SELECT YOUR READING LANGUAGE – BOTTOM LEFT = YOUR DAILY MANNA NOW AVAILABLE IN 103 LANGUAGES
@ TruLight – Daily Manna is not Just a Bible Verse with a Small Prayer . No WE SERVE DAILY Manna for the Whole Day . Breakfast , Lunch , Dinner , Plus tea Times and even Entertainment Manna . Plus News Manna and More , This Daily Manna will keep you Spiritually full for the full 48 Hours and even More to Share with your Friends and Family !!!
You will Know them by Their Fruits !!!
Matthew 7:16 uses the metaphor of bearing fruit to convey the good deeds that should be an outgrowth of faith. Fruit is used in this sense throughout the Bible. The Lord reads hearts (1 Samuel 16:7; Jeremiah 17:10), but people cannot, so deeds become evidence for what is in the heart. The Bible teaches that our deeds show our love for the Lord (Psalm 92:12–14; Matthew 7:16) and love for our neighbor (James 2:14–17; 1 John 3:16–18; 4:7–12). People can also bear bad fruit, their deeds revealing their unrighteous hearts. For example, when the Pharisees and Sadducees came to John the Baptist, he called them a “brood of vipers” and told them to “bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:7–10). They were not to assume they were righteous because of their heritage or through ritual. They needed to be righteous in heart, which would be shown through their deeds. Jesus spoke a similar warning, saying, “How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34; cf. Luke 6:43–45). Here and many other parts of the Bible teach that our actions are the outflow of the heart (Galatians 5:22–23). Our deeds demonstrate the truth of our words and our hearts.
from the old testament
In Jeremiah 17:10, the Lord expresses a connection between heart condition and deeds: “I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.” God searching the heart and giving “according to . . . the fruit of” one’s “deeds” implies that actions testify to what is in the heart.
Psalm 15:1–2 asks, “O LORD, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill? He who walks blamelessly and does what is right and speaks truth in his heart.” This psalm implies that our deeds—our “walk” —affect our relationship with the Lord. Those who love the Lord should do “what is right.” In the subsequent verse, the psalmist gives examples of a blameless walk—e.g., not slandering or doing ill to one’s neighbor, not charging interest on loans, not taking bribes, and, of course, honoring God. The fruit of a good person shows in his actions.
Psalm 92:12–14 declares, “The righteous flourish like the palm tree and grow like a cedar in Lebanon. They are planted in the house of the LORD; they flourish in the courts of our God. They still bear fruit in old age; they are ever full of sap and green, to declare that the LORD is upright; he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.” The faith of those who follow God is reflected in their actions, bearing fruit throughout their lives.
from the new testament
Matthew 7:16 says, “You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?” (NKJV). In the verse before this, Jesus warned against “false prophets,” which is who “them” refers to. Jesus is saying that actions reveal what is in the heart—whether good or bad.
Galatians 5:22–23 describes the fruit of the Holy Spirit, explaining some characteristics of a person who lives by the Holy Spirit: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” When we see a life characterized by these things, we see the fruit of God’s work.
Second Timothy 3:5 warns believers to stay away from those “having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.” Anyone can call himself a Christian and attend church on Sundays, but the fruit that person yields will be the best indicator of true saving faith.
James 1:22 cautions believers, “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” We are saved by grace, not works (Ephesians 2:8–9), but our actions give evidence of our faith (Ephesians 2:10).
James 2:14–17 also notes that kind words with no actions show a dead faith and a lack of true love for one’s neighbor.
implications for today
“Put your money where your mouth is.” “Walk the talk.” These common sayings express how important deeds are over just words. The Bible teaches this, too. Jesus noted that someone’s actions often reveal what is in that person’s heart (Matthew 7:16). How do your actions align with what you claim to be in your heart? When we open a box of cereal, we expect to find cereal, not sawdust. When we claim we’re Christian, our actions should show that we are Christ-like, not worldly. If we really believe God is who He says He is, our behavior should follow that belief. If we have received God’s love, we should be seeking to obey Him and seeking to love others (John 14:15; 15:1–17; 1 John 4:7–12; 5:1–5). If we are God’s child through faith in Christ (John 1:12), then we have the indwelling Holy Spirit at work in us transforming us to His image (Romans 8:28–30; Ephesians 1:13–14; Philippians 2:12–13). Christians aren’t perfect, but we should be aware of how our actions are a witness to others (1 John 1:8—2:6). What does the fruit of your life demonstrate about your relationship with Christ? What actions testify that Jesus is Lord of your life? Jesus’ words about knowing them by their fruit can also help Christians discern false teachers. Considering others’ deeds, not just their words, is wise. Our deeds demonstrate the truth of our words.
Tea Time Manna
There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life in Christ has set me free from the law of sin and death.
—Romans 8:1-2
We can join the apostle Paul in thanking God for his grace and use the famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King, as he quoted the old spiritual song: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”
Becoming a Christian means we have been liberated from law-keeping as the basis of our salvation. We now have God living in us through the Holy Spirit, empowering us. The Spirit helps us to know God’s will and then live it (1 Corinthians 2:10-13; Galatians 5:22-23). Through the Spirit’s power, we can do what no law could make us do: live up to God’s standards of righteousness by the power of the Spirit (Romans 8:1-4). We are set free from law-keeping — not just Old Testament Law, but any law (Galatians 3:21-22) — and empowered to be like Jesus, free from the crippling power of law, sin, shame, and death (2 Corinthians 3:17-18).
Prayer
Gracious Father, thank you for all of your gifts to me. Today, I want to especially thank you for liberating me from law-keeping and empowering me with your Spirit to a higher standard: Christlikeness. Please, O God, fill and empower me today with your Spirit as I commit to live my life for you and follow the way of Jesus. In the name and by the authority of my Lord and Savior, I pray. Amen and Amen
Bible Teaching of the Day
LUNCH MANNA =
“Do not cast your pearls before swine” is a portion of the Sermon on the Mount, and, to understand its meaning, we have to understand its context and placement within the sermon. Christ had just finished instructing the crowd on judgment and reproof: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:1–2), and “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). Then in verse 6, Christ tempers these admonitions and shows us the difference between “judgment” and “discernment.” We are not to be hypocritical judges, yet we must be able to discern the swine, lest we cast our pearls before them.
Before Jesus says, “Do not cast your pearls before swine,” He says, “Do not give dogs what is sacred.” An analogy mentioning dogs is also used in Proverbs: “As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly” (Proverbs 26:11). A dual reference to swine and dogs is also found in 2 Peter 2:22, “Of [false teachers] the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’ and, ‘A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.’” In His sermon, Jesus uses dogs and pigs as representative of those who would ridicule, reject, and blaspheme the gospel once it is presented to them. We are not to expose the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have no other purpose than to trample it and return to their own evil ways. Repeatedly sharing the gospel with someone who continually scoffs and ridicules Christ is like casting pearls before swine. We can identify such people through discernment, which is given in some measure to all Christians (1 Corinthians 2:15–16).
The command not to cast your pearls before swine does not mean we refrain from preaching the gospel. Jesus Himself ate with and taught sinners and tax collectors (Matthew 9:10). In essence, the instruction in Matthew 7:6 is the same that Jesus gave to His apostles when He said, “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town” (Matthew 10:14). We are to share the gospel, but, when it becomes apparent that the gospel is not welcome, we are to move on. We are responsible to share the good news; we are not responsible for people’s response to the good news. Pigs don’t appreciate pearls, and some people don’t appreciate what Christ has done for them. Our job is not to force conversions or cram the gospel down people’s throats; there’s no sense in preaching the value of pearls to swine. Jesus’ instruction to His apostles on how to handle rejection was to simply go elsewhere. There are other people who need to hear the gospel, and they are ready to hear it.
Today’s Devotional
DINNER MANNA =
“I am the True Vine” (John 15:1) is the last of seven “I am” declarations of Jesus recorded only in John’s Gospel. These “I am” proclamations point to His unique divine identity and purpose. Jesus said, “I am the True Vine” to closest friends gathered around Him. It was only a short time before Judas would betray Him; in fact, Judas had already left to do his infamous deed (John 13:30). Jesus was preparing the eleven men left for His pending crucifixion, His resurrection, and His subsequent departure for heaven. He had just told them that He would be leaving them (John 14:2). Knowing how disturbed they would feel, He gave them this lovely metaphor of the True Vine as one of His encouragements.
Jesus wanted His friends, not only those eleven, but those of all time, to know that He was not going to desert them, even though they would no longer enjoy His physical presence. His living energy—His spiritual reality—would continue to nourish and sustain them just as the roots and trunk of a grape vine produce the energy that nourishes and sustains its branches while they develop their fruit. Jesus wanted us to know that, even though we cannot see Him, we are as closely connected to Him as the branches of a vine are connected to its stem. Our desire to know and love Him and the energy to serve Him will keep flowing into and through us as long as we “abide” in Him.
Jesus went on to remove any misunderstanding about what He meant (John 15:4). He said that no branch can even live, let alone produce leaves and fruit, by itself. Cut off from the trunk, a branch is dead. Just as a vine’s branches rely on being connected to the trunk from which they receive their energy to bear fruit, Jesus’ disciples depend on being connected to Him for their spiritual life and the ability to serve Him effectively. The fruit we produce is that of the Holy Spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22–23). Our source of life and spiritual fruit is not in ourselves; it is outside us, in Christ Jesus. We can live, live rightly, and serve Him effectively only if we are rightly connected to Him in a faith/love relationship.
Then Jesus underscored His point even more strongly by saying, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). This illustration of the vine and branches is no thoughtless generality or careless simile. It is absolute, stark reality. No believer can achieve anything of spiritual value independently of Christ Jesus. He also reminds us that there are some who are “in” Him who bear no fruit. But these are not, as some would suppose, true branches that just happen to be fruitless. All true branches bear fruit. Just as we know a healthy, living tree by the good fruit it produces, so do we recognize fruitless branches as having no connection to the True Vine. This is why Jesus tells us, “By their fruit you will know them” (Matthew 7:16–20). Those who do not produce good fruit are cut away and burned. The reference here is to apostates, those who profess to know Christ but whose relationship to Him is insincere. He neither called them nor elected them nor saved them nor sustains them. Eventually, the fruitless branches are identified as not belonging to the Vine and are removed for the sake of truth and the benefit of the other branches.
So, we depend on Jesus for everything, starting with our very life—“For in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28)—and including our reconciliation with God through Him (Romans 5:10). No one can serve God effectively until he is connected with Jesus Christ by faith. Jesus is our only connection with the God who gave life and who produces in us a fruitful life of righteousness and service.
NEWS MANNA –
Bible Prophecy, Signs of the Times and Gog and Magog Updates with Articles in the News
The Saudi ‘No’ Puts Abraham Accords Into Deep Freeze
Riyadh has chosen its words with care, yet the meaning could hardly be more clear. Saudi Arabia will not recognize the State of Israel — not under the present Israeli government and — here comes the poison pill — not before the creation of an independent Palestinian state along the 1949 “Auschwitz” armistice lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The Saudi foreign minister has framed this stance as a strategic principle rather than a negotiating position. A 2025 survey conducted by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy revealed that 99% of Saudi citizens view normalization with Israel as a negative development. The Abraham Accords, once touted as a breakthrough, have quietly moved, in Saudi political conversation, into the deep freeze.
Once US President Donald J. Trump, without Saudi Arabia lifting a finger, relieved the kingdom of its foremost adversary, Iran, and removed the major threat to the kingdom, what would Saudi Arabia need Israel for anyway? To the Saudis, the Abraham Accords doubtless look like an agreement signed by others, but never embraced by the one Arab power that truly mattered.
Only the packaging has changed. After the UN adopted the 1947 partition plan, the Arab League and the Arab states rejected it and opposed any form of Jewish sovereignty on any part of the land, and chose war instead of the two-state solution on offer from the international community.
In September 1967, the Arab League, at its summit in Khartoum, delivered the famous three “no’s”: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Notably, the declaration made no mention of a Palestinian state, which the late senior PLO official Zuheir Mohsen significantly pointed out in 1977, had not yet been invented:
“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.”
Judea and Samaria were wrested in 1967 from Jordan, which had controlled those territories since 1948 without ever suggesting a Palestinian entity there, either. The Arab League’s Khartoum resolution was never truly about borders. It expressed a fundamental rejection of Jewish sovereignty on land the Arab world, guided by religious doctrine, considered permanently to be held in trust (waqf, endowment) for Allah. What has evolved since then is not the refusal itself, but the language used to express it.
Today’s Saudi position, cloaked in the vocabulary of international law and Palestinian self-determination, serves the same purpose: to make any recognition of Israel conditional on terms Riyadh knows Jerusalem cannot accept. Where Khartoum was blunt and openly hostile, the contemporary version is polished, presentable and “politically correct” in Western foreign ministries — and therefore more potent.
The kingdom no longer conceals its antisemitic undertones that accompany this repositioning. In January 2026, the Anti-Defamation League took the unusual step of issuing a public statement highlighting its alarm over the sharp rise in antisemitic rhetoric in Saudi Arabia and the growing public attacks on the Abraham Accords by prominent Saudi figures. Two weeks later, the front page of the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah labeled the United Arab Emirates a “Zionist Trojan horse” in the Arab world. Such commentary appears in outlets operating under close royal supervision, signaling what the leadership wishes to be heard.
The diplomatic record aligns with the rhetorical shift. In September 2025, Saudi Arabia and France co-hosted a high-profile conference at the UN General Assembly, where multiple countries announced their recognition of a non-existent Palestinian state. The initiative explicitly endorsed the “right of return” and sought to reinforce the legitimacy of UNRWA — the UN agency whose long-documented role in employing Hamas operatives in Gaza has raised serious questions for decades. A country genuinely interested in narrowing the gap with Israel would not spearhead an international campaign promoting outcomes that would be an existential threat to Israel. Saudi Arabia has chosen what side it is on.
Israel’s response is shaped not by ideology but by hard-won experience. The results of creating an independent Palestinian entity are already known: the experiment has already been conducted. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip — every Jewish civilian was expelled, every IDF soldier pulled out, and complete territorial control handed over to the Palestinian Authority. What followed was the emergence of a jihadist emirate, the firing of tens of thousands of rockets at civilians in Israel — a country smaller than the state of New Jersey (roughly 22,000 sq.km.) — and the horrors of October 7, 2023.
The Saudi demand is essentially that Israel repeat that same failed experiment on the hills of Judea and Samaria, overlooking Ben-Gurion International Airport and Tel Aviv, and surrounding Jerusalem on three sides. No Israeli government, regardless of its political makeup, can agree to such terms. The late Abba Eban, serving as Israel’s foreign minister, had called the pre-1967 “border” — merely an armistice line where the fighting had stopped in 1949 — “the Auschwitz lines.” Riyadh appears to understand this perfectly, which is precisely why its condition was framed as it was.
At its core, Saudi Arabia’s reluctance to recognize Israel is theological as well as a political power grab, lest Israel gain too much stature in the neighborhood. The Saudi monarch carries the title of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, conferring a unique religious legitimacy unmatched by any other Sunni capital. Granting formal recognition to a sovereign Jewish state in the heart of Dar al-Islam — territory historically conquered for the Muslim nation (umma) — would require conceding a doctrinal point that strikes at the very foundation of the Saudi monarchy.
The kingdom’s “Vision 2030” has modernized the surface — introducing movie theaters, allowing women to drive, and launching futuristic projects such as NEOM. It has not, however, rewritten the religious basis of the throne’s legitimacy. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whose dependence on this religious legitimacy has only grown since the Khashoggi murder, is unlikely to risk it for a normalization with a country that, since defeating Saudi Arabia’s main enemy, Iran, may now be more of a problem than a benefit. Israel’s strategic value is simply not needed anymore.
Israel, for its part, can extract a certain short-term strategic benefit from a weakened but still surviving Iranian regime. As long as Tehran continues to threaten Sunni capitals, Israel remains an indispensable regional player, and the broader architecture of the Abraham Accords retains some rationale. Yet no Israeli government will base its long-term security on such a calculation, not to mention what a betrayal it is of the Iranian people, whom Trump encouraged to give up so much in the hope of real freedom.
What comes after in Iran may prove more consequential. The Sunni world has never been monolithic. The Muslim Brotherhood, officially designated a terrorist organization by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and even Austria, continues to enjoy sponsorship and amplification from Qatar and Turkey. In January 2026, the Trump administration formally labeled the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Lebanese branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist entities, sharpening a fault line long obscured by the shared priority of containing Iran.
Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, although not in open conflict with Israel, currently poses a more organized threat to Jerusalem than at any point in modern history: neo-Ottoman ambitions, active military and political support for the Syria’s HTS regime, sheltering Hamas leadership, and promoting jihadist fatwas from the Qatar-based International Union of Muslim Scholars.
Qatar, meanwhile, plays an even more institutionalized double game: hosting America’s largest regional military base while protecting Hamas commanders, financing Muslim Brotherhood networks, and deploying Al Jazeera TV network as the ideological megaphone for the entire project.
Should the Iranian regime eventually collapse — whether through internal revolt or popular uprising, the longstanding rivalry between the anti-Muslim Brotherhood bloc (UAE, Morocco, Bahrain) and the Qatar-Ankara axis would inherit the central role long played by Iran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE would then face that confrontation having lost the one common enemy that had justified their alignment. In such a landscape, they would need a capable partner possessing the technological and military edge they cannot readily develop themselves. Israel is that partner, whether or not formal recognition ever materializes.
No Arab state is prepared to recognize Israel as a Jewish state rooted in Jewish faith and history: doing so would mean accepting permanent Jewish sovereignty over land that Islamic tradition regards as territory conquered to be held in perpetuity for Islam. The Arab League’s response to the 1948 UN partition plan was a genocidal invasion of the newly born Jewish state by the armies of five Arab states. Khartoum repeated this rejection in 1967. Saudi Arabia continues the same refusal today in language carefully tailored for Western chancelleries.
October 7, 2023 showed, in the most brutal terms, what the Saudi formula produces when implemented. Israeli security cannot rest any hope on a recognition that will not come. It will depend instead on the determined elimination of the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies when the opportunity arises, and the fight for power that might well define the Sunni world once the Shia threat no longer binds it together.
The Dangerous Illusion Of “Safe” Christian Colleges – Parents Beware
A fresh wave of graduating seniors is about to walk across high school stages this spring, diplomas in hand and dreams of the future ahead of them. For many Christian families, one of the biggest decisions now looming is where those students will attend college. And for countless parents, the assumption still remains the same: a Christian college must surely be the safest and best place for a young believer to grow academically while also deepening their faith.
After all, these schools often promise biblical values, Christian community, chapel services, faith-based learning, and professors who supposedly teach through the lens of Scripture.
But increasingly, many Christian parents are discovering a troubling reality: not every college using the word “Christian” actually upholds a biblical worldview.
As families begin researching colleges this year, they must do far more than simply glance at mission statements or trust marketing brochures. In today’s cultural climate, discernment has become essential because many institutions that still promote themselves as Christian are simultaneously embracing ideologies and practices that directly conflict with historic biblical teaching.
Over the past several years, numerous Christian universities have found themselves embroiled in controversy over LGBTQ activism, drag performances, gender ideology, and theological compromise. What once would have been unthinkable at many Christian schools is now increasingly normalized.
Baylor University, one of the nation’s best-known Baptist institutions, has repeatedly faced controversy surrounding LGBTQ issues on campus. Reports have highlighted disputes over pro-LGBTQ student events, activist groups, and growing pressure within the university to shift further away from traditional biblical teaching on sexuality. For many conservative Christian families, Baylor has become symbolic of the broader theological drift occurring inside portions of Christian higher education.
Meanwhile, some Catholic universities have gone even further, hosting “Lavender Graduation” ceremonies celebrating LGBTQ-identifying students. In several cases, reports have described drag performances connected to campus celebrations. Schools tied to these controversies reportedly include institutions such as Georgetown University, Seattle University, and Fordham University. These universities still prominently market their Christian heritage while simultaneously embracing movements many Christians believe openly contradict Scripture.
Other schools have faced similar criticism. Bethel College, a Mennonite-affiliated Christian college in Kansas, drew backlash after hosting annual drag shows on campus. Local residents and Christian critics questioned how a school rooted in historic Christian tradition could actively promote events that many believers view as fundamentally incompatible with biblical teaching. Yet defenders of the events framed them as expressions of inclusion and acceptance.
Seattle Pacific University, a historically Free Methodist university, has also become a national flashpoint in the battle over Christian identity and sexuality. Years of internal conflict erupted as students and faculty pushed aggressively for LGBTQ affirmation and policy changes while university leadership attempted to maintain traditional biblical standards. Protests, sit-ins, lawsuits, and public division followed, exposing how deeply fractured many Christian institutions have become over core doctrinal issues.
And these examples are only scratching the surface.
Many Christian parents still operate under assumptions that may have been true decades ago but are far less reliable today. They see crosses on websites, Bible verses in promotional materials, and words like “faith-centered” or “Christ-centered” in advertisements and assume the institution remains firmly grounded in biblical truth.
But appearances can be deceiving.
Years ago, Christian researchers warned that many Christian colleges were already compromising foundational biblical doctrines beneath the surface. Ken Ham and Greg Hall’s book Already Compromised documented research suggesting that many self-described Christian colleges had quietly embraced secular philosophies while continuing to market themselves as biblically faithful institutions.
According to the research, many professors at Christian colleges openly questioned the authority of Scripture, rejected biblical creation, embraced progressive theology, or promoted worldviews deeply influenced by secular academic culture.
Author Randy Alcorn later addressed what he called “false advertising by Christian colleges,” warning that many parents would be stunned if they truly understood what some professors and departments actually believed behind classroom doors.
Sadly, the problem has only intensified with time.
Today’s college campuses are not merely academic environments–they are worldview formation centers. Students are not only learning career skills. They are learning how to think about morality, sexuality, truth, identity, faith, and even the authority of God Himself.
That is why this issue matters so deeply.
Parents are not simply investing tens of thousands of dollars into an education. They are entrusting schools with the spiritual and intellectual shaping of their children during one of the most formative seasons of life.
And too many Christian families are doing so without asking hard questions.
What do the professors actually believe? What speakers are invited to campus? What student organizations are promoted? What worldview dominates the social atmosphere? How are biblical beliefs treated when they conflict with modern cultural trends? These are no longer optional questions for Christian parents–they are essential ones.
To be fair, not every Christian college has abandoned biblical conviction.
There are still schools that genuinely strive to uphold Scripture, cultivate authentic Christian community, and prepare students to serve Christ faithfully in their future careers. Strong Christian colleges still exist, and when families find the right one, the experience can be deeply valuable spiritually, academically, and personally.
A healthy Christian college can strengthen faith, encourage spiritual maturity, develop leadership, build lifelong Christian friendships, and prepare students to impact the culture rather than be consumed by it.
But families can no longer afford to assume that every institution carrying the “Christian” label actually offers that environment.
This year’s graduating seniors are entering a world filled with confusion, competing ideologies, and intense pressure to compromise biblical convictions. Sadly, some of that pressure is now coming from institutions that still market themselves as Christian.
That is why parents must do their homework carefully.
Because choosing a college is no longer simply about finding the right degree program. It is about determining who and what will shape the heart, mind, and worldview of the next generation.
Drone Supremacy: The New Arms Race Emerging From The Ukraine War
Drone warfare has become one of the defining forces of the Russia–Ukraine war, reshaping not only how battles are fought but also how territory is contested, held, and even denied without traditional infantry engagement. What began as a supporting capability has evolved into a central pillar of modern warfare—so much so that analysts increasingly describe the front lines in Ukraine not as trenches alone, but as layered “kill zones” dominated by persistent aerial surveillance and strike drones.
One of the most striking developments is the sheer scale of drone deployment. Across the battlefield, Ukrainian forces are believed to be operating tens of thousands—possibly hundreds of thousands—of drones in circulation, supported by decentralized production and rapid frontline distribution. This has enabled what military observers often refer to as a “drone wall”: a dense, overlapping network of reconnaissance and attack systems that can detect, track, and strike targets in real time. In practice, this means Ukrainian units can monitor large stretches of territory continuously, making traditional troop movements far more dangerous and expensive.
This shift has helped stall aspects of Russia’s invasion strategy in several ways. Even when Russia maintains advantages in manpower and artillery, its ability to maneuver large formations has been constrained by constant aerial observation and precision strikes. Infantry advances that once relied on surprise or massed concentration are now exposed almost instantly. As a result, some positions are effectively held or denied not by soldiers alone, but by drones that function as eyes, scouts, and strike platforms simultaneously.
In some sectors of the front, drones are even being used to assist in taking or holding territory with minimal direct infantry engagement. Small unmanned systems can drop explosives into trenches, disrupt supply lines, and force withdrawals from positions that would previously require costly ground assaults. The battlefield has become increasingly asymmetric—not in terms of armies, but in terms of visibility and reaction time.
Russia, for its part, has also invested heavily in drone warfare, but reports suggest a different strategic posture. Rather than committing all available systems to Ukraine, there are claims that Moscow is stockpiling large quantities of next-generation drones, potentially for future operations. Among the most discussed are fibre-optic FPV drones, which rely on physical cable links rather than radio signals. This makes them far more resistant to electronic warfare, a domain in which Ukraine and its allies within NATO have developed significant defensive capabilities.
According to Ukrainian and Russian intelligence reporting cited in open analysis, Russia may have diverted large numbers of these fibre-optic systems into rear depots since late 2025. Estimates suggest stockpiles could already reach around 130,000 units, with potential to grow toward 200,000 within months. In theoretical planning scenarios, some analysts have even suggested that in a Baltic theater conflict, there could be as many as four drones per NATO soldier—a figure intended to illustrate saturation rather than literal battlefield deployment ratios.
These concerns are particularly focused on the Baltic states—specifically Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—which some defense analysts argue could be vulnerable to rapid, high-intensity drone saturation due to their geography and proximity to Russia. The logic behind such speculation is not that drones alone could win a war, but that massed swarms could overwhelm early warning systems, disrupt command-and-control, and create shock conditions before conventional forces fully mobilize.
Reports attributed to groups such as Volya—a political analysis organization—have even suggested that elements within the Russian defense establishment view such a strategy as a way to exploit perceived hesitation among European states. These claims remain unverified, but they reflect a broader anxiety in European security circles about the pace at which drone warfare is evolving compared to defensive adaptation.
At the center of these developments is the question of where drone warfare goes next. The war in Ukraine has already demonstrated that drones can function as persistent artillery, reconnaissance networks, and psychological tools of attrition. The next phase is likely to be defined by autonomy, swarming algorithms, and counter-drone escalation cycles that evolve almost monthly.
This is where fibre-optic systems could become strategically significant. Unlike conventional drones, which rely on radio-frequency links that can be jammed or spoofed, fibre-optic FPV drones are physically tethered, allowing operators to maintain control in heavily contested electronic warfare environments. In a battlefield increasingly defined by signal disruption, that single design change can restore a decisive advantage.
One of the main reasons Russia has struggled to fully capitalize on its advantages in manpower and industrial capacity is precisely because of Ukraine’s drone-centric defensive model. Even with superior resources in some categories, Russian forces have repeatedly encountered a battlefield where visibility equals vulnerability.
Yet the evolution of drone warfare is far from settled. It is not just changing how wars are fought—it is changing what it means to hold territory at all. And as both sides accelerate production, stockpiling, and innovation, the war in Ukraine may be remembered less as a traditional conflict and more as the moment modern drone warfare became the dominant language of the battlefield.
Fallen Angels? Congresswoman Sparks Debate Linking UFOs To The Nephilim
The recent release of long-awaited UFO-related government documents has once again pulled the public imagination toward one of the most persistent and controversial questions of modern times: what exactly are unidentified anomalous phenomena, and how should they be interpreted?
The latest batch of files–released following a directive associated with President Donald Trump–includes historical State Department cables, FBI records, and NASA mission transcripts now made available through a newly launched Pentagon portal. Officials have framed the release as part of a broader push for transparency, encouraging the public to examine the material and draw their own conclusions.
Yet even as government agencies continue to emphasize caution and scientific restraint, the cultural conversation surrounding UFOs has taken a sharply different turn in some political and religious circles.
Among the most striking responses came from Rep. Lauren Boebert, who suggested that some of the phenomena described in these records may not be extraterrestrial at all–but spiritual in nature. Speaking in the context of renewed interest in UFO disclosures, she framed the issue through a biblical worldview, pointing to Old Testament references to fallen angels and the Nephilim.
“God is the creator of the universe,” Boebert said. “He’s never not going to create. So it’s always been something in my mind to say, ‘how can we be the only ones?'” She went on to connect modern unexplained sightings to ancient scripture, stating that “the Old Testament… tells us about fallen angels and Nephilim. I mean, this is in the Bible.”
Her comments extended further into speculative territory, suggesting that some encounters might involve “portals” or spiritual dimensions rather than physical spacecraft. “I wouldn’t put it as Marvin the Martian kind of thing,” she added, “but I do believe that this is more spiritual, and if you really want to go there, demonic.”
These remarks have reignited a long-running tension in the UFO debate: whether unexplained aerial phenomena should be understood strictly through the lens of aerospace technology and misidentification–or whether they intersect with deeper metaphysical or theological interpretations.
From a scientific standpoint, the Pentagon’s most recent public assessment has remained consistent. Investigators have stated they have found no verified evidence of recovered alien craft or confirmed extraterrestrial life. Many sightings, according to defense analysts, can be attributed to experimental military systems, atmospheric conditions, sensor errors, or misidentified conventional aircraft.
Still, the persistence of unexplained cases leaves space for interpretation–and in that space, theological frameworks have increasingly resurfaced.
Central to Boebert’s comments is the biblical concept of the Nephilim, a mysterious group mentioned briefly in Genesis 6:1-4. The passage describes a time when “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men” produced offspring known as Nephilim, often translated as “giants” or “mighty men of old.”
Interpretations of this passage have varied for centuries. One traditional view holds that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who interacted with humans, producing hybrid offspring–an idea later echoed in some ancient Jewish writings such as the Book of Enoch. In this interpretation, the Nephilim are seen as powerful, corrupt beings associated with violence and moral decay in the pre-flood world.
Other scholars argue the text is more symbolic or genealogical in nature, suggesting the “sons of God” may have been human rulers or descendants of Seth, with the Nephilim representing powerful or “giant-like” humans rather than supernatural hybrids. The Bible itself offers limited detail, and later passages–such as Numbers 13:33–refer again to Nephilim-like figures, describing them as unusually large and formidable inhabitants of Canaan.
What makes the Nephilim narrative particularly compelling in modern UFO discourse is not consensus, but ambiguity. The ancient text leaves room for interpretation, and in moments of cultural uncertainty, that ambiguity often becomes a canvas onto which contemporary anxieties and curiosities are projected.
This is where the UFO debate and biblical speculation begin to overlap. For some believers, unexplained aerial phenomena feel like a continuation of ancient spiritual warfare narratives–unseen forces interacting with the human world in ways that defy scientific classification. For others, such interpretations risk conflating myth, metaphor, and modern aerospace mystery in ways that obscure more grounded explanations.
Still, the cultural power of these ideas is undeniable. UFO disclosures, particularly when tied to secrecy and government classification, tend to create interpretive gaps. Into those gaps flow everything from advanced foreign surveillance theories to spiritual warfare frameworks.
What is emerging is not a single explanation, but a layered landscape of belief systems attempting to make sense of the unknown.
The release of additional UFO-related documents is expected in the coming months, and with each new disclosure, the debate is likely to intensify. Whether viewed as classified technology, atmospheric misidentification, or something more metaphysical, the phenomenon continues to resist easy categorization.
In the end, the most important question may not be what the files contain–but why humanity is so quick to reach beyond the visible world in search of meaning. For some, the answer is found in physics and defense analysis. For others, in ancient texts and spiritual frameworks like the Nephilim narrative.
And for many in the middle, the tension itself remains unresolved: a reminder that the boundary between mystery and belief is often thinner than we assume.
TruLight Ministries Daily Entertainment Manna
TruLight TV : How do you approach God?
How do you approach God? In this video, learn to seek God with confidence knowing no matter what you’re dealing with or what burdens you carry, you can approach Him boldly and ready to receive grace. Today on the Josh & Ashley show, includes a guest appearance by The Hinson Family – The Hinson Family is an award-winning Gospel Music Trio that hails from Nashville, TN. The heritage for The Hinson Family runs deep with Weston Hinson, lead singer, being the son of legendary lead vocalist for The Original Hinsons, the late Kenny Hinson. Kenny is regarded as one of the greatest singers of all time and is a major influence of many in the gospel music field as well as in main stream country music. The Original Hinsons began in Freedom, CA on December 12, 1967 and blazed a trail in gospel music that still burns to this day. The Hinsons were known for a high energy and dynamic presentation during their concerts and are responsible for such songs as “The Lighthouse,” “Hallelujah Meeting,” “That I Could Still Go Free,” “Call Me Gone,” and many others. Enjoy today show and thanks for watching.
Today on TruLight Radio XM
TruLight Radio XM 24/7
Program
GMT / UTC +2
Monday To Fridays
00:15 Words to Live By Testimonies
01.15 Science Scripture and Salvation
02.15 Ground Works
04.00 Gospel Concert of the Day
05.00 The Daren Streblow Comedy Show
5:55 It is Today devotional
6:00 Gaither Homecoming Morning Show
7:15 Discover the Word
8.15 Destined for Victory
8:55 Science Scripture and Salvation
9:00 Holy Spirit Hour – Normally Sermons
10:15 Hope of the Heart
11:15 Unshackled
11.45 Words to Live By
12:15 Truth for Life
13:15 Living on the Edge with Chip Ingram
14:15 Focus on the Family
15:00 Kids Hour
16:00 In Touch with Dr. Charles Stanley
16:30 Groundwork
17:15 Live in the Light
18:15 Renewing your Mind
19:00 Gaither Homecoming Show
20:15 Growing Hope
21:15 Adventures in Odyssey Radio Drama
21:45 Bible Reading
22:15 Night-sounds
23.00 Good Old Country Gospel / Rhema Gospel Express
VISIT THE WEBSITE
TruLight Ministry News – EXTRA MANNA
TruLight Ministries orders from God since 2012 . Teach Them , Comfort Them and Warn Them!
Healing Truths.
End Time Articles.
Bonus Teaching for the Child of God !!
Near the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes a startling statement: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). Obviously, doing the will of the Father is of prime importance. Life—eternal life—depends on it.
The context of Jesus’ statement is as follows:
Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?” Then I will tell them plainly, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” (Matthew 7:21–23).
Everyone desires good communication. Communication enables us to know the will of someone else. Life is much easier when an employee knows the boss’s expectations, the student the teacher’s, and most importantly, when a son or a daughter knows what Dad wants. Going about life oblivious to expectations only brings about relational anxiety and stress, but when expectations are clear, our hearts are brought to peace and assurance. More than anyone else, God understands the need for clear communication. Thankfully, Jesus tells us clearly in Matthew 7 what God desires that we may do the will of the Father.
In Matthew 7:15–20, Jesus likens doing God’s will to a tree that bears fruit. A fruit tree that does not produce fruit is not in essence a fruit tree. It has betrayed its very being. At the very least, the fruit tree is not fulfilling the purpose for which it is designed. For a fruit tree to be worthy of the name, it must produce fruit.
Jesus likened the unproductive fruit tree to the unproductive “prophets” of the day (Matthew 7:15). These pretenders went about declaring “Lord, Lord,” claiming to cast out demons, and doing wondrous works, all the while missing the expectations of God Himself. Jesus tells them that the Father sees through their masquerades and charades. He calls them “evildoers” and declares that He doesn’t know or recognize them (verse 23).
Jesus continues in Matthew 7:24–29, contrasting the lawless prophets to true disciples who build their lives on a rock. The false professors build on shifting sand. They claim to live well, yet they are unstable, lawless, and fruitless. Jesus wants them to know the clear communication of the Father in heaven so their lives can be fruitful, righteous, and steady.
There are several truths to be gleaned from Jesus’ words concerning “the one who does the will of my Father.” First, actions speak more loudly than words. There are people claiming to know God, and all the while God has never known them. Words are not enough. Professions of faith in Christ and declarations of fealty to Him must be followed by Christlike action. It’s not enough for a tree to be labeled “apple tree”; it must produce apples.
Second, the priority of salvation is not that we do things in Jesus’ name but that Jesus knows us. The pretenders do many things in Jesus’ name (Matthew 7:22), and they have great confidence in themselves that they are worthy of heaven. But Jesus will declare to them, “I never knew you” (verse 22). Those whom Jesus knows—those of whom He approves—are those who do the will of His Father in heaven.
Third, Jesus is the Judge. The conversation Jesus has with the false professors takes place at the final judgment. It is to Christ that sinners must give account. “The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22).
If the only way to “enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 7:21) is to do the will of the Father in heaven, then what is the will of God? The answer is found in the rest of Jesus’ sermon. All that comes before Matthew 7:21 paints a picture of the one who truly follows Christ and is known by Him. Those who do the Father’s will are showing by their actions that their faith is real. “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says” (James 1:22; see also James 2:26).
The starting point is faith in Christ. One day, some people came to Jesus and asked Him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” (John 6:28). Jesus answered not with a list of good deeds to perform but with an emphasis on faith: “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” (John 6:29). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice” is wisely building his life on the solid rock (Matthew 7:24). The one who follows Jesus will inevitably produce righteousness, and he it is who does the will of the Father.
Share this Feeding of Manna with your Friends and Family. just click on the Social Media icon and share !
