John F. Kennedy the 35th President of the United States, a patriotic, liberal, Cold War warrior who made anti-communism the cornerstone of his presidency, was born on May 29, 1917 five months before the Russian Revolution (history’s first communist revolution), and was killed by a communist assassin 46 years later in Dallas, Texas. That JFK’s death was an act of Divine Providence and not a chance event (willed and mysteriously predetermined by a Higher Power) is indicated I believe by the following astonishing numerical patterns and signs taken from his family history and the last year of his short amazing life.
John Kennedy’s family roots in America began in 1845 with the migration from Ireland of his great grandfather Patrick (born 1823) during the one term presidency of Democratic President James Polk (of Scot-Irish descent). Patrick settled in East Boston (see) and lived to 1858 when he died of cholera at age 35 (35 is JFK’s presidency number*) during the one term Democratic President James Buchanan. But most astonishingly, and I believe providentially, Patrick Kennedy’s death fell on the ominous infamous date NOVEMBER 22ND, exactly 105 years to the tragic day when JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald in a fit of anti-American communist left-wing rage. This highly improbable and mind-boggling "coincidence" in and by itself should suggest to any person of reason and faith that something more than blind chance and human misdeeds was at work in Kennedy’s death; and that the death of the great grandfather prophetically anticipated the death of the great grandson as if it were predestined and immutably decreed.
*It seems that Patrick Kennedy’s death at age 35 prefigures his great grandson becoming the 35th US President, and dying in office at the start of his 35th month. For November 22, 1963 was 2 years, 10 months and 2 days in office which was the second day of his 35th month (see). Moreover, just as Patrick Kennedy's death occurred at age 35, 105 years from the day of  the 35th president's death, it is fascinating to note that 35 multiplied by 3 gives us the number 105.
Furthermore, as exactly 105 years separate the deaths of Patrick Kennedy in 1858 from John Kennedy in 1963 it just so happens that the number 105 is a factor of two five digit numbers wherein both these years are strangely encoded, hence:
105 x 177 = 18585

105 x 187 = 19635

Moreover, as the integers in the number 105 give us the number 6 when added separately (1+0+5=6), and when multiplied by 187 105 gives us the year 1963 when Kennedy died, when multiplied by 6 187 completes the date of his death giving us the month (11) and day (22), hence:

187 x 6 =1122 or 11-22 (November 22nd).

But there’s more directly pointing to Heaven’s invisible hand in the tragedy of Kennedy’s earthshaking death; and this involves another kinsman of the clan with the great grandfather’s same first name. Indeed, “certain events are preceded by certain signs” said the philosopher-statesman Cicero; and as if to mystically signify that JFK’s death was more than just a senseless act of political violence committed by a lone communist killer Providence gives us a second extraordinary sign to complement and reinforce the first in the sad, unfortunate death of JFK’s last child. Here is what I mean: 
70 days past her husband’s last birthday, in the 7th month of her fourth and last pregnancy, Jackie Kennedy on the 7th day of August gave birth to a beautiful baby boy only to see him die two days later from respiratory disease. The child who was christened Patrick Bouvier (see) after the short lived patriarch (and Jackie’s family name) died in the same city of Boston in a hospital bordering Brookline, JFK’s birthplace*. But here is where it gets profound and breaks new ground in this fascinating subject. When JFK died on November 22nd it was exactly 105 days (no more or less, see) from his suffering son’s anguishing death, hence:
August 9, 1963 (Patrick Bouvier Kennedy’s death) to November 22, 1963 (JFK’s death) = 105 days (see)
*The child was born at Otis Air Force Base Hospital in Falmouth, Massachusetts then transferred to Boston Childrens' Hospital (bordering Brookline) dying in the same city as the patriarch of Hyaline’s disease. It is interesting to note that the deaths of the father and son fell on a Friday (the 6th day of the week).
In short, what the patriarch Patrick's death was to JFK’s death in years the infant son Patrick's death was to his father’s death in days. In other words, the number 105 is a numeric sign from On High revealing to us mortals that JFK’s death by Lee Harvey Oswald was not a random, unguided, chance event, (nor for that matter a vast human conspiracy) but was meaningfully and purposefully directed and willed by God-I will explore this in a future work as Kennedy’s death by a communist killer is inseparably linked to the rise of Ronald Reagan and the Conservative Right and the fall of the Soviet Union.
In sum, while Providential and chance events can sometimes look the same the parallel deaths of the two Patrick Kennedys, wonderfully corresponding in years and days preceding JFK’s death (and occurring in the same US city), were clearly signature effects of a Higher Power with a master plan for our great nation-a plan that’s been unfolding before that day in Dallas and ever since in the tumult of national and world events that are shaping the earth and its fate.
The tragic death of John Kennedy 50 years ago today is proof to me (as it should be to you) that we are a "Nation Under God" and that He's with us in our trials and tribulations; and that however difficult and frightening the challenges and crises ahead this nation born in blood and liberty shall prevail; and restoring our exceptionalism and greatness with strong, wise conservative leadership we shall again become the SHINING CITY ON THE HILL for the nations to follow and emulate.
Above I pointed out that Patrick Kennedy’s death at age 35 prefigured the presidency number of his great grandson and the fact that when he died on the 105th anniversary of the patriarch’s death he was two days into the 35th month of his presidency. But just as fascinating is that the exact number of days separating the deaths of both men were 38,350 wherein we find the significant number 35 again. Equally odd however is the fact that the number 38,350 is a multiple of the number 19175 (2x) giving us 1917, the year of JFK’s birth and the Russian Revolution-which ultimately inspired Lee Harvey Oswald’s heinous pro-communist leftist crime.

What I have written above compliments the famous, uncanny, well known parallels (see below) between Lincoln and Kennedy in their political lives and tragic deaths. For both indicate a designing intelligence of incalculable power and strength intervening in and overseeing seemingly chaotic national events. But what has never been said about the Lincoln and Kennedy deaths is that Booth and Oswald, the assassins of both presidents, were manifestations of the DESPOTIC IDEA that "Might Makes Right" and that human beings are mere things not created equal with inalienable rights made in the image of God. For Booth fiercely supported the abominable institution of slavery and wanted it to survive; and Oswald believed that master-slave totalitarian communism was the way, the truth, and the life for mankind. Moreover, just as Booth was driven to his deed by the surrender of Lee at Appomattox Oswald’s first name “Lee” came from the defeated Confederate general by way of his father. For Oswald’s father’s full name was Robert E. Lee Oswald.




The first 36 Lincoln-Kennedy Coincidences on this list (which I compiled from various sources) most of you have seen and can be found in a thousand places on the internet. But the last five are new, original discoveries by yours truly culminating in the most astonishing PLincoln-Kennedy coincidence of all linked to the number 105.


(skip to # 34 for the new stuff)

1. Lincoln and Kennedy were elected President 100 year’s apart, the one in 1860, the other in 1960.

2. Lincoln defeated incumbent Vice President John C. Breckenridge for the presidency; Kennedy defeated incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon  for the presidency.

3. Both their predecessors left office in their seventies and retired to Pennsylvania. James Buchanan whom Lincoln succeeded, retired to Lancaster Township; Dwight Eisenhower whom Kennedy succeeded, retired to Gettysburg. 
4. Both Lincoln and Kennedy were elected President after each had unsuccessfully sought to get the Vice-Presidential nominations of their party which again was 100 year’s apart, the one in 1856 and the other in 1956.
5. Lincoln and Kennedy both served in the House of Representatives and were elected to that office 100 year’s apart, the one in 1846, the other in 1946.
6. The man Lincoln defeated to become President, Stephen Douglas, was born in 1813. The man Kennedy defeated to become President, Richard Nixon, was born 100 years later in 1913.
7. Both Lincoln and Kennedy while in their thirties married a pretty sophisticated twenty-four year old brunette who spoke French fluently.


8. Both Lincoln and Kennedy had sons who died during their presidency-Lincoln’s son William who died at age eleven and Kennedy’s son Patrick who died two days after his birth.

9. Kennedy’s secretary was named Lincoln.

10. Both Lincoln and Kennedy died on a Friday.

11. Both were shot once in the head.

12. Both were seated at the time they were shot.

13. Both were shot from behind in the back of the head.

14. Both were shot by assassins who were to their right rear.

15. Both Lincoln’s and Kennedy’s wives were seated next to them when they were shot.

16. Each wife, after her husband was shot in the head, cradled the head in their lap.

17. Both Lincoln and Kennedy were in the presence of another couple, and in each case the man was also wounded by another assassin (Connelly by gunshot, Major Rathborne when Booth stabbed him).

18. Lincoln was shot in Ford’s Theater Kennedy in a Lincoln Continental manufactured by Ford.

19. Both Lincoln and Kennedy were taken to locations with the initials PH: the Peterson House and Parkland Hospital.

20. Though both Lincoln and Kennedy were shot in the head which normally causes immediate death neither died instantly and feverish efforts to resuscitate them were made by several physicians both President’s responding with increased though weak pulse before expiring.

21. On the day Lincoln was killed he told an aide he knew there were those who wanted him dead. “If it is to be done,” he said, “it is impossible to prevent it.” On the day of Kennedy’s murder he said in his Fort Worth hotel room to Jackie and an aide how easy it would be for someone to shoot him from a “high building with a high powered rifle and there’s nothing anyone could do.”

NOTE: Kennedy’s almost precise oracular premonition just hours before his assassination about the means and manner of his death lifts the tragic event out of the world of political time and space into the supernatural realm where forces more powerful than man guide and influence human destiny.

22. Unlike 99% of the population presidential assassins John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald were known by their three names.

23. Both Booth and Oswald were shot and killed before they were brought to trial.

24. Both Booth and Oswald were killed by one shot from a revolver.

25Both assassins died in the same month as their victim in a state adjacent to the state of their birth.

26. Both Lincoln’s and Kennedy’s successors were named Johnson.

27. Lincoln’s successor Andrew Johnson was born 1808. Kennedy’s successor Lyndon Johnson was born 1908.

28. Both Johnson’s were Southern Democrats.

29. Both Johnson’s served in the U.S. Senate.

30. Both Johnsons were succeeded as President in '69 by Republicans whose mothers were named Hannah.

31. The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

32. The names John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald each contain fifteen letters.

33. The names Andrew Johnson and Lyndon Johnson each contain thirteen letters.


34. Kennedy was killed on the 22nd of the month, Lincoln on the 15th day of the month, which gives us a difference of 7. Kennedy was killed in the 11th month of the year, Lincoln in the 4th month which again gives us a difference of 7.

35. Kennedy was born in the year 1917, Lincoln died in 1865 which gives us a difference of 52 years, a number that is reducible to 7 (5+2=7). Lincoln was inaugurated President at age 52, Kennedy at 43, both numbers are variants of 7.

36. As many of the above coincidences are separated by 100 years (10 squared) the ages when Lincoln and Kennedy died are 10 years apart and end in the number 6: Lincoln died at age 56 and Kennedy at 46. As mentioned above, Lincoln and Kennedy died on a Friday, the 6th day of the week.


37. President Lincoln's first Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin, was born August 27, 1809, and was succeeded by Andrew Johnson who became President.

Amazingly, President Kennedy's first and only Vice President, Lyndon Johnson was born August 27, 1908* on the 99th anniversary of Hannibal Hamlin's birth (see and see).
 *1809 and 1908 are composed of the same numbers differently arranged.
38. John Kennedy died 105 years to the day of patriach Patrick Kennedy's death, and 105 days after the death of his son Patrick. Abraham Lincoln died on April 15, 1865, ON THE 105TH DAY OF THE YEAR.
After reading all of the above only a fool would say in his heart "THERE IS NO GOD;" and that everything that exists in this vast universe is the product of meaningless, purposeless, chaotic chance.  


  1. The similarities are too strong to be called coincidental. Only an Intelleigent Designer could have caused these things to occur.

      1. Sadistic? Providence saved JFK from the fate of LBJ and the turmoil of the late 1960s. If he had lived his presidency and legacy would have been decimated. What is “sadistic” about that?

        1. Or you know, God being God, He might have just stopped the Vietnam War from happening or persuaded JFK to not send troops in.

          1. As some have argued, and I believe, the Vietnam War was necessary for the downfall of the Soviet Union. Your Butterfly Effect?

  2. After all the conspiracy stuff on JFK’s death it’s both refreshing and inspiring to read something metaphysical like this.

  3. Good God! The most extraordinary thing I’ve read on the Kennedy assassination since the list of coincidenses came out. No way this can be attributed to chance.

  4. Not every coincidence is Fate. But sometimes it is. Your discovery of the numerical pattern using 105 is one of those times.

  5. We had 4 presidents who were assasinated and they were all elected in the year ending in “zero”. Abraham Lincoln : 1860, James Garfield : 1880, William McKinley : 1900 and John Kennedy : 1960. Although not assasinated, William Harrison was elected in 1840 and died only after a few weeks in office. Ronald Reagan elected in 1980 was near death from an assasin’s bullet. I was keeping my fingers crossed with GW Bush and glad he made it without incident. The coincidence between Lincoln and Kennedy is a fascinating read, made all the more so by Apollo’s contribution.

  6. These types of amazing parallels will appear to be “eery” “spooky” or dismissed as mere “coincidences” ONLY to those who stubbornly refuse to believe in an all powerful Creator God directing with His wisdom and justice human history.

  7. Amazing coincidences aside, they exist between all presidents; Washington was a male, as was Grover Cleveland; Franklin Pierce had both a left and right hand, as did Warren Harding; Truman ate breakfast early and dinner in the evening, as did Andrew Jackson; Hoover wore a suit, as did; Chester Arthur; Martin Van Buren was over five feet tall, as was Millard Filmore; Calvin Coolidge had a wife, who was female, as did William McKinley; and Benjimin Harrison spoke English. Now isn’t that amazing.

      1. The “stunningly unusual ones” are also pretty commonplace as the Mikkelson’s prove over at snopes.com. See their refutation of the Lincoln-JFK Coincidences.

        1. I wouldnt believe anything snopes writes ………..they have no real means of Credentials…….they refuse to do any live news talk shows to confirm where they get their sources and they are just a one sided news source……..they like many media sources today are not fair and balanced……they pick sides of one polictical agenda…..so to call them a valid fact checker is a joke…they are a one sided agenda driven husband and wife team ..

          1. Van Plotts, what the heck is “real means of Credentials”? Their credentials are posted on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Their sources are well-cited. Please give a link to one unbalanced article (they are not a “news source”). They have no reason or responsibility to appear on live news talk shows. They’ve done their work in refuting the Lincoln-Kennedy Coincidences, which Apollo and most of the posters here hate.

  8. Apollo you have omitted that President Kennedy and His Wife were also the parents of another child, a baby girl, who died at birth and is buried along with the family in Arlington. So that would make 4 children for the President and Mrs Kennedy, just like President Lincoln and Mrs Lincoln had.

  9. I think God has more important things to do, Apollo, then give us signs about the deaths of presidents. If one were to follow your philosophy, we could do whatever we want, because God has already “pre-determined” who is going to heaven or hell. I sincerely doubt if God is involved in whether my lottery ticket is a winner or a loser. If you really believe in God, give him/she/it credit for not getting involved in all our petty affairs.

    1. That’s right. If Apollo believes that the deaths of Lincoln and Kennedy were “predestined” and “immutably decreed” by Gawd then that would make him a FATALIST robbing man of free will… like the Muslims absurdly believe who he relentlessly and brutally ridicules.

      1. I’m not a Fatalist like the Moslems and would be foolish to deny something so obviously true as Free Will. I differ from Fatalists in that Predestination for me is not an absolute principle that applies to everyone. I see Predestination as applying exclusively to world historical figures who work out a preordained role on the world stage in every field of life: religion, politics, science, the arts, finance, etc. For the rest of humanity there is no SPECIAL Providence directing their lives as they’re not meant to play a significant role in this world. For better or worse we are the captains of our fate under the Moral Laws and GENERAL Providence of God blessed or cursed for the choices we make and the path we chose in life.

        1. So how do you define which figures fall under special Providence? Do minor US Presidents like Franklin Pierce or Benjamin Harrison go under it? What about leaders of minor countries? Does a Senator who has a relatively large amount of relevance (such as Mitch McConnell) fall under God’s “Special” Providence while a relatively unknown and minor Senator such as Deb Fischer of Nebraska does not? There is nothing to indicate that the Bible teaches a separate special and a general Providence nor does it make much sense logically as the collective actions of normal people (ie through their voting) influence the lives of world leaders as much world leaders influence the lives of normal people. Also a God that would allow the assassination of Presidents as some sort of a cosmic joke is not one much worth worshipping.

          1. According to Arthur Schleshingler in his “1000 Days…” JFK (a Roman Catholic) thought that Providence was merciful with Abe Lincoln. That his assassination saved him and his inspirational legacy from the catastrophe of The Reconstruction Era-suffered by his successor Andrew Johnson. Similarly JFK was rescued from the turmoil of the (Deconstruction) Vietnam War Era-suffered by his successor Lyndon Johnson.

            BTW, the worst President in US history James Buchanan, a Democrat, preceded our best and greatest president Abe Lincoln. Buchanan’s awful presidency practically ensured Lincoln’s election-as Hoover’s did FDR’s and Carter’s did Reagan’s. Who could have better led the nation through World War II than FDR? Who but Reagan would have made a more effective anti-Soviet president working overtly and covertly to reverse Soviet gains during the Carter era? “Ronald Reagan spent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy,” said Gorby. “Ronald Reagan won the Cold war,” admitted a reluctant Ted Kennedy.

            How all this could be the work of blind, mindless, chaotic, meaningless chance is inconceivable to me.

            1. One might also argue that Lincoln could have handled Reconstruction better rather than Johnson’s generally reluctance to expand rights and provide aid to the freed slaves.

              1. Kennedy understood, as I do, that Lincoln’s 10% plan for the Democratic controlled South would have met with violent opposition and disaster. Andrew Johnson, Democrat and former slave owner, was better suited for national healing during Reconstruction than would Lincoln have been had he lived.

                I’m with Kennedy that Lincoln (who had premonitions of his death) died precisely at the right moment needed to keep his great legacy in tact. And when was Lincoln shot? April 14th, Good Friday. A good and proper day for a heroic, self-sacrificing Christian man-a signature effect of God, I believe.

                1. Kennedy foretold his death. On the day that he died he said to his wife how easy it would be for a sniper to shoot him from a high building.

                2. Lincoln the most saintly and Christian of our presidents, and savior of the Union, was shot on the day of Christ’s crucifixion. Chance accident? Really?

                  1. Lincoln was more than likely not a Christian. How is he the most “Christian” of our Presidents, when he wasn’t even a church member?

                    1. Read through this patial list of quotes from Lincoln then tell me he wasn’t a believing unchurched Christian.

                      That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrepect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular.
                      Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity on July 31, 1846 (CWAL I:382)

                      Such a man the times have demanded, and such, in the providence of God was given us. But he is gone. Let us strive to deserve, as far as mortals may, the continued care of Divine Providence, trusting that, in future national emergencies, He will not fail to provide us the instruments of safety and security.
                      Eulogy on Henry Clay, July 6, 1852 (CWAL II:132)

                      Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a “sacred right of self-government.” These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other.Speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854 (CWAL II: 275)

                      [regarding Stephen Douglas]: He says I have a proneness for quoting scripture. If I should do so now, it occurs that perhaps he places himself somewhat upon the ground of the parable of the lost sheep which went astray upon the mountains, and when the owner of the hundred sheep found the one that was lost, and threw it upon his shoulders, and came home rejoicing, it was said that there was more rejoicing over the one sheep that was lost and had been found, than over the ninety and nine in the fold. [Great cheering, renewed cheering.] The application is made by the Saviour in this parable, thus, “Verily I say unto you, there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons that need no repentence. [Cheering.] And now, if the Judge claims the benefit of his parable, let him repent. [Vociferous applause.] Let him not come up here and say: I am the only just person; and you are the ninety-nine sinners! Repentence, beforeforgiveness is a provision of the Christian system, and on that condition alone will the Republicans grant his forgiveness. [Laughter and cheers.]
                      Speech at Springfield, Illinois, on July 17, 1858 (CWAL II:510)

                      [regarding the framers of the Declaration of Independence]: These communities, by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. [Applause.] Yes, gentlemen, to all His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their children’s children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages. Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began — so that truth, and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built.
                      Speech at Lewistown, Illinois, on August 17, 1858 (CWAL II:546)

                      Certainly there is no contending against the Will of God; but still there is some difficulty in ascertaining, and applying it, to particular cases.
                      Fragment on Pro-Slavery Theology ca. October 1, 1858 (CWAL III:204)

                      The Bible says somewhere that we are desperately selfish. I think we would have discovered that fact without the Bible.
                      Debate at Alton, Illinois, on October 15, 1858 (CWAL III:310)

                      Judge Douglas ought to remember when he is endeavoring to force this policy upon the American people that while he is put up in that way a good many are not. He ought to remember that there was once in this country a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be a Democrat — a man whose principles and policy are not very prevalent amongst Democrats to-day, it is true; but that man did not take exactly this view of the insignificance of the element of slavery which our friend Judge Douglas does. In contemplation of this thing, we all know he was led to exclaim, “I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just!” We know how he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself. There was danger to this country — danger of the avenging justice of God in that little unimportant popular sovereignty question of Judge Douglas. He supposed there was a question of God’s eternal justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those who did so braved the arm of Jehovah — that when a nation thus dared the Almighty every friend of that nation had cause to dread His wrath. Choose ye between Jefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element among us.Speech at Columbus, Ohio, on September 16, 1859 (CWAL III:410)

                      The good old maxims of the Bible are applicable, and truly applicable to human affairs, and in this as in other things, we may say here that he who is not for us is against us; he would gathereth not with us scattereth.
                      Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio, on September 17, 1859 (CWAL III:462)

                      I think that if anything can be proved by natural theology, it is that slavery is morally wrong. God gave man a mouth to receive bread, hands to feed it, and his hand has a right to carry bread to his mouth without controversy.
                      Speech at Hartford, Conn., on March 5, 1860 (CWAL IV: 3)

                      Remembering that Peter denied his Lord with an oath, after most solemnly protesting that he never would, I will not swear I will make no committals; but I do think I will not.
                      Letter to Lyman Trumbull on June 5, 1860 (CWAL IV:71)

                      Trusting in Him, who can go with me, and remain with you and be every where for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell.Farewell Address on February 11, 1861 (CWAL IV:190)

                      I turn, then, and look to the American people and to that God who has never forsaken them.
                      Address to the Ohio Legislature on February 13, 1861 (CWAL IV: 204)

                    2. None of those quotes “prove” Lincoln was a Christian-most of them are expressions of faith in a generic deistic God and/or quoting the Bible as a common literary heritage which everyone would know.

                    3. Haberdashe writes:

                      “None of those quotes “prove” Lincoln was a Christian-most of them are expressions of faith in a generic deistic God and/or quoting the Bible as a common literary heritage which everyone would know.”

                      Poor man. Do you even know what a Deist is? Obviously not. Deists don’t believe in Divine Providence. Christians do. And so did Lincoln.

                      Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861 (CWAL IV:271)

                      In regard to this Great Book [the Bible], I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior [Christ] gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it.Reply to Loyal Colored People of Baltimore upon Presentation of a Bible on September 7, 1864 (CWAL VII:542)

                      I am much indebted to the good Christian people of the country for their constant prayers and consolations; and to no one of them, more than to yourself. The purposes of the Almighty are perfect, and must prevail, though we erring mortals may fail to accurately perceive them in advance. We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own error therein. Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains. Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make, and no mortal could stay.Letter to Eliza Gurney on September 4, 1864 (CWAL VII:535)

                    4. A deist believing in providence is like an atheist believing in God. And whoever heard of an unbeliever that believed in”the truth of scripture?” There’s no such animal.

                    5. You are partially correct-Lincoln wasn’t a pure Deist who believed in an absolutely distant God but that doesn’t mean he was a Christian in the sense that believed in the divine nature and saving power of Jesus Christ. Rather, like many of the Founding Fathers, he appears to have been a “theistic rationalist” occupying a rough middle ground between Deism and Christianity. BTW, this identification of most of the Founding Fathers has been devloped by a Christian historian teaching at a conservative Christian college (namely Dr. Gregg Frazer at Master’s College). As for that particular Lincoln quote, John E. Remsburg addresses it here: http://infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_5.html#4.3

                3. Again if we have a Providential God, one would think He would have done something to ensue Reconstruction went more smoothly etc. You are mostly engaging in speculation to fit your elaborate theory of “divine providence” in the lives of JFK and Abe Lincoln.

                  1. So a God who isn’t a puppet master pulling strings and making human beings do His Will has no meaning for you? You’d trade your free will for such a God and become a virtual robot or automaton not learning what is right and wrong from adversity, misfortune and pain? In place of such a God libs like you want an omnipotent state providing for your life and controlling its every aspect.

                    In case you haven’t noticed we got through Reconstruction and the Old South is gone-despite a few reactionaries still whistling Dixie. But if Lincoln had lived he would have complicated the inevitable difficulties of Reconstruction (caused by a culture suddenly abolished) with his misguided plans and policies; and this would have hurt his sublime image and legacy which is revered to this day and still inspires us.

                    BTW, could it be that your non-Christian Lincoln is mere speculation to fit some unspoken theory that he was too intelligent to be a believer?

                    1. Erhm, the “puppetmaster” God you describe is the one propunded by perfectly orthodox Christians such as Calvinists. My point is that if you are going to believe in a God bases on the Bible, a God in control of everything makes more logical sense than one that somehow leaves “minor” things to chance. Anything can be made to fit your theory of God since they can all be explained away as workings of “Providence”. And certainly God could give us nudges so (that for example) Reconstruction could have gone successful. Interesting you don’t quote any Bible verses to support your theory of God.

                      It took a century for the principles of Reconstruction to be finally fulfilled and even now the evil legacies of racial discrimination remain with us as blacks continue to lag behind on significant social indicators. Why would we rather not have an imperfect living Lincoln attempting to implement his vastly superior Reconstruction plans than have the dead Lincoln’s “sublime image and legacy”? What use is that to us?

                      I could just as easily say your claim of Lincoln being a Christian is a desire to validate your religion.

                    2. I disagree. Reconstruction was an unavoidable disaster that Lincoln, had he lived, would have turned into a catastrophe. Lincoln’s post-Civil War image in the South was that of an Adolf Hitler: a brutal, merciless, oppressive, lawless, tyrant who destroyed a superior civilization and caused needless destruction, suffering and death. Post-Civil War Southern hatred of Lincoln was so burning and intense that it would have caused massive resistance to his policies further complicating the difficult task of Reconstruction.

                      In fact, regional hatred of Lincoln didn’t subside until the early 1930s when FDR became the first Democratic presidential candidate to pay homage to Lincoln. Bad as Andrew Johnson was for Reconstruction Lincoln would have been many times worse. When John Kennedy said to Schleslinger that Lincoln didn’t die too soon he was 1000% right.

                      Indeed, when 13 days before his death Lincoln vividly dreamed of his assassination it was a sign from Heaven that it was best for him (his legacy) and the country that he exit the national stage. Ironically, Lincoln died at Fords Theater killed by a stage actor as he was watching a play. It was as if the gods were saying that he’d completed the part he was destined to play and there was nothing left for him to do. And the day of his death, Good Friday, was providentially appointed to mark the end of a life of self-sacrifice and service to the cause of Liberty and saving the Union. Lincoln was the most Christ-like of our presidents. And the image of him as a national savior would have been marred if he had lived trying to reconstruct a South that hated him above all men.

                      Moreover, central to the problem of black America today is the collapse of the black family, traditional values and the work ethic. As this has been a direct result of LBJ’s ill-conceived War on Poverty-and what FDR called “the crippling opiate of gov’t dependency”-it is preposterous to pin it on Lincoln’s death. If Lincoln had lived the War on Poverty would have happened all the same decimating our inner cities and turning them into war zones and moral wastelands. The social pathologies of the welfare culture: violence, crime, illiteracy, disease, drug abuse, single parent families, etc. have been well documented by social scientists. Liberals will have a lot of answering to do to history for their disastrous welfare policies.

                      BTW, Calvinists are but a fraction of Christianity. Their extreme predestinationism (which they have in common with Moslems) isn’t shared by 98% of the faith.

                    3. The problem with all this is that virtually all Christians believe that God is both all-powerful and all-benevolent. And there is no limit to what God could have done (for example) to prevent Reconstruction from being a failure. Additionally, why was it necessary that Lincoln have an image “national savior”? What useful purpose did that serve?

                      Not all Christians are Calvinist but very few Christians would say that anything-no matter how minor-is left up to chance.

                    4. God can’t violate His own laws. Those who believe He can “do anything” and that “all things are possible” for Him have an exaggerated notion of His omnipotence.

                      Americans who see in Lincoln a Christ-like national savior do so out of love for him and his astonishing achievement-confirmed by the providential date of his assassination

    2. Your lottery ticket BostonLib is a petty affair, and winning or losing is governed by chance. The fate of presidents and heads of state is not petty in God’s eyes as they affect the lives and fortunes of millions.

        1. If I don’t practice oral hygiene and brush and floss my teeth God won’t save me from something so petty as tooth decay and eventual tooth loss. George Washington was a Providential Man who wore dentures. God cared nothing about the fate of his teeth; but his fate as a soldier and military officer, and miraculous escape from death on many occasions, had (in my humble opinion) God’s special providence written all over it.

          1. The problem with this is you don’t know when minor events might have big consequences-I’m not sure if you’ve heard about the Butterfly effect but that’s what I’m talking about here.

  10. Heya! I’m at work surfing around your blog from my new iphone 3gs!
    Just wanted to say I love reading your blog and
    look forward to all your posts! Carry on the outstanding work!

  11. Very interesting Apollo. However, there are no coincidences. Everything is what it is, and suppose to be. We live in a cyclical world or Universe where things keep repeating themselves. The only thing that has changed is the material world we as humans create. All evils from the past, are the evils of today; therefore, the evils of the future!

  12. Forgot one: Lincoln was killed for getting us out of a war (Civil War), and Kennedy for not getting us into a war (Vietnam). There is more to this stuff than just coincidence, perhaps somewhere in the Twilight Zone.

  13. What can these amazing coincidences mean? That JFK was a reincarnation of Lincoln and came back to get shot all over again? This is a bit farfetched, to be sure. But this whole thing is just so freakin weird.

  14. You know that the House Select Committee concluded Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy, asserting Oswald didn’t act alone, right?

    In addition, why, almost 55 years after the assassination are over 100,000 pages of records continuing to be withheld? (Seriously–what’s even a hypothetical, good reason for this?) Why, despite being able to withhold records for well over half a century, do we know to a certainty many were nonetheless destroyed?

    Why will Trump have the ability to continue hiding records, 55 years after the assassination?

    This is entirely different from silly conspiracy theories about the moon landing being faked.

  15. “Why will Trump have the ability to continue hiding records, 55 years after the assassination?”

    Never thought I would hear this one…. a person attacking Trump for hiding material about Lee Harvey Oswald! …lol…

Leave a Reply