‘Christian Nationalism’ debunked/refuted

Orange Bolshevist insider theocrats are 100% Satanically evil, just not for the *exact* reasons leftists commonly assume.

Since an incoming horde of mangomongers will soon usurp the civic and military power of the Greatest Nation In The World™, get ready for a chockful truckload of “Christian Nationalist” propaganda from the Jesuit-Zionist controlled assets on the political “right.” Here’s yet another deep dive dismantling reactionary propaganda:

I: kingdom on earth?

Let’s look at what the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ answered Pontius Pilate at the Sadducee-organized witchhunt/show trial:¹

Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Should be relatively straightforward—God’s² kingdom is not of this sinfully dilapidated, morally abominable, and otherwise down-to-the-core rotten planet. So give zero heed to anyone who tries to convince you that the men of this earth have the right to create a “Christian government representing God’s values.” Not only do they completely fail to honor God’s commandments the same way that Pharisaic class in Jesus’s earthly generation never kept the Torah laws³ (wow, STILL nothing new under the sun?⁴ Completely and utterly sad!), but this is a blasphemously presumptuous usurpation of authority—Paul’s Pastoral teachings make this one point blatant:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Symbolically, a woman represents a church,⁵ and “the man” is Jesus Christ.⁶ Simply put, the Christian church is not allowed to usurp the authority of God. It was the Son who received the anointing of power,⁷ who is committed all judgment⁸ and given to His hand “all things,”⁹ and who is the lawgiver.¹⁰ For any so-called “Christian” to claim the right of deposing secular governments and installing a Christian theocracy in the name of God is rank blasphemy of one of the highest orders (rivaling or second to the Nazijews Holocausting the people of Palestine under the name of “Judaism”).

As Jesus said (and I somewhat paraphrase), “no one pours new wine into old wineskins lest the new wine burst the skins, and both the wine and wineskins will be destroyed. Rather, new wine belongs in new wineskins.”¹¹ Therefore as a logical analogy, the New Jerusalem¹² as the true Zion¹³ (cf. this Stack for details) and kingdom of God cannot be sustained in this sinful earthly kingdom, because the light of God¹⁴ is 316%¹⁵ incompatible with the dark occultic/esoteric wickedness of mankind’s rulers.¹⁶ Can a room be both bright and dark simultaneously? Nay—if you shine the light, the darkness is instantly extinguished. Likewise to establish the kingdom of God on the planet necessitates the annihilation of all sin and its unrepentant practictioners. The brightness of the Lord’s coming¹⁷ will—simply put—utterly consume the planet. Cf. Matt. 24:¹⁸

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Let’s check Romans 13 also—could not the Apostle Paul be any more clear?¹⁹

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Now yes, some of you are going to pull a Godwin and say “but what about all the people who lived in Germany when Hitler was in power??” Well, the very fascist incursion into power was premised on revolutionary overthrow of legitimate governments—IOWs, violating the injunction made by Paul in Romans 13. Obviously it should be clear to any actual Bible-believing Christian that they are expected to conform to imposed civic laws so long as they don’t directly interfere with keeping God’s commandments. The government mandating your paying of taxes is not the same as the government mandating your partaking in a war crime unit slaughtering innocents. A law ordering you to put on a face mask at a public space is not the equivalent of a law forcing you to work on the Sabbath and rest on Sunday (I’ll get to this in sec. III).

II: ‘seventy times seven’

A common overarching theme of zealous(ly incorrect) CNers is that evil worldly governments must go and be replaced by godly Christian governance. However, as you read above, Paul says all ordained worldly governments are given power by God, and that to resist those powers is to defy God’s ordinance. So then, why would a righteous and merciful God allow His own obedient children to suffer under “atheistic-Democrat-secular-commie-gay-liberal-woke-Cultural-Marxist-globalist-Trotskyite-WEF-internationalist-Klaus-Schwab-Soros-funded” regimes and allow obviously sinister regimes to stand for such harrowingly long durations of time?

The answer lies in the Bible (you know, the very book ‘Christian’ Nationalists know next to zilch about while pretending to exposit its values)—scroll back to the First Book of Moses (Genesis) for a clear-cut answer:²⁰

And the Lord said unto [Cain], Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Got that? After Cain murdered Abel in cold blood, he laments that the application of justice would result in his own early demise. And so God in His sheer mercy—that all may come to salvation²¹ rather than perish²²—provided a leeway of probationary leniency to Cain and his wicked descendants. Remember now that the divine standard of justice for mankind given to Noah after the Flood was:²³

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

You cannot have both equality of standards and equity of outcome: either one standard of justice is applied equally and the wicked are appropriately punished, or to ensure equity of outcome (in terms of persisting in daily life “normally”) double standards of leniency must be given to the doers of evil. God in His desire for the abominable murderer Cain and his line to repent therefore gave him the mark of Cain that essentially corresponds to temporal earthly power over civic institutions and governance. And what did Cain’s descendant Lamech declare?²⁴

If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy times sevenfold.

Indeed, Lamech was utterly arrogant, depraved, and reprobate to the point of presuming the right and authority to expand Cain’s sevenfold protection into a “seventy times sevenfold” shield from punishment after committing a murder. Just keep this in mind: God gave Cain a sevenfold protection, and Cain’s even more grotesque descendant Lamech expanded this into “seventy times seven.”

Let’s examine this dialogue exchange between Peter and Jesus:²⁵

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

Notice that Jesus did NOT say to forgive “infinitely,” but rather at a seemingly finite limit—seventy times seven. See also as a parallel that just as Cain’s sevenfold protection from reprisal was exapnded by Lamech into seventy times sevenfold, here Peter asks if he must forgive up to seven times and Jesus replies “not seven, but seventy times seven”? This is obviously no coincidence: that extent to which the wicked are given power and space to transgress against the righteous is the exact same extent to which the righteous are commanded to forgive the wicked—seventy times seven. The other place you find this number in the Bible is at the ninth chapter of the Book of Daniel:²⁶

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Seventy weeks = “seventy times seven” days. The Jewish nation’s final probation was this “seventy times seven”-fold duration lasting from 457 B.C. into 34 A.D.—after the Jewish nation still refused to repent, eventually came its final demise in 70 A.D. when the Roman army destroyed the Second Temple.

IOWs, wicked, ungodly regimes exist on the planet because Jehovah Himself grants them a generous leeway of probation according to the “seventy times seven” demand of Lamech. Once that seventy times seven is up, God will execute the long-deserved destruction of the evil empire, but until then they exist because God allows them to. Hence for “Christian” Nationalists (CNutjobs) to assume a right of deposing such governments any earlier constitutes a rebellion against divine authority.

III: Sabbath vs. Sunday

The biggest lie swallowed by the vast majority of modern Christianity is the perception that the New Testament authorized a “change” of the weekly day of rest from the seventh-day Sabbath (a.k.a. the day known as “Saturday”) to the first day of the week (Sunday). CNutjobs of course not only buy into this common delusion, yet would like to reinforce mandatory “Sunday observance” on the entire population:²⁷

Not only does this neofascistic wannabe theocracism contradict the lamb-like principles of individual liberty and freedom of conscience, but the very notion of Sunday worship as a biblical doctrine is based on massive lies.

Round I: Lord’s Day

The Apostle, Evangelist, and Revelator John testifies in the first chapter of the Book of Revelation this (commonly cited) passage:²⁸

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Typically at this point the Sunday apologists claim the early Christians observed the first day of the week on a weekly communion basis because they assume “Lord’s Day” constitutes an automatic reference to Sunday. However, the text doesn’t say that—all it reads is “Lord’s day” without any direct indication on which exact day it is. Let’s solve this puzzle, shall we?

Let’s examine what the prophet Isaiah had to declare:²⁹

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on MY HOLY DAY; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Observe and take critical note right here: God’s message relayed by Isaiah to the children of Israel during the First Temple is that His (the LORD God Jehovah) holy day is the seventh-day Sabbath. Centuries later, the Son of God incarnate in the flesh told his Pharisaic critics:³⁰

The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

When the argument reaches this far, Sunday Shills will invariably blurt without any evidence whatsoever that the New Testament by command of Jesus Christ authorized a change of the day of observance from the seventh-day Sabbath to the first day of the week because “the cross changed everything.” However, this is merely their personal interpretation based on man-made “hermeneutical” rules found nowhere in the Scriptures—remember what the Bible says?³¹

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came NOT in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Would God ever change the LORD’s Day from the seventh-day Sabbath to the first day of the week then? Well, let’s see:³²

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Old Testament substantiation isn’t good enough for you? Here’s the Apostle Paul’s³³ letter to the Hebrews quoting the Psalms:³⁴

And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: they shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

Here’s what one might deem a slam dunk:³⁵

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Can it be any more clear? The New Testament never anywhere implies that the Lord Jesus Christ altered the weekly day of rest, observance, and communion from the seventh to the first, because God’s ways and thoughts—higher than that of man’s just as the heavens are higher than the earth³⁶—do not change. Jesus told his “inner four” Apostles Andrew, Peter, James, and John:³⁷

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

Round II: Resurrection Sunday

This is probably the most common talking point: “Jesus rose on the first day of the week, therefore Sunday is the new weekly day of observance!” Except the New Testament never states this anywhere. It is 100% true that Jesus was resurrected on the first day of the week, but this has nothing to do with Sunday as a weekly day of rest.

Commonly misunderstood in the context of this debate on the Sunday Shill side are the different biblical meanings of the numbers 7 and 8—sevenfold manifestations represent completion, while eight represents new beginnings (as continuing right after a completed sevenfold timeline/system). The Sabbath day of rest is on the seventh day of the week as one day of rest after six days of laborious work to refresh the human mind and body to prepare for a new week. The “eighth” or “first” day in the context of the weekly cycle (Shemeni Atzeret is a completely different story, so please don’t even think about invoking the “Feast of Tabernacles Eighth Day” argument believing I’ll be stumped, LOL) carries no intrinsic connotation to rest, rather new beginnings because it marks the fresh start of a new week, leaving the past one behind to start on a new page. The Sabbath/Fourth commandment in the Second Book of Moses orders God’s adherent followers to work six days a week and rest on the seventh³⁸—this therefore proves Sunday is to authentic sola scriptura Bible believers a day of work, not a day of rest.

The numerical symbolism of why Jesus rose on the first day of the week is a meaningful study: when the Last Supper took place as Jesus announced the cup holding the blood of the new testament,³⁹ it was already (past) sunset.⁴⁰ Therefore, even while it was “Thursday,” because the event transpired after the setting of the sun it was already the sixth day of the week. On that sixth day of the week—six representing the number of man and particularly man’s sinful hubris against the divine—the Lamb of God as the passover⁴¹ was sacrificed on the cross as a substitutory atonement, fulfilling these heavy words of Isaiah:⁴²

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Immediately subsequent on that Friday when the Lord Jesus died on the cross, by the time Joseph of Arimathea and the women arrived they made sure to quickly wrap His body in linen and bury it lest the work continue into the Sabbath day.⁴³ On the seventh day Jesus was still in the tomb, or as Peter clarifies in Acts 2,⁴⁴ “hell” (Koine Greek: Hades, a.k.a. the grave/abode of the dead)—IOWs, “asleep”⁴⁵ in the grave. The on the “eighth”/first day of the week, after that fateful week wherein He suffered on the cross to die in the place of humanity that the lost sheep of the planet may find hope of reconciliation with the Chief Shepherd through repentance and grace by faith, the Father raised Christ from the grave⁴⁶ and transferred unto Him an eternal Lordship⁴⁷ over the universe, that first day of the week marking a new beginning.

So in actual fact, the Resurrection does not abrogate the seventh-day Sabbath but rather affirms its standing, continuing validity, because Jesus Himself entered into a perfect rest on that “Great Sabbath” in His earthly death between the cross and Resurrection, 100% asleep and resting from conscious sorrows that 24 hours. It is also clear that on Resurrection Sunday Jesus clearly did not rest as any Jew would on the Sabbath when considering the Road to Emmaus:⁴⁸

And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.

…

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

What a long journey that must’ve been! Clearly Jesus had no intention of treating Resurrection Sunday as a Sabbath-esque day of rest. If one intends on following the example of Jesus Christ the Lord, then obviously the corollary is to rest on the seventh-day Sabbath and treat the first day of the week as one of work.

Round III: ‘but the cross put an end to the Mosaic Law!!’

[note: the phrase “the law” in the NT is synonymous with the entire Torah/Pentateuch]

The common argument deployed here is that the Mosaic Law and grace by Jesus Christ are polar opposites and therefore with salvation by grace, the need for observing the law is abrogated. However, this is not only Gnostic dualist propaganda but completely and utterly incorrect. Paul says on the matter:⁴⁹

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

And again:⁵⁰

Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

What is sin? The First Epistle of John answers this question plainly:⁵¹

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

And did the cross abrogate any part of the law? Jesus Himself said:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

When does heaven and earth pass [away]? Once again, we have a clear answer:⁵²

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

IOWs, at the Second Coming. So until then—for all that matters—the entire Torah remains binding and intact as the holy law of God. (yes, this also means Christians are not supposed to eat pork and shellfish, ought to observe the feast days in antitypical form, etc. etc.) This IOWs means in turn the Sabbath commandment is also binding upon Bible-believing saved Christians. Nowhere does the New Testament state anywhere that the law is abolished. The common misunderstanding of Galatians concerning the law arises from an age-old erroneously ambiguous conflation between being “under the law” and living according to the law. To be under the law is the equivalent of being condemned by the law—to whom the law speaks, it addresses those [guilty] “under” it,⁵³ a.k.a. transgressors:⁵⁴

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Remember that I John passage which couldn’t have provided a sharper definition of sin as the “transgression of the law”?

(on a parallel note, there’s also a common misunderstanding of Col. 2:14 and Eph. 2:15 over the Koine Greek word translated “ordinances” (the more concise and literal rendition would be “dogma” AFAIK) but that’s for another discussion since the Sabbath isn’t even part of the ceremonial “ordinances”)

Round IV: ‘but Acts 20:7’

Here is the passage:

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The common assertion of Sunday Shills is that because the disciples not only met on the first day (with the day of the week specified), but that they also “broke bread,” it must have been a communion and therefore weekly gathering proving the day of convocation was transferred from the seventh to the first.

Except… just because they broke bread on a Sunday does not prove a consistent weekly communion that day of the week. In Acts 2, the disciples are documented as breaking bread as part of a DAILY routine of preaching and ministering.⁵⁵ Also in Acts 27, Paul breaks bread but there is no mention of the day of the week nor is there any signified context—as far as I’m aware, do correct me if I’m wrong—that it occurred on a weekly day of rest.⁵⁶

Round V: ‘but I Corinthians 16:2’

Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Note that here Paul says “that there be NO gatherings when I come.” IOWs, the context here has nothing to do with the notion of collecting donations at a church service. Once again, the Sunday observance argument falls flat.

Conclusion: CNers are embarrassingly dead-wrong on the ‘religion’ they seek to impose on nonbelievers

It’s the equivalent of a child imagining himself a botanical expert of fruit after binge-eating his collected Halloween stash of Sour Patch and Jolly Ranchers. Except of course that little children are typically incapable of consciously blundering gaffes on such a massive level in contrast to grown adults trying to impose upon others a religion they themselves prove unable to factually comprehend.

Also:⁵⁷

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

If neofascistic theocrats read, understood, and lived according to the Bible, they wouldn’t remain neofascistic theocrats. That they steadfastly refuse to conduct a meaningful about-face and repent is more than revealing of their true colors.

Verdict: ‘Christian’ Nationalism is of antichrist, not Jesus Christ

The final question to humanity before probation closes will (probably) be this: will you obey the commandments of the living God, or the commandments of sinful men calling themselves “Christian Nationalists” who steal, lie, violate, murder, extort, call good evil and evil good, devise manipulative PRS psyops, and tell you to observe the syncretistic pagan/papal day of the sun instead of the seventh-day Sabbath? Who will you serve? The eternal living God who created you in His image and sent His dear Son to die for your sins that you may have access to redemption, or the power-grabbing despots of this world whose father is the originator of lies and who maliciously dupe you to advance their ulterior elitism?

“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” —Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

“There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee:
neither is there any rock like our God.” —I Samuel 2:2

“Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.”
—Psalm 119:142

1. Jn. 18:33-36.

2. I Tim. 3:16 says “God was manifested in the flesh,” affirming the divinity of Jesus Christ. Gnostic-corrupted Alexandrian and Vulgate texts remove the explicit mention of “God” to validate the Arian heresy.

3. Jn. 7:19.

4. Ecc. 1:9b.

5. Eph. 5:22-33.

6. I Tim. 2:5-6.

7. Acts 10:38.

8. Jn. 5:22-23.

9. Jn. 13:3.

10. Jas. 4:12.

11. Mk. 2:22; Matt. 9:17; Lk. 5:37-38.

12. Rev. 3:12, 21:2. (← yes, those two passages correspond chiastically in the Book of Revelation)

13. Remember, “Zionism” appropriates Zion the same way the DPRK calls itself a “democracy,” Antifa is “antifascist,” Nazis are “socialist,” mango-shilling Orange Bolshevists wanting to annex Canada are “anti-globalist,” (oxy)moronic word game duplicity yada yada yada.

14. Cf. Jn. 8:12, I Jn. 1:5.

15. Yes, this is a reference to the verse you’re thinking of. :)

16. Cf. Isa. 45:19; Mal. 3:5.

17. Cf. II Thess. 2:7-10.

18. Matt. 24:26-27.

19. Rom. 13:1-4.

20. Gen. 4:15.

21. I Tim. 2:4.

22. Cf. Jn. 3:14-16.

23. Gen. 9:6.

24. Gen. 4:24 (GNV).

25. Matt. 18:21-22.

26. Dan. 9:24.

27. Matthew Hendley (Mar. 26, 2015), “Video: Arizona Lawmaker Suggests Law Requiring Attendance at Church,” Phoenix New Times.

28. Rev. 1:10-11.

29. Isa. 58:13-14.

30. Mk. 2:27-28. (cf. Matt. 12:8; Lk. 6:5)

31. II Pet. 1:19-21.

32. Mal. 3:6.

33. From a TR/KJV standpoint, Pauline authorship is rather blatantly indicated by v. 3:1 reading “Christ Jesus,” a typical signature mark of the Apostle. Both the Alexandrian manuscripts and Latin Vulgate—compromised by Marcionite anti-Jewish bias—remove “Christ” from that passage and thereby undermine the evidence that the Epistle to the Hebrews was penned by Paul.

34. Ps. 102:25-27; Heb. 1:10-12.

35. Heb. 13:8.

36. Isa. 55:9.

37. Mk. 13:31; Matt. 24:35; Lk. 21:33.

38. Ex. 20:8-11.

39. Mk. 14:24; Matt. 26:28; Lk. 22:20.

40. Mk. 14:17; Matt. 26:20. (cf. Lk. 22:14)

41. I Cor. 5:7.

42. Isa. 53:4-5.

43. Mk. 15:42-47; Matt. 27:57-61; Lk. 23:50-56.

44. Acts. 2:27, 31.

45. Cf. Jn. 11:11-15.

46. Acts 2:22-24.

47. Acts 2:36.

48. Lk. 24:13-15, 27-29.

49. Rom. 3:31.

50. Rom. 5:20-6:2.

51. I Jn. 3:4.

52. II Pet. 3:10.

53. Rom. 3:19.

54. I Tim. 1:8-11.

55. Acts 2:42-47.

56. Acts 27:33-35.

57. Jas. 1:26-27.