Gospel of John

Something got my attention when I listened to Barnhardt podcast.  She said something to the effect that the church is demon possessed, or something close to that.  ( pardon me if I got that wrong, but it sounded like that).

It sounded like John 8:39 - 44.  Imagine some very self-righteous people being called devils, and you get the picture.  What did they do?  They were going to stone Jesus then and there, but he "hid himself" in the Temple.

Let's get back to our current time, and compare it with how liberals act when they are criticized in their own "temples", so to speak.  Do they not get violent?

By the way, I have mentioned the Gospel of John several times on this blog.  I used the search tool and found out that it was a lot more than I could remember.  After all, that is why the tool is there.  I want to see what I have written before, and there it is.  I got nearly twenty hits on that phrase.

Furthermore, I recall seeing ( recently, but I cannot cite where ) that the Apostle John ran away from deceptive people.  He couldn't get away fast enough.

Truth is a very strong anti-dote for evil.  But evil hates the truth.  It is dangerous to even say the truth about an evil person to his face.

There is some powerful stuff in that podcast.  When you have the "anti-Pope" being accused of being a party to murder, that is pretty powerful stuff.  However, I wrote earlier today that people today don't even want to know the truth.  What is more dangerous then, speaking the truth, or not seeing the truth at all?  If a piano was about to fall on your head, wouldn't you like to know it, so you could step out of the way?

Wouldn't you like to know if your "Pope" is a murderer or not?  Wouldn't you like to know if your President hates the country he leads ( this is Obama, not Trump )?  Why would you NOT want to know this?  Wouldn't it be better to "see the light" than to be blind?

Update ( a little later... ):

One more thing... Barnhardt says that there was a witness to all of the wrongful behavior of this anti-Pope.   This witness isn't considered credible by the news media because.... she was a prostitute.  The witness was found dead under suspicious circumstances... Let's see...  Is Stormy Daniels credible, then????  If the morality of a person is in question, then why run with Stormy Daniels' story????

To me, this means that the media cares nothing for the truth.  After all, a blockbuster story like that should be of interest to them, but strangely enough, it isn't.  Why is that?