The Rapture IS NOT literal.

[interpreter]

Actually, His Kingdom will never end. Daniel 2:44
"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.

The Nicene Creed:
I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ...Who will come again in glory to judge both the living and the dead. Whose kingdom will have no end.

When the glorious 1000-year reign of the Church ends and the earth is destroyed, Jesus sets up a new kingdom on a new planet without any sea (probably Mars).
At least the Nicene Creed doesn't mention a rapture.

 

[sculleywr]

When the glorious 1000-year reign of the Church ends and the earth is destroyed, Jesus sets up a new kingdom on a new planet without any sea (probably Mars).
At least the Nicene Creed doesn't mention a rapture.

There is no 1000 year reign. It is an eternal earthly kingdom.

 

[Clare73]

Then you keep looking to the clouds, sister. And my prayer is one of them will host your savior. And read the books you deem to inspire you, but let no man tell you which ones are truth and which ones are not,

How do you know which ones are true?

which is what you do when you accept a canon. Years from now how can we tell if men would Canonize the Qu'ran with the New Testament; to be read in our schools, and Christians would become the new Gnostics

I would know which one of them is true then, just as I know now, by the powerful witness of the Holy Spirit bearing testimony to my spirit regarding them, and which is the only way it can be known.

It just doesn't feel spiritual to me that 300 years after Christ dies, some men seem worthy enough to choose for all mankind. I don't trust the same influences that killed the savior and imprisoned Paul.......... the Empire of Rome.

Those men of faith knew the same way this woman of faith knows, by the powerful witness of the Holy Spirit bearing testimony to them that they were indeed the word of God, from the very breath of God (2Ti 3:16), which is the Holy Spirit.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

So an invisible kingdom will replace the physical kingdoms?

The kingdom set up by Christ at his coming during the past Roman empire will endure forever (Da 2:44).
There will be no other kingdom.

Nah...That's not even if we take it and twist it a little. It speaks of a physical kingdom. Chiliasm first showed up on the fourth century, and was recognized for what it was, a false doctrine. Christ will establish a never-ending physical kingdom on Earth. That, or the Bible made some very big errors

If you got it from unfulfilled symbolic prophecy, which is given in riddles (Nu 12:6-8), you have no way of knowing if your personal interpretation is correct. Symbolic prophecy can be interpreted in more than one way.

Remember, the Jews' interpreted prophecy to mean that the Messiah would set up an earthly kingdom and free them from Roman rule. And the track record of God's people hasn't gotten any better since then.

The meaning of unfulfilled symbolic prophecy is uncertain, and I build theology only on what is clear and unequivocal.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

Death no longer reigns, for in Christ, none shall see death.

If you're speaking of the present, we all die.
That is the death which reigns (Ro 5:14).

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

When the glorious 1000-year reign of the Church ends and the earth is destroyed, Jesus sets up a new kingdom on a new planet without any sea (probably Mars).
At least the Nicene Creed doesn't mention a rapture.

That smacks of literal interpretation of symbolic prophecy.

And that's all the demonstration that is needed to show why symbolic prophecy is not literal.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Hillsage]

Why with the carnal minded does it always turn into a personal assault?

dag, I am so sorry you took that post entirely wrong. No personal assault was intended on my part. I simply agreed with Clare that you were the one trying to not be overbearing. And I thought that by saying arrogance is often confused with confidence that you would surely identify with the 'confidence' point and not the arrogance one, as I attempted to defend you to Clare. Apparently I was wrong. No attempt to offend was ever intended. Unlike, I might point out, is the blunt directness of your judging me as being "carnal minded". No mistaking your attitude with strong words like that IMO.

When will they learn they cannot stab spirit with a kitchen knife?

It is definitely a "learned" level of character maturity that comes from passing fiery trials.

My friend is not the one who said I was overbearing ...

No, but it was the last two sentences in your direct quote (below) was the basis for the form my comment;

"The same friend wrote back that they could not find any postings of mine here. Perhaps ''overbearing'' is in the mind of the ''overburdened''?

You appeared, to me, to be tying 'your friends' dilemma to the frustration of not finding your posts. And even if that wasn't your intent, the slip was just too close for me to not take a 'joking' poke at it from that angle. When I use ICONS after what 'may' even be taken as a barb their purpose is to emphasize the 'levity' of my comment. I thought we actually had a better relationship going than you apparently do, so I apologize for my misconception.

Where have I posted any Hebrew whatsoever?

Maybe I have misspoke, I am referring to the following type language "Theou, Yeshua Christou, Bematos Christou, Paulos, Yoseph, Leukos"? I honestly don't understand your/others reasoning for using such verbiage, as opposed to the English, since you are addressing English speakers?

But so that you not also be found a liar ...

And this is not a 'barbed' comment? Is this comment truly to defend my honor? When you can rise above responses like this, then I will believe you are as 'spiritually' "stab" proof as you think you are.

I truly hope this helps to repair any mistaken fellowship abrasiveness between us.

PS The he/she comments are also genuine...what are you? You offer nothing in your personal profile, and as I said to Clare I simply assumed you were male. If I'm wrong I'd like to know.

 

[Phantasman]

How do you know which ones are true?

I would know which one of them is true then, just as I know now, by the powerful witness of the Holy Spirit bearing testimony to my spirit regarding them, and which is the only way it can be known.


Those men of faith knew the same way this woman of faith knows, by the powerful witness of the Holy Spirit bearing testimony to them that they were indeed the word of God, from the very breath of God (2Ti 3:16), which is the Holy Spirit.

In the faith,
Clare

I'm prayerful that you know so much and the Holy Spirit has led you. I myself am 62, was saved at 20, and have studied most of my adult life. There is much I have learned, and as John ended his Gospel:

John 21
25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

I'm glad your content with your 4 (plus Johns vision). You are correct about Gods glorious Holy Spirit revealing the truth. This is the teacher above men. It worked for 300 years before men made the Bible. You may trust the men who picked the books you hold so dear. But I want to read the rest with the Holy Spirit showing me if they hold truth or not, not men telling me they don't.

So we agree that the Holy Spirit reveals truth. The Catholics have changed too many parts of their doctrines and the scriptures even during the last 400 (before protestantism) for me to trust truth today. I'd be careful.

 

[Clare73]

I'm prayerful that you know so much and the Holy Spirit has led you. I myself am 62, was saved at 20, and have studied most of my adult life. There is much I have learned, and as John ended his Gospel:

John 21
25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

I'm glad your content with your 4 (plus Johns vision). You are correct about Gods glorious Holy Spirit revealing the truth. This is the teacher above men. It worked for 300 years before men made the Bible. You may trust the men who picked the books you hold so dear. But I want to read the rest with the Holy Spirit showing me if they hold truth or not, not men telling me they don't.

So we agree that the Holy Spirit reveals truth. The Catholics have changed too many parts of their doctrines and the scriptures even during the last 400 (before protestantism) for me to trust truth today. I'd be careful.

Well, since the Holy Spirit has left me without doubt and sold out regarding the Canon, everything else introduced on the scene must be in total agreement with the Canon in order to be God's truth, because God does not contradict himself.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[daq]

dag, I am so sorry you took that post entirely wrong. No personal assault was intended on my part. I simply agreed with Clare that you were the one trying to not be overbearing. And I thought that by saying arrogance is often confused with confidence that you would surely identify with the 'confidence' point and not the arrogance one, as I attempted to defend you to Clare. Apparently I was wrong. No attempt to offend was ever intended. Unlike, I might point out, is the blunt directness of your judging me as being "carnal minded". No mistaking your attitude with strong words like that IMO.

It is definitely a "learned" level of character maturity that comes from passing fiery trials.
No, but it was the last two sentences in your direct quote (below) was the basis for the form my comment;
You appeared, to me, to be tying 'your friends' dilemma to the frustration of not finding your posts. And even if that wasn't your intent, the slip was just too close for me to not take a 'joking' poke at it from that angle. When I use ICONS after what 'may' even be taken as a barb their purpose is to emphasize the 'levity' of my comment. I thought we actually had a better relationship going than you apparently do, so I apologize for my misconception.

Maybe I have misspoke, I am referring to the following type language "Theou, Yeshua Christou, Bematos Christou, Paulos, Yoseph, Leukos"? I honestly don't understand your/others reasoning for using such verbiage, as opposed to the English, since you are addressing English speakers?

And this is not a 'barbed' comment? Is this comment truly to defend my honor? When you can rise above responses like this, then I will believe you are as 'spiritually' "stab" proof as you think you are.

I truly hope this helps to repair any mistaken fellowship abrasiveness between us.

PS The he/she comments are also genuine...what are you? You offer nothing in your personal profile, and as I said to Clare I simply assumed you were male. If I'm wrong I'd like to know.

Words have meanings and therefore most of the reasoning for the usage of such words is due to the way they are used in the Scripture writings, (and years of discussing and debating those writings). For instance Theos or Theou is Greek, not Hebrew, and is employed almost entirely in the Greek for the Heavenly Father, (except in a few instances like John 1:1 or John 10:34-35). Why should this be important to anyone? It is important because the same word is used for the Spirit Holy in the first Gospel of the New Testament. Therefore it sets precedent whether Matthew was written first or not because that is the way the allotment of the New Testament writings fell out according to the sovereign will of the Father, (not to say that there are not indeed some genuine writings ''missing'' from the current canon).

Matthew 3:16-17 KJV
16. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God [Pneuma tou Theou] descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17. And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 10:19-21 KJV
19. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
20. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
21. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.

Mark 13:11-12 KJV
11. But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. [to Pneuma to Hagion]
12. Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.

John 4:22-26 KJV
22. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24. God is a Spirit: [Pneuma ho Theos] and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
25. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

Yeshua is clearly directing worship to the Father in the Gospel of John passage above and clearly he is differentiating between himself and the Father, concerning personhood, even though he is also clearly stating that he himself is Messias-Messiah the Christou. So it is that when one uses Theou or Theos it is to argue the full weight of the New Testament writings, for they all agree in their usage of the same word Theou, and that usage is that it always concerns the Father and not some third alternate personage. Therefore whether it be this thread or any other, no matter the topics or the context, much more of my entire theology is presented instead of merely the topic at hand when I use such words, (if indeed one understands the usage of the words in their contexts within the New Testament writings). The fact that you did not know that Theos or Theou is Greek simply reveals your lack of study in the Word. And if one has not the Word then the same has not Spirit Holy, no matter what the same may claim, (as in the post immediately above mine here). This is the only way in which the whole body may be one. And if that sounds ''overbearing'' to some then the dispute which they have is not with the one who has the Word, (if indeed he has the Word) but rather the dispute which they have is with the Word himself whom they apparently do yet not know well enough. Not that they do not know him at all but rather that they have not yet been fully consumed in Him. And when that great day comes then the same will be neither male nor female.

 

[Hillsage]

Words have meanings and therefore most of the reasoning for the usage of such words is due to the way they are used in the Scripture writings, (and years of discussing and debating those writings). For instance Theos or Theou is Greek, not Hebrew, and is employed almost entirely in the Greek for the Heavenly Father, (except in a few instances like John 1:1 or John 10:34-35). Why should this be important to anyone? It is important because the same word is used for the Spirit Holy in the first Gospel of the New Testament. Therefore it sets precedent whether Matthew was written first or not because that is the way the allotment of the New Testament writings fell out according to the sovereign will of the Father, (not to say that there are not indeed some genuine writings ''missing'' from the current canon).

If all that you say was as important, as you apparently think, then you should know that there is pretty significant evidence that Matthew was first written in Hebrew and not Greek.

So it is that when one uses Theou or Theos it is to argue the full weight of the New Testament writings, for they all agree in their usage of the same word Theou, and that usage is that it always concerns the Father and not some third alternate personage.

So it is that, as I see it anyway, you do not understand the important difference between the definition of 'name' representative as a 'moniker'' versus a 'name' as being representative of 'authority and character'. But the Sons of Sceva made the same mistake as you, since I'm sure they pronounced the name 'correctly'. When you hear a knock on the door and someone says; "Open up in the name of the law!", you shouldn't look through the peephole looking for a nametag with 'LAW' written on it. Instead you should be looking for the authority of a gun and the character reference of a badge. But the sons of Sceva learned that when you knock on a spiritual door having "your names are written in heaven" is much more important than correct pronunciation since the demons responded with "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?"

Therefore whether it be this thread or any other, no matter the topics or the context, much more of my entire theology is presented instead of merely the topic at hand when I use such words,

But, as you can see from the above, your incorrect understanding of the true definition of the word 'name in the spiritual realm' negates your carnal IMO minded theology. And what I personally believe to be the correct understanding, simply ends any further needed 'point by point' response to much of the rest of what you've posted.

And when that great day comes then the same will be neither male nor female.

But since you do still have a body that great day apparently has not come. So we are all still in the unfortunate position to have to call you a he/she since you think no one should know 'the truth'. With the only exception possibly being your friend...if he/she ever did find your posts here.

When you come to know that ALL are masculine in spirit and therefore capable of being "sons of God", and that ALL are feminine in soul and therefore capable of becoming "brides of Christ" then you will realize that still being male or female in body really isn't that big of a deal to be so secretive about. It is simply a matter of truly understanding the depths of what scripture really meant when it said "neither being male nor female." That's what I believe The Holy Spirit has revealed to me anyway....brother/sister.

All of the above is simply based upon my belief that it is WHO you know and not WHAT you know that establishes relationship in God. Whereas Fellowship is based upon WHAT you know, and obviously 'your WHAT' and 'my WHAT' differences, are much bigger to you than they are to me. I find that sad personally. God be with you.

PS No response is probably best. We are way off topic, and it is probably best to just move on. I hope you agree.

 

[Phantasman]

Well, since the Holy Spirit has left me without doubt and sold out regarding the Canon, everything else introduced on the scene must be in total agreement with the Canon in order to be God's truth, because God does not contradict himself.

In the faith,
Clare

I would never doubt the Holy Spirits conviction either. I was Nazarene for many years. But kept backsliding. This has been a life altering experience for me similar to my first being saved. I pray for truth in my adventure, as I pray for you in yours. We follow slightly different paths to the same destination.

In Christ

Dan

 

[daq]

If all that you say was as important, as you apparently think, then you should know that there is pretty significant evidence that Matthew was first written in Hebrew and not Greek.

So it is that, as I see it anyway, you do not understand the important difference between the definition of 'name' representative as a 'moniker'' versus a 'name' as being representative of 'authority and character'. But the Sons of Sceva made the same mistake as you, since I'm sure they pronounced the name 'correctly'. When you hear a knock on the door and someone says; "Open up in the name of the law!", you shouldn't look through the peephole looking for a nametag with 'LAW' written on it. Instead you should be looking for the authority of a gun and the character reference of a badge. But the sons of Sceva learned that when you knock on a spiritual door having "your names are written in heaven" is much more important than correct pronunciation since the demons responded with "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?"

But, as you can see from the above, your incorrect understanding of the true definition of the word 'name in the spiritual realm' negates your carnal IMO minded theology. And what I personally believe to be the correct understanding, simply ends any further needed 'point by point' response to much of the rest of what you've posted.

But since you do still have a body that great day apparently has not come. So we are all still in the unfortunate position to have to call you a he/she since you think no one should know 'the truth'. With the only exception possibly being your friend...if he/she ever did find your posts here.

When you come to know that ALL are masculine in spirit and therefore capable of being "sons of God", and that ALL are feminine in soul and therefore capable of becoming "brides of Christ" then you will realize that still being male or female in body really isn't that big of a deal to be so secretive about. It is simply a matter of truly understanding the depths of what scripture really meant when it said "neither being male nor female." That's what I believe The Holy Spirit has revealed to me anyway....brother/sister.

All of the above is simply based upon my belief that it is WHO you know and not WHAT you know that establishes relationship in God. Whereas Fellowship is based upon WHAT you know, and obviously 'your WHAT' and 'my WHAT' differences, are much bigger to you than they are to me. I find that sad personally. God be with you.

PS No response is probably best. We are way off topic, and it is probably best to just move on. I hope you agree.

If you do not want a response then why do you keep making insulting comments that are unfounded? You do not have a clue what I believe about the Name or the Biblical definition of names:

As to the topic I agree with most of what Lulav has stated yet take notice also that her name pertains to the four kinds including Hadaccah and hadaciym. I also agree with Mishkan in that it is much more about character and there is much more to a name than phonetic spelling. Laureate also said heavenly Father and Abba also seems closer to some of the other words for love. Yeshua says in prayer that he has revealed the Name to his talmidim yet nowhere do we find any proper names being stated as ''the one and only'' with proper pronunciation and-or spelling, except for the fact that Yeshua prays to the heavenly Father and consistently speaks of the things concerning our heavenly Father.

John 17:4-8
4. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

John 17:25-26
25. O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

www.christianforums.com/t7680927-6/#post61297588

Perhaps that is why we are not to judge others and perhaps that would have also been a good reason for you and your friend not to make this about me. Your judgment is completely off base and unfounded. As for the ''bride of Christ'' that one is on topic and has been addressed here already:

Luke 12:35-42 KJV
35. Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning;
36. And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
37. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
38. And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
39. And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
40. Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.
41. Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
42. And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?

As previously shown this passage is the companion passage with the Parable of the Ten Virgins. Yeshua already had the Covenant-Bride when he entered Jerusalem at Palm Sunday:

Matthew 21:4-8 KJV
4. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
5. Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
6. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
7. And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.
8. And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.

John 3:27-29 KJV
27. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
28. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
29. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

You are not the Bride any more than you are the New Covenant ...

 

[Clare73]

I would never doubt the Holy Spirits conviction either. I was Nazarene for many years. But kept backsliding.
This has been a life altering experience for me similar to my first being saved.

To what experience are you referring?

I pray for truth in my adventure, as I pray for you in yours.
We follow slightly different paths to the same destination.

Just don't be deceived by anything which disagrees with the Canon.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[interpreter]

That smacks of literal interpretation of symbolic prophecy.

And that's all the demonstration that is needed to show why symbolic prophecy is not literal.

In the faith,
Clare

Wrong. Most of the prophesies in the Revelation are literal. Nonetheless, the reign of Jesus can be considered eternal because when one horseman is defeated, another kingdom of God arises.

 

[Clare73]

Wrong. Most of the prophesies in the Revelation are literal. Nonetheless, the reign of Jesus can be considered eternal because when one horseman is defeated, another kingdom of God arises.

How do you know that?

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Phantasman]

To what experience are you referring?


Just don't be deceived by anything which disagrees with the Canon.

In the faith,
Clare

There is no disagreement. Only expansion.

 

[Clare73]

There is no disagreement. Only expansion.

To what experience were you referring?

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Hillsage]

If you do not want a response then why do you keep making insulting comments that are unfounded? You do not have a clue what I believe about the Name or the Biblical definition of names:

I'm simply trying to stop going the direction WE have gone.

www.christianforums.com/t7680927-6/#post61297588

Perhaps that is why we are not to judge others and perhaps that would have also been a good reason for you and your friend not to make this about me. Your judgment is completely off base and unfounded.

I read your URL. I have no idea what you are talking about. If someone reported you, all I can say is 'it was not me' and I have no idea who this "friend" of mine supposedly is either. So you are absolutely correct in saying "we are not to judge others". I have NEVER, in the three years that I've been here ever reported anyone. Even when I've been judged by 'OTHERS' as a non Christian, I always wrote it off as a mistake on their part and said good bye. Which is what I believe is best for us also.

 

[daq]

I read your URL. I have no idea what you are talking about. If someone reported you, all I can say is 'it was not me' and I have no idea who this "friend" of mine supposedly is either. So you are absolutely correct in saying "we are not to judge others". I have NEVER, in the three years that I've been here ever reported anyone. Even when I've been judged by 'OTHERS' as a non Christian, I always wrote it off as a mistake on their part and said good bye. Which is what I believe is best for us also.

You still do not understand? I said nothing about you reporting me or anyone else and that has nothing to do with these and your comments from above. Look in the mirror at yourself: you have made false accusations right here in this thread and the comments from that thread prove that your assumptions and judgmental posture in this thread are incorrect and unfounded:

So it is that, as I see it anyway, you do not understand the important difference between the definition of 'name' representative as a 'moniker'' versus a 'name' as being representative of 'authority and character'. But the Sons of Sceva made the same mistake as you, since I'm sure they pronounced the name 'correctly'. When you hear a knock on the door and someone says; "Open up in the name of the law!", you shouldn't look through the peephole looking for a nametag with 'LAW' written on it. Instead you should be looking for the authority of a gun and the character reference of a badge. But the sons of Sceva learned that when you knock on a spiritual door having "your names are written in heaven" is much more important than correct pronunciation since the demons responded with "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?"

But, as you can see from the above, your incorrect understanding of the true definition of the word 'name in the spiritual realm' negates your carnal IMO minded theology.

What you have assumed here is clearly disputed the other thread. Therefore you should not have judged as you did right here. Funny how some are so quick to judge before they have the truth of a matter yet after the fact, when the truth becomes available, they either pretend it is not right there in front of them or act as if they do not understand. And if you cannot understand then perhaps you should try to be even less quick to begin judging others.