info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What Are We Trying to Accomplish With Coronavirus Policy?
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Ejercito
May 8, 2020, 11:28:55 AM5/8/20
to
http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2020/05/06/what-are-we-trying-to-accomplish-with-coronavirus-policy-n2568228
What Are We Trying to Accomplish With Coronavirus Policy?
Ben ShapiroBen Shapiro|Posted: May 06, 2020 12:01 AM
As Americans debate how to reopen our society in the wake of COVID-19, we
seem to be breaking down into three groups: first, those who believe the
virus isn't particularly serious and desperately want to reopen everything
as soon as possible (a small minority of Americans, by polling data);
second, those who believe the virus is extraordinarily serious and want
everything to remain closed as long as possible (a significant minority of
Americans); and third, those who believe the virus is extraordinarily
serious, that the economic damage brought about by COVID-19 is
extraordinarily serious and that we will have to reopen in considered
fashion (the vast majority of Americans). While politicians on either side
of the debate hope to position their opponents as advocates of either group
1 or group 2, the reality is that the honest debate is happening within
group 3.
So, what does a considered coronavirus reopening strategy look like?
That question rests on a deeper question: What assumptions are we making?
Obviously, we all want to reduce deaths to the lowest possible number. But
what assumptions are baked into our policy recommendations? Are we assuming
a vaccine will come along in three, six, 12 or 18 months? Are we assuming
herd immunity conferred at 60% of the population, or 80%? Are we assuming
therapeutic measures that would reduce the infection fatality rates by 20,
30 or 100%, and within what period of time?
We also want to reduce economic harm to the lowest possible level. Again, we
must ask what assumptions are baked into our policy recommendations. Are we
assuming that a 75% reduction in restaurant seating will save 50% of
restaurants? Are we assuming that shoppers will continue to socially
distance six months from now? Are we assuming that the government will be
able to shoulder trillions more in debt despite an underlying decrease in
international appetite for such debt?
CARTOONS | AF BRANCO
VIEW CARTOON
The question of assumptions is key to our policymaking. That's because if we
assume the worst -- no therapeutics that seriously knock down the infection
fatality rate, no vaccines for 18 months or more and an economy that simply
cannot function at one-quarter or even half of normal capacity -- then we
are forced to a simple conclusion: In the absence of any significant change
to the status quo, we must pursue a strategy of so-called controlled
avalanche.
That strategy has been coined by Israeli scientists, who suggest that the
best strategy for reducing deaths while achieving herd immunity would be to
tranche populations and then expose the least-vulnerable populations to
COVID-19 in order to let them develop antibodies -- in essence, performing
with public health the same function ski resorts perform when they create
small avalanches in order to avoid a major avalanche. The simple fact is
that 40% to 50%, at low estimate, of all deaths in the European Union from
COVID-19 have occurred at nursing homes; the same is true in California. Had
the authorities properly protected nursing homes, the infection fatality
rate across the industrialized world could be half of the current rate.
Recommended
Liberal Journalist Calls Out Anti-Trumpers For Missing This Key Part of the
Whole Michael Flynn Fiasco
Matt Vespa
It is also true that the infection fatality rate for COVID-19 ranges widely
by age: As of late April, of the 37,308 deaths recorded by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, just 1,036 were people under the age of 45,
and just 51 were below the age of 25. Even among younger populations, the
vast majority of deaths were people with underlying conditions. Israeli
scientists suggest that protecting the elderly and the vulnerable and then
allowing herd immunity to develop among the least vulnerable would radically
reduce overall mortality (by over 40%), reduce the maximum number of people
in need for ICUs (by over 60%) and decrease the time required to allow
freedom to low-risk populations by months.
This is obviously not a foolproof strategy -- there is no foolproof
strategy. But it may be a better strategy than simply hoping for the best
while watching the world economy implode, even as we know that our deepest
hopes for a deus ex machina may go unrewarded.
What Are We Trying to Accomplish With Coronavirus Policy?
Ben ShapiroBen Shapiro|Posted: May 06, 2020 12:01 AM
As Americans debate how to reopen our society in the wake of COVID-19, we
seem to be breaking down into three groups: first, those who believe the
virus isn't particularly serious and desperately want to reopen everything
as soon as possible (a small minority of Americans, by polling data);
second, those who believe the virus is extraordinarily serious and want
everything to remain closed as long as possible (a significant minority of
Americans); and third, those who believe the virus is extraordinarily
serious, that the economic damage brought about by COVID-19 is
extraordinarily serious and that we will have to reopen in considered
fashion (the vast majority of Americans). While politicians on either side
of the debate hope to position their opponents as advocates of either group
1 or group 2, the reality is that the honest debate is happening within
group 3.
So, what does a considered coronavirus reopening strategy look like?
That question rests on a deeper question: What assumptions are we making?
Obviously, we all want to reduce deaths to the lowest possible number. But
what assumptions are baked into our policy recommendations? Are we assuming
a vaccine will come along in three, six, 12 or 18 months? Are we assuming
herd immunity conferred at 60% of the population, or 80%? Are we assuming
therapeutic measures that would reduce the infection fatality rates by 20,
30 or 100%, and within what period of time?
We also want to reduce economic harm to the lowest possible level. Again, we
must ask what assumptions are baked into our policy recommendations. Are we
assuming that a 75% reduction in restaurant seating will save 50% of
restaurants? Are we assuming that shoppers will continue to socially
distance six months from now? Are we assuming that the government will be
able to shoulder trillions more in debt despite an underlying decrease in
international appetite for such debt?
CARTOONS | AF BRANCO
VIEW CARTOON
The question of assumptions is key to our policymaking. That's because if we
assume the worst -- no therapeutics that seriously knock down the infection
fatality rate, no vaccines for 18 months or more and an economy that simply
cannot function at one-quarter or even half of normal capacity -- then we
are forced to a simple conclusion: In the absence of any significant change
to the status quo, we must pursue a strategy of so-called controlled
avalanche.
That strategy has been coined by Israeli scientists, who suggest that the
best strategy for reducing deaths while achieving herd immunity would be to
tranche populations and then expose the least-vulnerable populations to
COVID-19 in order to let them develop antibodies -- in essence, performing
with public health the same function ski resorts perform when they create
small avalanches in order to avoid a major avalanche. The simple fact is
that 40% to 50%, at low estimate, of all deaths in the European Union from
COVID-19 have occurred at nursing homes; the same is true in California. Had
the authorities properly protected nursing homes, the infection fatality
rate across the industrialized world could be half of the current rate.
Recommended
Liberal Journalist Calls Out Anti-Trumpers For Missing This Key Part of the
Whole Michael Flynn Fiasco
Matt Vespa
It is also true that the infection fatality rate for COVID-19 ranges widely
by age: As of late April, of the 37,308 deaths recorded by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, just 1,036 were people under the age of 45,
and just 51 were below the age of 25. Even among younger populations, the
vast majority of deaths were people with underlying conditions. Israeli
scientists suggest that protecting the elderly and the vulnerable and then
allowing herd immunity to develop among the least vulnerable would radically
reduce overall mortality (by over 40%), reduce the maximum number of people
in need for ICUs (by over 60%) and decrease the time required to allow
freedom to low-risk populations by months.
This is obviously not a foolproof strategy -- there is no foolproof
strategy. But it may be a better strategy than simply hoping for the best
while watching the world economy implode, even as we know that our deepest
hopes for a deus ex machina may go unrewarded.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
May 8, 2020, 1:10:49 PM5/8/20
to
MichaelE wrote:
> http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2020/05/06/what-are-we-trying-to-accomplish-with-coronavirus-policy-n2568228
>
> What Are We Trying to Accomplish With Coronavirus Policy?
> Ben ShapiroBen Shapiro|Posted: May 06, 2020 12:01 AM
>
>
> As Americans debate how to reopen our society in the wake of COVID-19, we
> seem to be breaking down into three groups: first, those who believe the
> virus isn't particularly serious and desperately want to reopen everything
> as soon as possible (a small minority of Americans, by polling data);
> second, those who believe the virus is extraordinarily serious and want
> everything to remain closed as long as possible (a significant minority of
> Americans); and third, those who believe the virus is extraordinarily
> serious, that the economic damage brought about by COVID-19 is
> extraordinarily serious and that we will have to reopen in considered
> fashion (the vast majority of Americans). While politicians on either side
> of the debate hope to position their opponents as advocates of either group
> 1 or group 2, the reality is that the honest debate is happening within
> group 3.
>
> So, what does a considered coronavirus reopening strategy look like?
>
> That question rests on a deeper question: What assumptions are we making?
>
> Obviously, we all want to reduce deaths to the lowest possible number. But
> what assumptions are baked into our policy recommendations? Are we assuming
> a vaccine will come along in three, six, 12 or 18 months?
We should be preparing for the worst case scenario of never having a
> http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2020/05/06/what-are-we-trying-to-accomplish-with-coronavirus-policy-n2568228
>
> What Are We Trying to Accomplish With Coronavirus Policy?
> Ben ShapiroBen Shapiro|Posted: May 06, 2020 12:01 AM
>
>
> As Americans debate how to reopen our society in the wake of COVID-19, we
> seem to be breaking down into three groups: first, those who believe the
> virus isn't particularly serious and desperately want to reopen everything
> as soon as possible (a small minority of Americans, by polling data);
> second, those who believe the virus is extraordinarily serious and want
> everything to remain closed as long as possible (a significant minority of
> Americans); and third, those who believe the virus is extraordinarily
> serious, that the economic damage brought about by COVID-19 is
> extraordinarily serious and that we will have to reopen in considered
> fashion (the vast majority of Americans). While politicians on either side
> of the debate hope to position their opponents as advocates of either group
> 1 or group 2, the reality is that the honest debate is happening within
> group 3.
>
> So, what does a considered coronavirus reopening strategy look like?
>
> That question rests on a deeper question: What assumptions are we making?
>
> Obviously, we all want to reduce deaths to the lowest possible number. But
> what assumptions are baked into our policy recommendations? Are we assuming
> a vaccine will come along in three, six, 12 or 18 months?
**proven** vaccine as in the examples of HIV, Ebola, SARS, and MERS.
> Are we assuming
> herd immunity conferred at 60% of the population, or 80%?
lasting antibody-dependent herd immunity as in the example of HIV.
> Are we assuming
> therapeutic measures that would reduce the infection fatality rates by 20,
> 30 or 100%, and within what period of time?
**proven** therapeutic measures for severe cases of infection where a
"cytokine storm" results in multi-organ failure and ultimately death.
> We also want to reduce economic harm to the lowest possible level. Again, we
> must ask what assumptions are baked into our policy recommendations. Are we
> assuming that a 75% reduction in restaurant seating will save 50% of
> restaurants? Are we assuming that shoppers will continue to socially
> distance six months from now? Are we assuming that the government will be
> able to shoulder trillions more in debt despite an underlying decrease in
> international appetite for such debt?
can be no economic recovery while pandemic deaths continue.
>The question of assumptions is key to our policymaking. That's because if we
>assume the worst -- no therapeutics that seriously knock down the infection
>fatality rate, no vaccines for 18 months or more and an economy that simply
>cannot function at one-quarter or even half of normal capacity -- then we
>are forced to a simple conclusion: In the absence of any significant change
>to the status quo, we must pursue a strategy of so-called controlled
>avalanche.
>
>That strategy has been coined by Israeli scientists, who suggest that the
>best strategy for reducing deaths while achieving herd immunity would be to
>tranche populations and then expose the least-vulnerable populations to
>COVID-19 in order to let them develop antibodies -- in essence, performing
>with public health the same function ski resorts perform when they create
>small avalanches in order to avoid a major avalanche. The simple fact is
>that 40% to 50%, at low estimate, of all deaths in the European Union from
>COVID-19 have occurred at nursing homes; the same is true in California. Had
>the authorities properly protected nursing homes, the infection fatality
>rate across the industrialized world could be half of the current rate.
antibody-dependent herd immunity as in the example of HIV."
>It is also true that the infection fatality rate for COVID-19 ranges widely
>by age: As of late April, of the 37,308 deaths recorded by the Centers for
>Disease Control and Prevention, just 1,036 were people under the age of 45,
>and just 51 were below the age of 25. Even among younger populations, the
>vast majority of deaths were people with underlying conditions. Israeli
>scientists suggest that protecting the elderly and the vulnerable and then
>allowing herd immunity to develop among the least vulnerable would radically
>reduce overall mortality (by over 40%), reduce the maximum number of people
>in need for ICUs (by over 60%) and decrease the time required to allow
>freedom to low-risk populations by months.
>
>This is obviously not a foolproof strategy -- there is no foolproof
>strategy. But it may be a better strategy than simply hoping for the best
>while watching the world economy implode, even as we know that our deepest
>hopes for a deus ex machina may go unrewarded.
Diligently use http://bit.ly/RapidTestCOVID-19 to immediately find
out, at any given moment, who among us are unwittingly contagious in
order to convince them to turn around, go home, call their doctor, and
self-quarantine per their doctor.
Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:
http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewToutsHunger (Luke 6:21a) with all glory to
GOD, Who causes us to hunger (Deuteronomy 8:3) when He blesses us
right now (Luke 6:21a) thereby removing the http://bit.ly/HeartVAT
from around the heart
...because we mindfully choose to openly care with our heart,
HeartDoc Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist with an http://bit.ly/EternalMedicalLicense
2016 & upwards non-partisan candidate for U.S. President:
http://bit.ly/WonderfullyHungryPresident
and author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://bit.ly/HeartDocAndrewCare
which is the only **healthy** cure for the U.S. healthcare crisis
Just Wondering
May 8, 2020, 3:50:01 PM5/8/20
to
On 5/8/2020 9:29 AM, Michael Ejercito wrote:
> http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2020/05/06/what-are-we-trying-to-accomplish-with-coronavirus-policy-n2568228
>
>
> What Are We Trying to Accomplish With Coronavirus Policy?
> Ben ShapiroBen Shapiro|Posted: May 06, 2020 12:01 AM
>
>
> As Americans debate how to reopen our society in the wake of COVID-19,
> we seem to be breaking down into three groups: first, those who believe
> the virus isn't particularly serious and desperately want to reopen
> everything as soon as possible (a small minority of Americans, by
> polling data); second, those who believe the virus is extraordinarily
> serious and want everything to remain closed as long as possible (a
> significant minority of Americans); and third, those who believe the
> virus is extraordinarily serious, that the economic damage brought about
> by COVID-19 is extraordinarily serious and that we will have to reopen
> in considered fashion (the vast majority of Americans). While
> politicians on either side of the debate hope to position their
> opponents as advocates of either group 1 or group 2, the reality is that
> the honest debate is happening within group 3.
Group 4: Those who realize that the effects of COVID-19 infection
> http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2020/05/06/what-are-we-trying-to-accomplish-with-coronavirus-policy-n2568228
>
>
> What Are We Trying to Accomplish With Coronavirus Policy?
> Ben ShapiroBen Shapiro|Posted: May 06, 2020 12:01 AM
>
>
> As Americans debate how to reopen our society in the wake of COVID-19,
> we seem to be breaking down into three groups: first, those who believe
> the virus isn't particularly serious and desperately want to reopen
> everything as soon as possible (a small minority of Americans, by
> polling data); second, those who believe the virus is extraordinarily
> serious and want everything to remain closed as long as possible (a
> significant minority of Americans); and third, those who believe the
> virus is extraordinarily serious, that the economic damage brought about
> by COVID-19 is extraordinarily serious and that we will have to reopen
> in considered fashion (the vast majority of Americans). While
> politicians on either side of the debate hope to position their
> opponents as advocates of either group 1 or group 2, the reality is that
> the honest debate is happening within group 3.
vary from asymptomatic to death and that the more serious cases
occur largely in elderly critters with compromised immune systems,
and that the trillions spent and lost on economic restrictions
could have been, and going forward still could be, better employed
to identify and deal with those most at risk with comparatively
minimal disruption to the USA and world economy.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
May 8, 2020, 6:06:48 PM5/8/20
to
JW wrote:
> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> JW wrote in part:
>>> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>> JW wrote in part:
>>>>> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>>>> JW wrote in part:
>>>>>>> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is described in the Bible that the Magi (aka powerful ones)
>>>>>>>> traveled about 5000 miles (2 years x 7 miles/day) from the very far
>>>>>>>> East (i.e. China) to bring the 2 yo LORD Jesus, Who was residing in a
>>>>>>>> house in Bethlehem, "gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh" (Matthew
>>>>>>>> 2:11)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually it is as described.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <begin Holy Spirit-guided exegesis>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was
>>>>>> furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its
>>>>>> vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time
>>>>>> he had learned from the Magi." (Matthew 2:16)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The two years was possibly (Matthew 19:26) spent on the Silk Road
>>>>>> which is known to have been in use to carry silk from China to Rome at
>>>>>> the time:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/Silk-Road-trade-route
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Distance as the crow flies west from Shanghai to Jerusalem is 4927.5
>>>>>> miles which would be consistent with "about 5000 miles" by the Silk
>>>>>> Road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Source:
>>>>>> https://www.freemaptools.com/how-far-is-it-between-jerusalem_-israel-and-shanghai_-china.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <end exegesis>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Source:
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/A1X0vJ6wDa8/0ETlPkNFAQAJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the interim, I am simply wonderfully hungry (
>>>>>> http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and hope you, JW, also have a
>>>>>> healthy appetite too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how are you ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew only describes that an unknown number of wise guys ...
>>>>
>>>> The number of Magi is irrelevant here as is their gender.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, Matthew not knowing their gender is consistent with their
>>>> being very unlike the Persians (i.e. from northern Iraq or Iran) whom
>>>> the Jews would have been able to recognize so as to also recognize
>>>> their gender.
>>>
>>> KJV translates the word for them as "wise men".
>>
>> Clearly a mistranslation because the context of asking old King Herod
>> of Israel the whereabouts of the new King of Israel was not wise.
>>
>>> Matthew doesn't
>>> present a physical description or a cultural description that would
>>> lead to the conclusions you present about them.
>>
>> Matthew used the genderless word Magi in reference to them. This does
>> mean that he did not know either their gender or their ethnicity. This
>> lack of knowledge would be consistent with the Magi being Chinese.
>>
>>>> "The Magi are Chinese." -- Holy Spirit (referring to Matthew 2:16)
>>>>
>>>> Taking your continued interest here to mean "yes, you have a healthy
>>>> appetite," I share with you, JW, that it's really Wonderful (Isaiah
>>>> 9:6) knowing through our hunger (Deuteronomy 8:3) that we're both
>>>> being blessed right now as it's written in the Gospels in red&white at
>>>> Luke 6:21 **and** according to pure logic (healthy=wonderful &
>>>> appetite=hunger) and advise that you try to write that you're
>>>> "wonderfully hungry" since we've established here that you are:
>>>>
>>>> So now how are you ?
>>>
>>> I am nonplussed ...
>>
>> Again, I advise that you, JW, really try to write that you're
>> "wonderfully hungry" since we've established here that you are:
>>
>> So now again, how are you ?
>
> I've made my point, you want to belabor it and put words in my
> mouth, as well as Matthew's pen, so I am done.
Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/A1X0vJ6wDa8/AgXS9q7QAQAJ
Actually, the point being made here is that just as "no one can say
'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3), no
one can say they are 'wonderfully hungry' except by the Holy Spirit.
While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deu 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke 6:21a), I
pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD changes your heart (Ezekiel 11:19-20
& 36:26) so that you, JW, would come to trust the truth (John 14:6),
Who is LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth --> http://T3WiJ.com with all
glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ ) to GOD.
Amen.
Laus DEO !!!
> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> JW wrote in part:
>>> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>> JW wrote in part:
>>>>> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>>>> JW wrote in part:
>>>>>>> HeartDoc Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is described in the Bible that the Magi (aka powerful ones)
>>>>>>>> traveled about 5000 miles (2 years x 7 miles/day) from the very far
>>>>>>>> East (i.e. China) to bring the 2 yo LORD Jesus, Who was residing in a
>>>>>>>> house in Bethlehem, "gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh" (Matthew
>>>>>>>> 2:11)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually it is as described.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <begin Holy Spirit-guided exegesis>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was
>>>>>> furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its
>>>>>> vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time
>>>>>> he had learned from the Magi." (Matthew 2:16)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The two years was possibly (Matthew 19:26) spent on the Silk Road
>>>>>> which is known to have been in use to carry silk from China to Rome at
>>>>>> the time:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/topic/Silk-Road-trade-route
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Distance as the crow flies west from Shanghai to Jerusalem is 4927.5
>>>>>> miles which would be consistent with "about 5000 miles" by the Silk
>>>>>> Road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Source:
>>>>>> https://www.freemaptools.com/how-far-is-it-between-jerusalem_-israel-and-shanghai_-china.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <end exegesis>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Source:
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/A1X0vJ6wDa8/0ETlPkNFAQAJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the interim, I am simply wonderfully hungry (
>>>>>> http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) and hope you, JW, also have a
>>>>>> healthy appetite too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how are you ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthew only describes that an unknown number of wise guys ...
>>>>
>>>> The number of Magi is irrelevant here as is their gender.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, Matthew not knowing their gender is consistent with their
>>>> being very unlike the Persians (i.e. from northern Iraq or Iran) whom
>>>> the Jews would have been able to recognize so as to also recognize
>>>> their gender.
>>>
>>> KJV translates the word for them as "wise men".
>>
>> Clearly a mistranslation because the context of asking old King Herod
>> of Israel the whereabouts of the new King of Israel was not wise.
>>
>>> Matthew doesn't
>>> present a physical description or a cultural description that would
>>> lead to the conclusions you present about them.
>>
>> Matthew used the genderless word Magi in reference to them. This does
>> mean that he did not know either their gender or their ethnicity. This
>> lack of knowledge would be consistent with the Magi being Chinese.
>>
>>>> "The Magi are Chinese." -- Holy Spirit (referring to Matthew 2:16)
>>>>
>>>> Taking your continued interest here to mean "yes, you have a healthy
>>>> appetite," I share with you, JW, that it's really Wonderful (Isaiah
>>>> 9:6) knowing through our hunger (Deuteronomy 8:3) that we're both
>>>> being blessed right now as it's written in the Gospels in red&white at
>>>> Luke 6:21 **and** according to pure logic (healthy=wonderful &
>>>> appetite=hunger) and advise that you try to write that you're
>>>> "wonderfully hungry" since we've established here that you are:
>>>>
>>>> So now how are you ?
>>>
>>> I am nonplussed ...
>>
>> Again, I advise that you, JW, really try to write that you're
>> "wonderfully hungry" since we've established here that you are:
>>
>> So now again, how are you ?
>
> I've made my point, you want to belabor it and put words in my
> mouth, as well as Matthew's pen, so I am done.
Source:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.bible.prophecy/A1X0vJ6wDa8/AgXS9q7QAQAJ
Actually, the point being made here is that just as "no one can say
'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3), no
one can say they are 'wonderfully hungry' except by the Holy Spirit.
While wonderfully hungry ( http://bit.ly/Philippians4_12 ) in the Holy
Spirit, Who causes (Deu 8:3) me to hunger right now (Luke 6:21a), I
pray (2 Chronicles 7:14) that GOD changes your heart (Ezekiel 11:19-20
& 36:26) so that you, JW, would come to trust the truth (John 14:6),
Who is LORD Jesus Christ of Nazareth --> http://T3WiJ.com with all
glory ( http://bit.ly/Psalm117_ ) to GOD.
Amen.
Laus DEO !!!
0 new messages