torsdag 23. mars 2017

No. 1509: Long before I got appointed lawyer Brynjar Meling, I said Police had no case against me and the Heavenly blog when I just wrote on his blog!

No. 1509:
Long before I got appointed lawyer Brynjar Meling, I said Police had no case against me and the Heavenly blog when I just wrote on his blog!
Pray dear faithful friends that Jesus and myriads of angels show up in Borgarting Court of Appeal on Wednesday 5 April when it is Christianity persecution of the worst kind that I and my family are experiencing.
The last 4 years, I and my family have been harassed and persecuted in many ways by the police, Torp and his obedient poodles and lackeys as they like to call themselves!
They have driven with forgery, lied about me and my family. Sent countless mails to me, our employers, my wife, her job mailer and established a satire blog whose foremost goal is to lie on me and my family. +++ Even much more that I can not be bothered and bear to mention more!

Amos 3 7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
Have read a little bit about what's been written since Jan Aage Torp came with his fictional review of me.
What is wonderful is that I really have always considered that whatever Torp, police and others have done. Has been fabricated lies and to create fear!
I have always argued that it is not criminal to write on your blog, whatever a printer as long as it is not incitement to violence and other offenses.
Also see that I have done what has been a strategic success in obtaining an attorney that I had no right in principle.
Here is some of what is written:
"This is only one thing. Christianity Persecution and an attack on freedom of expression and Liberty of. I am not at all interested in Torp or any others who live in sin and should be shepherds and overseers. This I wrote that message first to a day journalist who called me yesterday when I was in Berlin, Germany, before I had returned to Oslo. Only then did I know that I was "accused". This is of course a fictional review Torp to stop me, and Satan of course he is the Ondes property in that he lives in sin: If there are indictments so I meet not. I have reviewed Torp for false accusations. Then do not police attorney spoke the truth to me. Is in Germany now and come home at night. Gets call jurist if conciliation is different than what I thought. Torp living in sin as a pastor that's what I have written about. Defamation, personal harassment and everything else Torp blabbering about getting stand on his behalf. He is also unbiblical to report me. God's word speaks against it also, "
This I wrote for 2 ½ years ago, and this too:
"As for the police, believes all that one that I can take devastatingly easy as long as I have not sought Torp personally or his new" wife. " I have been out of his life and he has not been closed out of this in any way. The man is more invigorated than ever according to himself. What I have written has been on his own blog and website. Then it is mostly allowed only one not encourage murder and violence which of course I have not done.
The paragraphs he uses are aimed at completely different situations than to print from their own faith and conviction in his own blog. Something that I solely have been doing! "
In other words, all that will happen now in Borgarting Court of Appeal, that Polti constantly have used an error in law and another against me.
I have argued from day ONE!
Am glad that I got hold of the attorney who also showed the legislation this standing. We are indeed been heard.
Now I want you believers dear friend asks for the Borgarting Court of Appeal puts all judgment against me from the Oslo District Court to side.
Here are Brynjar Meling its appeal type, which meant that it now gets a new trial in Borgating Court of Appeal here in Oslo. 09.00 Wednesday 5 April.
The Court of Appeal
* *
Referring to the Oslo district court's judgment in case number 15-073540MED-OTIR / 02 dated 01/25/16 with so's judgment:
1. Jan Kåre Christensen, b. 08/03/1964 sentenced for violation of the Criminal Code of 1902 §3-90 a to a bid of 12,000 - twelve thousand - million going to sit in jail for 20 - twenty - days.
2. Jan Kåre Christensen acquitted of restitution claim.
3. Jan Kåre Christensen judged on to pay costs to the public by 3000 - three thousand - respectively.
The verdict is proclaimed by promoted preaching in Oslo District Court on Friday 29.01.16 at. 09:30. The verdict was appealed by the ministry. Support Written notification by appeal deadline. The appeal is therefore timely.
Anke object.
The appeal application of the law and evidence application the question of guilt.
The factual side
The facts are on the whole not disputed, however, that Christensen points out that he has not repeated the concepts to such an extent as indicated by the aggrieved party. It appears in his testimony before the district court that it is rebuttal from aggrieved to Torp and people who speak Torp case that things have been repeated and generated.
It is not disputed that Christensen comes with the statements reproduced in the indictment. The contested nor that this has been going on over time. The details of the period and scope has no bearing on the legal. The court has indiscriminately added Torp's explanation on this point basis and have focused on this in his guilt assessment. The correct according to Christensen is that he has referred the matters in significantly fewer times and in all material so this has come as a response to articles that affects Christensen.
Generally these statements
It noted that the terms used is normative and based on Christensen's perception rendered. It should be noted that the terms live in words, "immoral" and "prostitute" are terms used in Bible translations, as it was presented to the district court with specific Bible references.
It points out that the term "leper" is also a Biblical expression that denotes it to be unclean and thus be excluded from society.
The reason for the conflict
It also pointed out that an item that background that Christensen "went to 'attack' 'on Torp, is a relationship that Torp in court acknowledged, where a young person, as Christensen perceive as" easy prey "should have given Torp everything he owned and had in terms of selling their house and at this render a donation consisting of almost 1.5 million. This was funds that Torp received and spent in their Christian, evangelical activities.
Christensen is clear that he can not find Torp living in accordance with its interpretation of the Bible. He believes that when Torp live by a form of double standards, where the life and teachings mismatched.
Deficiencies in the District Court's judgment
It may on occasion preceding paragraph mentioned that a defect in the Court's judgment is that the court does not have sufficiently emphasized that Torp is a public person, and must therefore have a higher tolerance limit for what he will accept the attack on his activity .
Moreover, neither the court paid sufficient attention that Torp acknowledged in court that he has called Christensen for "Anders Behring Breivik sympathizer" on a few occasions and has called him demon, light guide, rumor spreader, etc. Based on the principle of provocation retorsjon this in itself circumstances that would warrant an acquittal. Victim's contribution to the debate has in no way helped to reduce the level of conflict in the debate, so that the matter is the statements that contribute to raise what Torp must withstand the attack.

Of law appeal.
It is noted, however, that the central argument - and that principle by appeal - relates to the application of the 1902 Penal Code § 390 a. It is argued that to apply them at the blog, regardless how extensive a blog business is - in effect that the provision be subject for an expansive interpretation.
It is established law that the freedom of speech area rather must interpret a penal provision restrictively, if this provision conflicts with the Covenant obligations. In this case, the criminal code. § 390 a conflict with freedom of expression. In addition to being protected by the Constitution, further determine the Constitution. § 100, as is the Convention attached to the ECHR Art. 10 and SP art 18 and 19.
The court takes its decision a correct starting point by stating that the provision aimed at those who "by frightening or distressing behavior or other reckless behavior that infringes on another's peace."
The court uses the legislative history wrong. . 41 (1954-55) pp. 20-55 is itself a legal argument in favor of acquittal with a conviction. Referring to the allegations mentioned above, together with the legislative history says "the decision must be made concrete and circumstances of time, place and the victim's individual circumstances will affect the assessment". Moreover, it appears in the legislative history that "under the term 'nuisance behavior' go such vexatious phone calls.
It is a key element in both the legislative history that the relevant case law, it is pointed out activities aimed directly against a person; meaning that one call, send messages, or seek out people or its local area.This has not Jan Kåre Christensen made.
As shown by the Rt. 2014 p. 669 paragraphs 17-18, the "mind integrity" as protected by the provision and "only serious violations affected." The court discusses on page 5-6 defender's allegations that blog is not affected because it is not aimed directly at Torp. The court will still p. 6 that the posts are published on the Internet and concludes that this does not preclude the application of § 390 a. This is a formulation that would in itself may question whether or not involves a expansive interpretation of the wording of strl. § 390 a) and thus already at this point. Infringes clarity principle ECHR 7 and legality in grl. § 96.
Difficult it becomes when the court finds support for its view in the case law. Neither the Oslo District Court decision in 2013-111-859, RG 208-1499 or THEDM 2004-3964 may be cited for applying the criminal code. § 390 a on the blog. It's in both of these decisions, talk about actions that have just aimed more directly at people.
When the court additionally highlights that blog posts are open available for everyone and indexed so that they get hits on Torps one on search engines like Google, it shows precisely that one is outside the private sphere. It is not so that one can understand and interpret it as when "affected" can be regarded to have received the message when it came to his knowledge - since the accused's activity has such a scope and intensity that Torp and Christensen's case.
Here are making the right not only an expansive interpretation of the penal provision but they are "enough" is also the fact, which can be an equally strict violation of the principle of legality. The court uses RG 2008 p. 1499 as the basis for its position without any discussion or in any way argue why this is relevant. From here noted that in RG 2008 p. 1499 had convicted hung hundred posters in the victim's community, where the victim was named and given information that he was convicted. The fact of the matter is therefore - unlike the present case - that the defendant has sought aggrieved community and hung him out in public bulletin. This is nothing but adding this openly in a blog.
Here it may be noted that the court has disregarded in the fact that Torp's own activities have helped to disseminate information. It may on that occasion declared that the first mentioned Oslo district court's judgment against Christensen was Torp in his blog. It shows that there is no privacy Torp is committed to protecting by reporting Christensen but he does this as part of their "struggle". It is argued here that the judiciary should be careful not to let himself be used. That is why isolation right when the police have dismissed Christensen reviews from Torp, but it is thus wrong to maintain other way.
The court also brings into matters related to Torp's spouse. As pointed out by the defender in court would possibly Torp spouse privacy had a greater right to protection than Torp itself. Torp's spouse is not a public person, it is Torp. This is, however, beyond the fine.
Relationship to free speech protection in the Constitution. § 100 and ECHR. 10, SP art 18 and 19 are not properly considered by the Oslo District Court. The court refers to LB - 2015-24004 which states that "it is certainly clear that utterances in isolation are not punishable, may under the Penal Code 390 a. The condition is that they occur in a number and at times makes it particularly distressing for the recipient ".
This shows once again that basically incorrect. When Borgarting Court of Appeal in the case points out the number and times that make it "particularly troublesome" shows once again that the basic premise is that the inquiries must abide directly against a person. Reference to Rt. 2010, p. 845 in the relevant Court of Appeal judgment shows that it concerns direct contact. In Rt. 2010, p. 845, we are facing a case where the chairman of the Immigration Tribunal received repeated SMS messages with insulting and threatening content.
Further details on the legal

It follows from the criminal code. § 1, 2.ledd, that the criminal law applies to any restrictions imposed by agreements with foreign states or of international law in general. Christensen has therefore protection as well ECHR 10 SP art 18 and 19.
His statements are also protected by the Constitution § 100. It follows already of Gujrat Judgment Rt. 1976 p.1. that the constitutional provisions governing the individual's personal liberty must have impact that is significant.
It is argued that the District Court's interpretation of the statements, means that the judgment result is contrary to the principle of legality, clarity principle and judgment result violates Jan Kåre Christensen of religion and freedom of expression.
The Court has in several decisions highlighted that freedom of expression is one of the absolutely fundamental elements of the basis for a democratic society. It is emphasized that this freedom not only includes the right to submit statements that are favorably received or regarded harmless, or minor, but also statements that are offensive, shocking or disturbs.
In Oslo District Court decision is not the stringent requirements of the grounds for restriction of freedom of expression met. Although there is only one remedy matters, there is no proportionality between the procedure and the purpose of this.
After EMD practice must exceptions speech subjected to a restrictive interpretation, see. That it must be "necessary". A central element of necessity assessment is whether there is an urgent social need for the procedure - "pressing social need". Referring to the so-called "Spycatcher" judge, Serie A # 216, judgment paragraph 60, and 217, the judgment section 50.
In Christensen's case must be weighed against all of the adjudicated claims are his views on theological issues, or provocations made against either him or his faith.
When the Supreme Court majority in Kjuus Judgment Rt. 1997 s 1821 finds that the statements are not protected by freedom of expression, this ia based on the following:
"I can not see that the right to form a political party can be inferred that groups that do this, and dons their positions form of a manifesto, should be free to agitate for any vision, whatever interventions it had to involve over others people."
For Christensen - as sites of their right to make statements, protected as well religious freedom as freedom of expression, this is different. He advocates a view that - though it is rare now - has stood for centuries, and that is not expressed that "he dons his stances form of a religion".
It is also argued that the statements came as part of a public debate. A debate that whoever statements frames also participated in, and reciprocated. Such a debate is protected by freedom of speech under the Constitution L-100 which weighs very heavily. Allowing the utterances of a party and deprive the victim of his remarks, the right to speak out will in itself be contrary to freedom of expression
Should criminal code § 390 a used in this case, it will only be done by an expanding interpretation of the law - which is impossible, cf. Legality of the Constitution § 96 .
It is clearly evident in jurisprudence that interpretation must not only be based on how the general belongs will perceive the statements, see. Plenary ruling in Rt-1997-1821 (Kjuus). but one
"Must also see the statements in light of the context in which they have emerged."
It appears here that the statements are normative, emerged in a blog debate between people who share faith, and with references to external's perception of a common creed.
On the interpretation of the statements says Eggen Norwegian Law Review 1998 p 263:
"For utters becomes jurisprudence as little predictability whether one" relaxes "the criminal liability conditions or interpreting utterances freely so that they are aligned with these terms. One of the main objectives behind legality in Norwegian law, and in allfall law requirement ECHR is to ensure predictability in the application of law.
He continues later on the same page:
"When legality sets limits on how far the contextual interpretation of the Criminal Code it is acceptable to go, it would be inconsistent if the courts were to stand freely in contextual interpretation of utterances"
The consideration of both legality and freedom of expression implies that there are clear limits to how far one can go in if interpretation meaning and circumstances of the statements that are not directly stated or acknowledged.
Straight Safety, particularly ensuring predictability, is accented in Rt. 2002, p. 1618. consideration to freedom of expression implies
"That no one should be able to risking criminal liability by the statement attributed to a meaning that is not expressly stated nor with reasonable certainty can be inferred from the context"
Reference is also made to Eggen, Law and 1998 s 264 which gives rise to another consideration:
"A free interpretation involves besides less predictability of law also greater opportunity for censorship from the Court file of speech they dislike, perhaps for reasons other than those behind the penal provision"
Interpreted as religious expressions and interpretations of the Bible's view of remarriage, can not utterances judged. When court excludes the interpretation option, then "pushes" one statement outside the core area of the Constitution § 100 of free speech.
Rt 2002, p. 1618 Boot Boys judgment is thus relevant. "Boot Boys" was a neo-Nazi fighting organization, as a Saturday morning on the square in Askim performed an appeal with support for Hitler on the occasion of Rudolf Hess's 100th day.
"Every day rob, rape and kill immigrants Norwegians, every day our people and country are being plundered and destroyed by Jews, who suck our country empty of wealth and replace it with immoral and un-Norwegian thoughts." The appeal ended with "Sieg full- and Hitler greetings. "
Boot Boys' leader Terje Sjølie was acquitted. The statements were found to be derived from a political program rather than being specific threats. Several of those in attendance were dressed in finland hoods, and the demonstration was a militaristic combat fascist nature. The statements fell in front of immigrants who made their errands in Askim. Christensen's statements come in response to the actions that he believes is in dtrid with God's word. Statements fall in Blog where most statements are in response to charges from persons Christensen perceive as mouthpiece for Torp. . Sjølis statements fell unprovoked against innocent people.
clarity requirement
Whether expanding the wording of the law, or the meaning of that statement, you come in conflict with the clarity requirement and legality. The Supreme Court has the 02.08.2012 handed down a ruling in which clarity principle being discussed:

Clarity The requirement has been expressed in several decisions of the Supreme Court, including the decision in Rt-2011-469, in which the question was whether the provision in the Penal Code § 219 also applied in relation to former cohabitants, although the legal text only referred to former spouses. Section 9 states:
'Such an extension of the criminal liability, compared with what follows from the wording of § 219, must be authorized by law.
I refer to the Constitution § 96 and ECHR Article 7, ref. Rt-2009-780 Section 21. Penalties Dignity, or other real reasons that may justify to juxtapose previously cohabiting with former spouses, is not sufficient. '
Then comes something that is central to the Christensen case that are not sufficiently emphasized by the court
The Court of Appeal for its part, notes that the requirement for clear statutory basis for criminal liability not least will be significant in cases where penal provision implies a restriction of freedom of speech
Under section 18 comes the Supreme Court with his views.
As the Court of Appeal points out, have basically the assessment be a requirement for clear legal applicable in criminal cases, cf. The Constitution § 96 and ECHR Article 7. It appears to Rt-2011-469, section 9, quoted in the Court of Appeal ruling.
This is elaborated in Rt-2012-313 paragraph 29, which states:
"It is nevertheless not decisive what the legislature might have intended, when any legislator's intention has not been clearly expressed in the law. I refer to the law's requirement of the Constitution § 96 and ECHR Article 7, so this is understood partly in Rt-2011-469. Of particular interest are paragraphs 9 and 12 of the judgment, in which it emphasized that the criminality of need resulting from the law, and that a lack of support in the wording is not cured by that relationship is clearly worthy of punishment, and that the legislator undoubtedly wanted to frame it. "
Secondarily - restrictive interpretation of the provisions
It submits alternatively, that if the appellate court finds that the statements violate privacy, for a common interpretation of the legal provisions of the criminal code. § 390 A, and that the district court did not have extended interpretation of the statements in a way that is contrary to the ECHR 7 and Constitution. § 96, as follows from the criminal code. § 1, paragraph 2, that the interests of Christensen's rights - and our commitments - under ECHR and SP on the safeguarding of the individual's freedom of religion and freedom of expression, imply that the criminal code. § 390 a) in cases where religion and freedom of speech are violated, must be interpreted narrowly.
Emphasis for this down so
P to stand:
Jan Kåre Christensen acquitted

Final Comment:
Pray for me, and especially Brynjar Meling Wednesday 5 April. Where judges realize that the whole case against me is based on an error in law.
So they put the incorrect and rigid judgment from Oslo District Court is set aside and annulled dear faithful friends!
Related links:

onsdag 22. mars 2017

No. 1508: That apparent that many do not support me and the Heavenly blog, is because we keep the standard and the doctrine that God's word requires of New Testament Christians!

No. 1508:
That apparent that many do not support me and the Heavenly blog, is because we keep the standard and the doctrine that God's word requires of New Testament Christians!
Isaiah 5. 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Many people think that I go around and smålei me and feel so much. But the truth is that I feel better than ever. Look clearer and earlier everything that revolves around the spiritual.
But that's not to say that I want it that way. Anyone who preaches the word of God wishes well most support. And most possible to listen to than? But unfortunately, man is such that it turns either to lie than the truth.
Therefore I am not surprised nor over what has happened and happens, that it is the "profane" and unbiblical Christian message that wins more and more ground and entry.
This said both Jesus and all the prophets in the Old Testament and all the apostles in the New Testament were to happen!
But at the same time, I encourage every believer to have me for example. Of course I have my faults and shortcomings, but look at me. the standard and the life I lead, that's what leads if you want to serve the Lord and will go to heaven! 
Therefore, want me to model. Here is an article I wrote on this topic a few years back.

Nr. 416:
Have ME as models that I have Christ as model!

The Christian church has always needed role models, as I follow Christ, follow him in the same way my dear friend and you will be blessed by God the Father!

1 Cor. 11. 1. Be my imitators, as I follow after Christ!

My experience with the faithful is depressing!

Of course it is always dangerous to sit over others. But God calls us to a life of discipleship, not we go on the road, we are not what God intended and meant for our lives. Allows you the standard and the points on which the in Christian Norway and elsewhere in the Western world form the basis of your life as a believer will end with your life in hell I am much afraid for. What is the earliest is not widely accepted by sin, error learning, tolerance, lukewarmness, indifference, and whatever it means to be? I have mentioned these glaring examples, but it's not just that. The entire Norwegian Christianity is pampered into a spiritual sleep, and gain weight either. It's certainly not easy as they think they are awake, but asleep. That they are seeing, but are spiritual blind. Just as the church in Laodicea.

The opposite is people like me and some others who have not bowed to Baal!

1 Kgs. 19. 18 But I will leave seven thousand in Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal, and all that has not kissed him with her mouth.

For the prophet who felt alone, he was not. It was only a spiritual "illusion." The reality and the truth was that it was 7000 besides himself who had not bowed the knee and heart for Ball, who was an idol. There are probably as many in Norway and elsewhere in the Western world where apostasy and deception prevails because standing with the Lord. They know to refuse the belief in a so-called Christian triadegud, do not think that God will torment but destroy the infidels as he did with Sodom and Gomorrah. And they know that the remarriage of believers are not allowed in the new covenant that we live as believers today, and other precious truths as hold on. As a precious gift given from God.

See that you do not fall dear friend, it is very easy to trip and fall.

1 Cor. 10. 12 Therefore, whoever thinks he left, he was sure that he does not fall!

I am fully aware that it is possible to rise above others, be smug, judgmental etc. Yet scripture speaks to be imitators of God, have Christ as their model, and to have other believers as an example. It is to me incredible that such. Pastor Jan Hanvold can get any support among believers. What does this mean? I do not understand that so-called serious preachers can support him. Believers people give in to the Vision Norway within one year almost 100 Mill, why and how? Is it because Hanvold live a pure and spiritual life? He lives in open sin, how can one support him and believe that God has support case? There are so selvmotsiggende that even those who are spiritually blind should have known better, right? I've talked to a lot who say they support Hanvold and Vision Norway regularly. They say very often so he does so much good, why they support him. But it is not manipulation? We look Hanvold and Vision Norway know how they can get into their message, the marketer and exposes them. One day it is the poor in Moldova, which are profiled laid out on the screen. Who could turn away without knowing in his heart that they need help? Then there is Israel etc. But what use is it to support a person living in sin, is corrupt and living well on naive and gullible fight people who think they by sending money to Vision Norway is not also support Hanvold thereby supporting than adulterer? It is as if there is the least common denominator? A support Hanvold, then everything else allowed!

God's people have a "clown understanding" of God's word!

1 Tim. 3. 10 Also these should be tried first, and afterward they shall serve in the church, if they are blameless.

There are those who are blameless in the service of the church teaches writing. There are those who "get" it. It's not about being good, better and best. But God will also have ones for themselves. Than can come to God as a loser, but a winner. Here everything is turned on its head, right? In fact, the normal and the word of God teaches, it is the preachers who takes care of his first wife, not wife number two, three or more as to cover the pulpit. But those who live as they preach, not preach one thing and live something completely different! In many ways you could say that Christian Norway, Old-boys series, and not in league with the standard than manifest! Both in life and teachings, preaching and teaching. By publicly accept those living in open sin, and do not take care of those who live and preach the word of God. It is unfortunately a neglected, boycotts line and contempt for those who go all the way with the Lord, and not haying on some points from the word of God. The apostle Paul said he preached the whole counsel of God for salvation!

My desire has always been and is to please the Lord, and He alone!

1 Tim. 3. 15 careful to prepare thyself to God as one approved, a workman who does not have anything to be ashamed of, as you rightly teach the word of truth.

Evangelist Emanuel Minos and other prophesy and supports the false prophets and the apostles at the time, they do it blindfolded? Before Eg. the false apostle January Aage Torp was separated as Minos prophesied over him that he should have a church here in Oslo ala Kensington Temple in London. Torp divorced, and what did he do next? He had such great prophecies of his life by himself Emanuel Minos and others. When Torp got the chance, he showed to everyone what was in his heart. When he married absconds again, with one that is 20 years younger than him. This is so carnal, sickening and disgusting! At Minos set up for him, even when he married again shows me that the whole Christian Norway is more or less corrupt, deceived and misled. Such procedures are the only way to tackle the teacher writing, turning away from them and leave them in the custody of Satan, so if they can find repentance. No support or defend such extreme actions in the light of God's word! I am so glad that I have had from my youth that setting if I will be preaching, I will live then. And if I do not make it, so let me come up with anything other than preaching and teaching. At Torp, Minos, Hanvold and peers do not withdraw from ministry immediately spur testify to a strong delusion of their lives! And those who support these "services" are also brought back the same light and sharing in their delusion! Scripture speaks of, "be careful to prepare thyself to God as one approved, a workman who does not have anything to be ashamed of, as you rightly teach the word of truth." It is this that is the template, nothing less. We as preachers have exams every day, we live in accordance with God's word? Homily we and we learn in accordance with God's word? We should not just live and preach in accordance with God's word, but also be filled with God's Spirit and be led by God. Can not see that Christianity in Norway, as the example. Not unison warns against false teachers in time!

Living and preach like me, as I live and preach as the first apostles!

1 Thess. 2. 10 You are witnesses, and God, how holy and righteous and blameless we behaved ourselves among you that believe.

It is clear that it is possible to live and preach that the first Christians. Now I do not mean we should put a sheet over the blueprint, we must live our lives today based on the time and the conditions we have today. Then we can not forget the words of God, but follow God's word to one and all, and carefully. The Lord has given His commandments for us to follow them carefully, or? Opposition from the world is massive, seductive and we always lead us away from Christ and God's word. Which side do you choose? I and my family have chosen to live and preach the word of God teaches in one and all and as far as we see, not more or less!

Final Comment: It is said that dangerous to get too cocky, but it's just as dangerous, if not more dangerous and dill and dale with sin and heresy! At Emanuel Minos and many others have chosen the road, it makes me even more certain about one thing. Jan Kåre, stick to Christ and God's word and it will take it incredibly well in this and the next life. I heard a talk by Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chappel in Los Angeles who told me about when he eventually experienced success in the church. Then there was another Pastor who reproached him and said: "If God can bless Chuck Smith, then he may bless all!". This is a truth, God does not have a special blessing for some of us really. There is so much we all follow Christ, let him win the likeness and entry into our lives. That blessing, restoration and favor of God resting upon our lives. I follow Christ, something I've done for over 30 years. If you follow me, follow Christ. If you follow Emanuel Minos, Jan Aage Torp, Jan Hanvold etc. So follow not Christ - but Satan! The choice is yours, through what I write, reports, and speeches. So you will be informed of the truth, to take a position on that which you unfortunately do not usually hear in most churches. But this is what God would have said in this time. Being so sensitive, close your heart to lie. Open your heart to Christ, the Word of God and what is taught here. And God will bless, lift you up and let you share in the power of the world and blessing that I and my family have been part of it. God is no respecter of anybody, Hallelujah and Amen! Satan does not have a special curse for some he. It's just turning away from Christ and the word of God Evangelist Emanuel Minos and peers have done. And to experience the blessing, it is impossible? No, God bless Chuck Smith, me and many others. So you and he will bless and strengthen you too dear friend. Turn your whole heart - daily - to Christ and His Word. Refrain from all evil, did not take part in it. Follow the light and conviction you have. Chair Above anything else on God's word! Follow those who live and preach the word of God. Turning away from them that it does! Blessings, joy and all the good will and going to fall to your life as it has accrued to my life! It is all about staying close to God, be in God's word, then you will experience, and experience the word of God speaks. The Christian life is not hocus pocus! It is Christ. It is God's word, it is to succeed and walk in the footsteps of those who follow Christ and follow than Christ, then follow than God's word. It is wonderful with prophecies, incentives etc. But is the word of God? Everything revolves around this one, follow Christ and His Word as I follow Christ and God's word. This is cramming, but I want to make this as simple and clear as possible. God has only one blessing - and it's more than big enough! It is Christ. And to the extent we follow him, then blessing, joy and everything good into our lives. Amen!

Related links: