By:FAIR SHARE FOR ALL

As I see it, 2015 General Elections, Team Unity brought in every single overseas to vote. The St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party was not so fortunate. Yet, Labour only lost by forty votes.
It doesn’t need a rocket scientist to figure out that if even a quarter of the overseas Labour voters come home to participate in the upcoming elections, and if all of the overseas Team Unity supporters cast their vote, Team Unity will be in serious trouble.

Anybody can figure out that if the overseas vote benefitted the present government, there would have been no need to disenfranchise them. In addition, from their many trips overseas to visit their supporters, the response to the government is not encouraging at all.
Everybody is disappointed. Everybody is bawling.

And Timothy and his cabal are aware. The reason that they can try some things with the home based electorate but the overseas vote is a lot more difficult.

So just like when PAM gave the vote to nationals living overseas because it benefitted them back in 1984, now that they believe that there is no advantage to be gained, they want to take it back.

What a government!
Then all the persons from Sandy Point who get “big wuk” since Team Unity got into power are being reminded that they should be on the campaign trail ensuring that Shawn Richards retains his seat.

They are being reminded by the prime minister of the federation, no less, that is politics give them their “big wuk” and they must never forget it.

Civil servants must hit the campaign trail to promote Team Unity. I wonder if civil servants can do the same to promote the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party.

Well Timothy had gotten his “big wuk” under Labour and not only was he campaigning against Labour since 2004, but he also took the seat that he had won under Labour and carried over by PAM and CCM.

Prior to Timothy becoming part of the Labour Party government in 1995, he lived in very humble accommodations. But a mere nine years later, he forgot how it was possible for him and who made it possible for him to be eating and drinking out of the trough.

All who used to meet secretly to plot the demise of Douglas and the Labour Party were in order. Timothy had no problem with that. Now it sounds as if he is threatening.

Douglas and the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party government never turned away ordinary civil servants just because they supported the opposition.

PAM supporters did not have to worry like how Labour supporters go to work under Team Unity expecting every day to be their last.

Because Timothy doesn’t idle with those who are not supporting him.
He makes life extremely uncomfortable for any dissenting voice.Just ask those in his inner circle why they have all fled the inner circle.

What a prime minister!

So we in Labour have to continue to do our work. Unity must not be the only one hitting the campaign trail.

If we listen to Timothy carefully, he doesn’t sound like the Timothy of 2015.
The electorate has seen him and the rest of Team Unity in action and we are not impressed. All that he promised to do he has not done.
No good governance. No freedom of information. No transparency. No crime control.
In fact, the government has now resorted to preventing the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party from using the community centres to hold a Town Hall meeting.

A government can’t get any more desperate than that.
If the government is so strong and popular, they should be more than willing to allow the opposition the use of all the community centres.

But this is not 2015. And people have had the opportunity to compare and contrast. Compare and contrast Douglas with Harris. Compare and contrast the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party with Team Unity.

And while Douglas and Labour were not perfect, we never had these scandals during our tenure in office.

In fact, all the scandals that Labour had while in office involved Timothy in one way or the other.

So the electorate has a decision to make. A decision to choose the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party whenever the early elections are called.

Who Caused The Fork In The Road To The Cross (part two Continued)
Jesus the crucified of Nazarethdid not find a new religion.Harold W. Attridge of Yale University makes the point that, He was born, lived, and died as a Jew. Attridge believes that Jesus’ identity cannot be understood apart from His “Jewishness.”Jesus was certainly subject to the influence of the traditions of Israel; there is no doubt about that. The question is, in what form did those traditions come to Him in Galilee at the beginning of the first century? Though somewhat unclear, Jesus certainly would have known of the Temple in Jerusalem, travelled to Jerusalem for the major pilgrimage festivals, would have attended the rituals of the Temple, and their atoning significance (John 7:10-24 GNB). He would have celebrated Passover, with His family (Luke 2:41), and soHeknew the hopes embedded in Passover for divine deliverance. Jesus was aware of the growing Pharisaic movement which preached a notion of purity that was available to all Jews, not simply those who were officiating at the Temple cult. He knew Jewishscripture and quoted some of its images.

What is the Apostle Pau’s position of Jesus as a Jew?Thirty years after the crucifixion of Jesus, when Paul made his third visit to the disciples at the Temple in Jerusalem, he appealed to James, the brother of Jesus, and the other disciples, to drop orthodox Jewish practices to allow Gentiles into the new Judaism. But Paul made no declaration of a new religion. Consider also, had the disciples even hinted that they were launching a new religion they wouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near the Temple.

Scholars such as Martin Hengel, N.T. Wright, Paula Fredriksen, John G. Gager, Amy-Jill Levine, Pamela M. Eisenbaum and others have done commendable work in reestablishing Paul within his Jewish environment, so that Paul himself was increasingly recognized as a Torah-observant individual. Tabor and others focused on James’ desire to reconsider his relationship with Paul and the commonalities in their respective writings when carefully read. The New Testament record depicts a unified Jewish group that was prepared to accept Gentile God-fearers into their fellowship and teaching (Galatians 5:13–14; James 2:8–9). The principle of “for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (Acts 1:8; Romans 1:16) was espoused by all the early church leaders, whether James, Paul or any of the other apostles.

The issue of declaring a new religion comes up again in Paul’s time. At this time when the matter was raised Paul had a good opportunity to declare what his possession was to save his life; but, he did not, so as to help those formidable challengerswho said, “If Jesus did not officially launch Christianity, then Paul certainly did.” Did Paul really do that? On his third visit to Jerusalem, Paul was arrested after creating a disturbance at the Jerusalem Temple, where he incited a group of Asian Jews who attacked him for blasphemy (Acts 21:27-31). When he was brought before the Roman Governor, it was determined that the matter of blasphemy was strictly a Jewish affair and therefore should be adjudicated before the Sanhedrin. Fearful of his destiny, if he were judged by the Sanhedrin, Paul invoked his status as a Roman citizen and demanded that his case be heard before the emperor in Rome. Paul’s demand was granted (Acts 25:10-12), verifying the power and respect for Roman citizenship.

Paul believed that he was a Jew who proposed a valid revision that embraced Jesus as fulfilling the Jewish Messiah’s prophecy; rather Paul may have even felt more Jewish than the Sanhedrin in embracing the Messiah Jesus. Instead of freedom, Paul would have squandered five years, at the peak of his ministry, included imprisonment in Caesarea, a lengthy treacherous journey to Rome and then house arrest in Rome.

Emphasizing Paul’s persistent dedication to Judaism and his Jewish identity, when arriving in Rome he summoned the Jewish leadership. This is how the writer of Acts records it, “Three days later he called together the local leaders of the Jews. When they had assembled, he said to them, “Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our ancestors, yet I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans. When they had examined me, the Romans wanted to release me, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case. But when the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to the emperor, even though I had no charge to bring against my nation. For this reason therefore I have asked to see you and speak with you; since it is for the sake of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain” (28:17-20). Paul instead insisted bitterly that his form of Judaism was the right one. He was clinging to his Jewish identity. Note, also, that there is no mention in the New Testament’s narrative of any consideration of the argument that would have given Paul his freedom by declaring, “I’m not a Jew any longer, I’m a Christian.” Paul goes to his death as a Jew.

After the development of Jewish Christianity, the converts were predominantly Gentiles. With Paul off the scene and Gentile conversions accelerating, many different sects sprang up. Irenaeus, one of the early Church leaders, counted twenty forms of Christianity. And those Gentile/pagan dominant sects became increasingly distant from Judaism, taking on an independent Christian identity. Paul Flesher, University of Wyoming, Professor of Religious Studies names numerous sects that the fledgling Christianity generated: Donatists, Gnostics, Arians, Adoptionists, Modalists, Manicheans, Montanists, Marcionites, Ebionites, Nestorians and Meletians, among others. These disparate sects, says Flesher, had disagreements about fundamental theological doctrines, choice of scriptures and religious practices.

History has shown that by the fourth century competing sects still grew. That is why the Emperor Constantine initiated the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, to sanction a unified Christian Church.This broad-stroke sweeping history sketches documents how Christianity “just happened to fall in place.” But the newly established unified Catholic Church was still uncomfortable that its authenticity was tied to Jewish lineage and Jewish messianic prophecy. Thus, the church sought to sever the Christian/Jewish connection by stepping up vilification of Jews and Judaism.