME PODBEAM for a good looking and fully functional site that allows us to control our premium content.

Please click the link below to hear all of our uploaded casts. A new cast will arrive between now and the end of 2017 approximately every 2 weeks.  

Read more!