Tuesday, 30 December 2014

Shoehorning the Roman Doctrines into Scripture: More arguments to address

Here is the article that was promised responding to QuinQue Viae once again. The first few points have been covered here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/clearing-air-once-again-2.html

Now onto the doctrinal arguments.
"The first claim is a peculiar one and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Bobo has an unfounded assertion that Catholics have to believe Mary is both omnipresent or omniscient. Why does he come to this bizarre conclusion? Because Mary can hear multiple prayers at the same time from different parts of the world. Bobo then makes the argument that only God can have these attributes so Catholics applying them to Mary is a form of idolatry. The argument has a few fundamental problems with it. For one, a being that is able to hear multiple prayers and be at different places at the same time does not make said being either omnipresent or omniscient. Far from it. If I were somehow able to be present in Spain and America at the same time, does that make me omnipresent? No, it would make me a being that had the ability of bilocation."

There is no human entity in scripture that possesses the ability of bilocation. If Mary could hear multiple prayers at once, then she has to be omnipresent to begin with, not simply have bilocation.

For those who are unaware, Bilocation is defined here:

"I. The question whether the same finite being (especially a body) can be at once in two (bilocation) or more (replication, multilocation) totally different places grew out of the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist. According to this Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in every consecrated Host wheresoever located. In the endeavour to connect this fact of faith with the other conceptions of the Catholic mind theologians make the following distinctions:"
and

"II. That bilocation (multilocation) is physically impossible, that is, contrary to all the conditions of matter at present known to us, is the practically unanimous teaching of Catholic philosophers in accordance with universalexperience and natural science. As to the absolute or metaphysical impossibility, that is, whether bilocation involves an intrinsic contradiction, so that by no exertion even of Omnipotence could the same body be at once in wholly different places — to this question the foregoing distinctions are pertinent."

Read here for more information: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02568a.htm

"Now what if I were a 100 places at once? Or a million places at once? I'm still infinitely distant from being omnipresent. Rather, the term one would use is multipresent. Meaning, many places at once. There is nothing unbiblical, theologically absurd, or philosophically illogical about God granting an exalted being the ability to be at more places than one at the same time. In fact this is exactly what I would expect from an entity that dwells beyond the three-dimensional understanding of things. Ironically enough, in common Protestant theology (and I would also argue this is in the biblical worldview) Satan has the ability to be multipresent and multiscient. He is described by St. Peter as a roaring lion, threatening every believer at all times. He is given the title of "God of this world" and seen to be the ultimate tempter among christians. In the dialogue with Christ, Satan is able to present all the nations of the Earth to Jesus seemingly at the same time. So Satan has the ability to be multipresent and multiscient yet Saints who are exalted by God in Christian theology actually lack this ability? The view Bobo presents makes absolutely no sense and is debunked by basic logic. Saying a being (in this case Mary) can be in my house and on some island off the coast of Asia isn't showing the attribute of omnipresence but rather multipresence."

Satan and his demons are a threat to all Christians, Satan is not the only threat. Satan cannot be in more than one place at one and even granting multipresence as an argument for Mary and the saints being prayed to, nothing from scripture has been offered and Satan being the God of this world in 2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to Satan simply having dominion and power over the whole world, that's it, it isn't suggesting he has multipresence.

"Likewise, Mary being "multiscient" (to know many things) does not infer that she is omniscient like God. For example, I have no problem with Mary being able to be consciously aware of one's sins and subconsciously aware of many more things. Does this mean she knows the inner workings and chemical mixture found in the depths of an ocean in Europas, one of the many Moons of Jupiter? Of course not! The problem with Bobo and these other low-brow anti-catholic apologists is that they do not even attempt to properly express the Catholic understanding of these dogmas, rather they just work off of their own inner [mis]representation of Scripture & Tradition alike, and then proceed from there. Suffice to say it's a rather annoying habit of theirs and it's almost impossible to have an honest dialogue with men like this. ""

Can you show me biblically speaking where Mary has this attribute granted to her, NO, Quin cannot show you such thinking. Mary is in heaven with the believers in Jesus, she is not going to be aware of what is transpiring on the earth since she is in heaven with Lord. Even if she possessed multipresence, she wouldn't hear the prayers of men since to this world, she is dead and cannot communicate with us.

"The next point of his is to bring up Saintly Intercession as some hideous unbiblical doctrine that has no precedence in Judaism or Jewish literature. A peculiar statement by somehow that is some self-professed "missionary" to the Jews. What an embarrassment this is to Christianity! We have someone who is basing their ministry off of preaching to Jews that doesn't even know Saintly Intercession is a Rabbinic belief and found in many orthodox circles. How can a joker like this even be taken seriously in these Jewish-Christian dialogues of his? Like I said, he is not a good representative of the faith and based upon my private judgement I would say the guy clearly has deep-seated theological issues that he has not quite worked out yet. But now onto the topic of saintly intercession."

The issue of saintly intercession was something I wasn't aware of until I looked into it and here's why,
1. No idea it existed until I looked.
2. It wasn't relevant to the responses to Rabbinic Judaism that I was doing.

Why bother raising a point to someone when it is NOT relevant to the topic itself? If you look at my papers on Judaism, not once does the issue of Saintly intercession ever arise, it wasn't important at the time and still isn't important to speak about with respect to proving Jesus to be the Messiah and YHWH God.

"Bobo's point is that Saints interceding and men praying to Saints would have warranted a death penalty among old testament Jews. The problem is that the modern day Jews, who still read the scripture in Hebrew and preserve a tradition that stems from the early Christian period, actually do practice saintly intercession and saintly veneration. From Chabad: 
"Rabbi Chaim Joseph David Azulai died at the ripe old age of 83, in Leghorn, Italy. His memory continued to live in the hearts of his people. Many Jews used to make pilgrimages to his grave or send letters to be deposited there, praying that the saintly Rabbi be an intercessor for them in the Heavenly Court."

This is the view of many modern Orthodox Jews, ones who read the texts in the original Hebrew and do not see prayers to saints and intercession before God as being a fundamental violation of monotheism. Nor do they make the bizarre connection that heretic Bobo makes and associate saintly intercession with "necromancy." Necromancy in the Jewish world view means to contact the dead for wisdom or to use in witchcraft, usually it is associated with Mediums. It doesn't have anything to do with the dead being "exalted" to the status of a saint and being able to pray on behalf of your soul to Yahweh himself. The latter is not a controversial idea at all, and goes back to pre-christian canonical, Deutero-canonical, and Apocryphal Jewish literature. "

If you pray to a saint and ask for their intercession, it is necromancy. No matter how you want to try and get around it, communication with the dead for ANY reason is necromancy and no the transfiguration is not a counter example: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/mary-greatest-woman-who-ever-lived.html

There is nothing wrong with those being exalted to sainthood, that's not disputable, but that is no justification to pray to them or seek intercession. The Rabbinic Jews have no biblical basis for it. I wouldn't mind seeing the OT justification for it. To be honest, so far not a lot has been said.*

There is more to say but that shall be saved for another time.

Answering Judaism.

Addendum: To the Rabbinic Jews reading this, if you have any points, let me know if you think the understanding presented by the Roman Catholics are the same as yours or not.

*25th or March 2015. I have recently come across a video by Rabbi Tovia Singer on why Jews go to the grave of their forefathers or great saintly men. This video by him should clarify some misunderstandings on the issue:
Rabbi Tovia Singer discusses the Jewish tradition of praying at a gravesite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUEuj0p6eUI

Sunday, 28 December 2014

Clearing the air: Language and Understanding


In this article I desire to address two major points that two apostates have brought to me and I wish to put these objections to rest here on this article.

How can you answer Judaism when you don't understand Christianity?

This comment is often made by CT West Coast, a Roman Catholic who has denied the Trinity. When he started to I do not know but have been aware of his anti trinitarian stance for some time.

CT (assuming he is still part of the Roman system) is assuming the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church which Jesus founded, however it can be demonstrated forcefully that modern day Romanism has no root or foundation in the early Church Fathers or even the New Testament scriptures.

 Taking the New Testament documents as historical documents alone, you still have a high christology, such as Trinitarian belief rooted implicitly in the thinking of Jesus and the apostles, baptism and other beliefs I could list.

Case and point, the New Testament gives us an early picture of the Messianic Jews (Christians from Jewish backgrounds) and the Gentile Christians and what they believed. They certainly did not told to the teachings of Romanism that plague us today.

But by CT's own logic, he does not understand biblical Christianity since he even admits that he doesn't believe in the Trinity itself. The Roman catholic will agree that The Trinity is a vital doctrine to hold and if they are going to be honest, will have to admit those who deny the Trinity are outside Rome's flock.

How can you address someone if you don't know the language?

This objection is raised by Guard of Gold (he has several nics).

First, if one isn't an expert in a language, they can look into the language by reliable lexical material, they can get an understanding of syntax and other things a language contains or better yet attempt to learn the language from someone who himself is an expert on the language.

The argument that somehow a translation is not the true book, be it the claims "If it's not in Hebrew, its not TANAKH" or "If it's not in Arabic, its not Quran" is just a pointless argument.

"Nehemiah 8:5 Ezra opened the book. All the people could see him because he was standing above them; and as he opened it, the people all stood up. 6 Ezra praised the Lord, the great God; and all the people lifted their hands and responded, “Amen! Amen!” Then they bowed down and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground.

7 The Levites—Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan and Pelaiah—instructed the people in the Law while the people were standing there. 8 They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear[a] and giving the meaning so that the people understood what was being read."*

Some of the individuals who came back from Babylon could not even speak their native Hebrew, does this mean they themselves didn't have the TANAKH? No, that reasoning about any book in another language is absurd.

Be sensitive to the fact that not everyone can speak the original languages. As long the translation conveys the original meaning of the original language, the translation has done its job.

This isn't to disparage learning the language itself, it can be very helpful to learn it yourself and even having a reliable lexicon itself can be of great value.

Hopefully these two objections have been addressed and if some are offended by me referring to the two I have addressed here as apostates, I am just simply calling a spade a spade.

If you hear these two points from these men, direct others to this paper.

Answering Judaism.

*26th of March 2015. PS. It is quite possible that some individuals did have the Hebrew language, namely thanks to the teachers preserving it to them, or the individuals remembered their Hebrew after coming back from exile.

What can the Old Testament teach us about worship?

While much of the Old Testament law itself doesn't apply to Christians, it nevertheless has value to us today, since the Old Testament is described to us as God Breathed, amongst other true things.

To see what applies to us today, read the following article: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/observance-of-torah-demanded-of-gentiles.html

The Old Testament in its context shows God as one who wants worship to be conducted in an orderly manner HE decreed it. I put the emphasis on he because on many occasions, churches will often say "Well scripture doesn't condemn it but whose to say its wrong?".

Here are some examples:
"Deuteronomy 5:1 Moses summoned all Israel and said:

Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors[a] that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. 4 The Lord spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain."

"Deuteronomy 10:12 And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?"

"Deuteronomy 6:17 Be sure to keep the commands of the Lord your God and the stipulations and decrees he has given you. 18 Do what is right and good in the Lord’s sight, so that it may go well with you and you may go in and take over the good land the Lord promised on oath to your ancestors, 19 thrusting out all your enemies before you, as the Lord said."

"Exodus 40:12 “Bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance to the tent of meeting and wash them with water. 13 Then dress Aaron in the sacred garments, anoint him and consecrate him so he may serve me as priest. 14 Bring his sons and dress them in tunics. 15 Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve me as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue throughout their generations.” 16 Moses did everything just as the Lord commanded him."

But that's my point, Shouldn't man be asking God of guidance through his word, or even consulting him directly what his will is?

Yes, there are things not directly addressed in scripture, but you must ask yourself if they are truly God honouring, otherwise you'll end up reducing church leadership to something that is a play thing or let's say removing from the parents responsibility to raise their children up in the way of the Lord.

It must be determined if something is an acceptable practice and not simply because it seems good or fits our thinking, but whether or not the practice is something that is right in the Lord's sight.

David Pawson once posed an interesting question that has relevance here namely "What does God feel about it?" That question should resonate with every Christian hears or reads the question itself.

Think on this.

Answering Judaism.

Friday, 19 December 2014

Comments on "4 Teachings of Jesus That His Followers (Almost) Never Take Seriously"

The original article written by Brandon Robertson can be found here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandan-robertson/4-teachings-of-jesus-that_b_6343320.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I thought I would spend time commenting on the article itself and see if his points do stand up to scrutiny.

"It's no secret that those of us who claim to follow Jesus Christ consistently fall short of living up to the way of life of our Rabbi. Being a disciple of Jesus is a lifelong journey towards conforming ourselves to the image and way of life that Jesus taught. However, so often, followers of Jesus chose to blatantly ignore some of the clearest instruction of our Rabbi and obscure it with vague theology so that we can get off the hook. Other times, followers of Jesus are taught something explicitly contradictory to the plain words of Jesus and then spend their lives obeying the instruction they received instead of the commands of Jesus."

This is something that is correct, there are Christians who do say "Lord Lord" but do not do what he says. There really isn't much for me to say on this point since so far, it's legit.

"However we end up at the place of disobedience, all of us who claim to be followers of Jesus struggle to obey the commands of our Lord. One of the most transformative periods in my faith was when I took time to re-read the Gospels of the New Testament and get reacquainted with Jesus' himself, in his own words. As I studied the words of Jesus, I discovered that so much of what he asks of us as his disciples is incredibly clear and yet so much of it was new to me. I had never heard it in church or Sunday school or actually heard someone teach the exact opposite of the words of Christ. It was during that season of my life where I took inventory of how I lived and what I believed and aligned to the person and teachings of Christ that my faith was radically transformed for the better.
Below I have compiled a short list of 4 clear teachings of Jesus that most of us who exist within Evangelicalism have either never heard, refuse to acknowledge, or believe the exact opposite of. It's my hope that by rereading these teachings of Christ, you will be inspired, like I have been, to return to the Gospels and begin to reshape your faith and life around the way and teachings of our Master, Jesus. Get ready and buckle up, because most of what Jesus says is pretty bold and potent. It'll shake up your faith!"

Well Sunday school to be honest really isn't going to give man a solid foundation regarding the word of God and in some cases in church, there is more tickling of the ears rather than actually preaching the truth, no matter how much it hurts. There are things I have concluded that I wouldn't find in Sunday School.

"1. Jesus, not the Bible, is God's living and active Word that brings life.
"You don't have His word living in you, because you don't believe the One He sent. You study the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about Me. And you are not willing to come to Me so that you may have life."- John 5:39-40 HCSB
The Christian life is one that is fundamentally rooted in the reality that Jesus Christ is living and active. He interacts with us on a day to day basis and desires that we cultivate an intimate relationship with him. The more we commune with the Spirit of Christ, the more life and truth we are exposed to and are able to comprehend. However, for many Evangelicals, we rely more on the Bible than we do on the living and active Spirit of God within us. We fear that following the Spirit could lead to confusion and subjectivity and so we root our faith in the Bible. The problem is that a faith that is rooted in the Scripture alone is not sustainable. It will dry up and wither on the vine. While the Bible is an important and authoritative guide for Christian faith and practice, it isn't the foundation or center of our faith- Jesus is. And if we truly believe that he is alive, we should also have faith that communing with him will produce spiritual life within us. He is the living Word that we can ask anything to and expect, in faith, to receive and answer. Sometimes he will speak through Scripture. Other times he will speak through our friends and family. Other times he will find unique and special ways to reveal himself to us. But in order to maintain a vibrant and living faith, we must not make the Bible our substitute for communion with the living Word of God. Studying Scripture is valuable, but nowhere near as valuable as cultivating a day to day relationship with the God incarnate."

Sola Scriptura itself doesn't deny Jesus is the word of God, nor does it hinder the work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who himself can help Christians understand the scriptures. A belief in Sola Scriptura and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit points to Jesus as the center. In fact a Sola Scripturist is concerned with what Jesus himself said rather than the teachings of men.

Sola Scripturists like myself acknowledge that God himself can use other people to convict us, judge us, HOWEVER, We need to test what is of the Spirit and what isn't. You cannot assume every voice in your mind is of the Spirit, you need to discern what is of the Spirit and what isn't and God will not lead a man into disobeying his commands.

There are individuals who look at say the actions of heretics like the Kansas City Prophets and the Word Faith movements and say that the Spirit is with them, which is something those groups claim. You here this "I have this word from the LORD" and yet their word contradicts the Bible.

In the function of the church today, The Spirit and scripture work in unison, they don't contradict each other. We need to be careful whose words we hear in out mind.

Sam Shamoun highlights the following in his paper on Sola Scriptura:
"2. Does not deny the ultimate importance of the Holy Spirit.

It is only by the Holy Spirit’s illumination that a person is able to understand and believe in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the one who enables a person to accept the inspiration, sufficiency, infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures: 

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14:26

“This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:13-14

“Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus be cursed,’ and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:3

“I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,” Ephesians 1:17-18

“But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth… I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit-just as it has taught you, remain in him.” 1 John 2:20, 26-27" Sam Shamoun, A Brief Articulation of Sola Scriptura.

As you can see, Sola Scriptura doesn't leave the Holy Spirit out of the equation. Some individuals do, but not all.

"2. The only way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is through DOING the will of God. 
"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 ESV
"An expert in the law stood up to test Him, saying, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?""What is written in the law?" He asked him. "How do you read it?"He answered: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."You've answered correctly," He told him. "Do this and you will live."- Luke 10: 25-28 HCSB
"We are saved by faith alone, apart from works!" This is a very popular Protestant catch phrase. The doctrine of sola fide (faith alone) was developed by the Reformers in response to the Roman Catholic Churches corrupted teachings that emerged in the 16th Century teaching that one could gain favor with God and shave off years in Hell and Purgatory by giving money to the church or doing acts of penance. The intention of the doctrine of faith alone was very good- to correct the error that our salvation could be earned or that God's grace could be manipulated. But like most doctrines that are formulated in response to another group's doctrine, it often goes too far. One of the clearest teachings throughout all four Gospel accounts is that the way to enter the Kingdom of God is through living in obedience to the Law of Christ. Time and time again, Jesus makes very clear statements that condemn those who think that they will be saved because they believe the right things or do the right religious rituals. Jesus responds to people who believe they are religious and deserve heaven by saying that their outward religiosity is detestable to God and the only thing God desires is that they would exercise their faith by obeying the command of God- to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly. (Micah 6:8) Jesus says if anyone claims to be right with God but doesn't serve the poor, needy, oppressed, marginalized, sick, diseased, and sinful, then they do not have a relationship with God. No matter what they proclaim with their lips. No matter how religious they may appear. Jesus says those who don't obey will have no part in his Kingdom. He makes very clear that the way to "inherit eternal life" is through loving God and loving our neighbor. Isn't it astonishing, then, how many Christians today have been taught that salvation comes through right believing instead of right practice- a message that is fundamentally contrary to the words of Jesus. (And even more to his little brother James who says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24 ESV)"

What is seen here to me is an abysmal understanding of the doctrine of faith alone.

Justification by faith alone is a legal declaration. It is saying that those who have come to Jesus in repentant faith are washed clean from their sins. They are born again, they do not earn their salvation and good works that they do are something done in gratitude to Jesus, NOT to earn salvation. It is trusting in his finished work on the cross rather than relying on our good deeds.
"Romans 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

Good deeds are something the Christian himself is prepared for, not something that gains them entry into heaven:

"Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Those who have been justified and truly root themselves in Christ, don't do good works to get saved, but do them because they have been saved. If your faith is really there, then your works will demonstrate it and prove it to others.

Read the following article I have written on James 2 for more information the passage:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/james-2-does-it-refute-justification-by.html

Keith Thompson makes the following observation in his article:
"Now, the other argument is that since James 2:21 says Abraham was justified by works when he offered up Isaac on the alter in Genesis 22, this must mean Abraham was justified more than once in the same way in which Paul describes in Genesis 15:6. However, the problem with this argument is that James and Paul are talking about two different things. Paul is talking about Abraham being declared righteous or acquitted by faith apart from works based on righteousness being credited or imputed to Abraham’s account. This is not what James is talking about. As New Testament scholar Robert Reymond observes, “Whereas Paul intends by ‘justified’ the actual act on God’s part whereby he pardons and imputes righteousness to the ungodly, James intends by ‘justified’ the verdict which God declares when the actually (previously) justified man has demonstrated his actual righteous state by obedience and good works” (Robert Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, [Christian Focus Publications, 2000], p. 442). To demonstrate the existence of this concept Reymond further notes, “That a distinction must be drawn between God’s actual act of justification whereby he pardons and constitutes the sinner righteous and his subsequent declaring act of justification whereby he openly acquits the justified sinner before others is verified by our Lord’s actions in connection with the woman who washed his feet in Luke 7:36-50. He openly declares to Simon the Pharisee and to the woman herself that her many sins were forgiven (vss 47-48) ‘because she loved much [ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ]’ (47). But it is apparent that she had already been actually forgiven on some previous occasion because her acts of devotion toward him – the fruit and evidence of a lively faith – were due, he states, to her having already had ‘her debt cancelled’ (41-43). The chain of events then is as follows: On some previous occasion Jesus had forgiven her (her actualjustification). This provoked in her both love for him and acts of devotion toward him. This outward evidence of her justified state evoked from Christ his open declaration that she was forgiven (herdeclared justification)” (Robert Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, [Christian Focus Publications, 2000], p. 442 n. 27). Indeed, James is teaching by doing works Abraham was declared to have already been justified by faith (James 2:23), that is his "declared justification," not that he was made right with God through works. Paul is clear that comes by faith apart from works so that no one can boast (Romans 4:2-8). James is affirming, then, works are the evidence of being declared righteous or justified by faith and they result in God openly declaring the person to be justified. Every true believer will exhibit these works, not because they merit right standing with God or contribute to actual acquittal, but because they are the evidence of justification, or the completion of faith (James 2:22)." Keith Thompson, Justification is by Faith Alone: Issues and Evidence: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/justification-is-by-faith-alone-issues.html

"3. Condemnation isn't Jesus' style.
"I have not come to condemn the world, but to save it." John 3:17 ESV
"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."- John 8:11 ESV
Many modern day Evangelical preachers spend a lot of time talking about the kinds of people that God is opposed to and who he condemns. They spend time talking about how to transition from a position of condemnation before God to a position of Grace through believing the right things about Jesus. They often talk about those who disagree or live contrary to their understanding of what is "righteous" as those who are under condemnation from God. But what's funny is that as one examines the teachings and life of Jesus, we find him not only befriending, loving, and affirming some of his societies most despised and vile people, but chastising the religious leaders who condemned them for their sin. Whether it is Jesus' conversation with Rabbi Niccodemus in John 3 where Christ explains that it is his mission to redeem the world and not to condemn it or the instance where a woman is caught in the act of adultery and is taken outside to be stoned by the religious officials (as the law required) and Jesus steps in to stop the condemnation and proclaim freedom and forgiveness to the broken woman, it is clear that Jesus is not in the condemning business. Instead, it seems Christ is in the business of restoring humanity to the most broken and wicked of people. It seems that his passion is to see the weak, sick, and broken become strong, healthy, and whole in his Kingdom. It seems that he spends very little time (almost none) telling sinners why they're wrong or speaking words of condemnation over them, but rather practically loving and extending grace to the most screwed up of individuals. Maybe we Evangelicals, who are known for our condemnation of entire people groups with whom we disagree, could learn something from Jesus on this point."

Jesus himself did indeed love unbelievers, no question about that, but that doesn't mean he himself approved of their sin., which Robertson would agree with me on.

There isn't much for me to say, but definitely the harshest words should reserved for heretics misleading the church.

Jesus makes it clear in the context of John 3 that those who refuse to believe on him and obey, will receive condemnation. Any warning of hell that is given in the New Testament is given to the apostles and the believers in Jesus, not to those who don't believe.

Unbelievers should be warned of the dangers of rejecting Jesus to be sure, but the church must remember these warnings as a reminder to abide in Christ.

"4. You're supposed to sacrifice yourself and speak words of blessings for those you disagree with the most.
"Love Your Enemies and Bless Those Who Persecute You" Matthew 5:44 ESV
It seems like every week there is a new major controversy taking place within the Church. Most of the time, the situation revolves around one group of Christians disagreeing with another and then taking to the internet to write slanderous posts about the other. If it's not infighting, then it is Christians engaging in culture wars, working to defeat those whom we disagree with politically and socially by painting them as soul-less monsters. But that response is absolutely contrary to the way of Jesus. Jesus calls his followers to love the people they disagree with most and to speak blessings over them when all we really want to do is curse them out. No matter what the situation is or what kind of enemy we have, Christians are called to bless the people who hurt us the most. This includes in theological battles, political disagreements, national wars, and personal conflicts. Christians are called to a radical position of nonviolence and forgiveness, grace, and even blessing of our enemies. There is no way around it. And when Christians chose to ignore these clear teachings, our hypocrisy is glaringly obvious to the watching world. Want some proof? Take a couple minutes to watch this clip of the famous Agnostic Comedian, Bill Maher, talk about Christian's refusal to obey the teaching of Jesus. (Contains explicit language)"

Over neutral issues, like what food Christians eat are a matter of conscience and Christians shouldn't bind us in that regard. However, when heresy creeps into the church, there has to be division in order to sift the good from the bad. Jesus did not say "Oh don't bother with theological battle, just simply love your enemies", He called his followers to BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHERS, namely those who sought to misrepresent his teaching and lead them astray. Christians have a responsibility to the wolves away from the sheep lest they be mislead.

Praying for those persecute you and loving your enemies is not a form of pacifism and Robertson forgets that Jesus himself did have harsh things to say to the false teachers own faces, He even called the Pharisees a brood of vipers. Does this mean Jesus was being a hypocrite, no. Even Paul himself and the other writers of the NT wrote about  It's about balance.

Furthermore, Peter warns about ignorant and unstable people who distort the scriptures (referring to the OT and possibly the Gospels) to their own destruction, as well as Paul's letters. While Jesus did have harsh things to say about his enemies, but that is not a contradiction with love your enemies. You need to pray for them to repent of their sin and witness to them.

Here are some examples
"Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

11 “I baptize you with[b] water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with[c] the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”"

"Matthew 12:33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”"

Read also Matthew 23:13-36.

Here are also examples from the epistles
"Galatians 5:10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

"2nd Peter 2:2 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness[b] to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. 10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh[c] and despise authority.

Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from[d] the Lord. 12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.

13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.[e] 14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! 15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer,[f] who loved the wages of wickedness. 16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—an animal without speech—who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness."

Is one going to say the apostles are guilty of being unkind, I think not.

Ignatius, an early church Father and a student of the apostle John himself in his letter even exhorted the Smyrneans to pray for the heretics to repent:
"Chapter 4. Beware of these heretics

I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact,] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, Romans 8:17 He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me. Philippians 4:13" The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

Even Ignatius of Antioch did have harsh words for heretics. This is the early church, not our modern day 21st century thinking.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying we should deliberately go out of our way to hurt people and be malicious and nasty, there is a difference between speaking harsh words to a false teacher and just being a git to them. It is again balance that is required.

One example of an extreme which Robertson is RIGHTLY concerned about I can think of is the heretic Steven Anderson, who has suggested that the government should put homosexuals to death or we will have an aids free Christmas if they die.

Homosexuality is a sin indeed, but Anderson is taking the wrong approach. he should be speaking to the homosexual and bringing the Gospel to them, NOT calling for their death.

These is indeed one example of an extreme that Robertson is rightly concerned about as said before.

"That video may be hard to stomach but Bill Maher is 100% correct. "If you ignore every single thing Jesus commanded you to do, you're not a Christian."
The point of this post is to encourage those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus to reexamine how we are living our lives and practicing our faith. It is so easy to get so caught up in the flow that we fail to recognize just how far away from shore we have been carried. The words of Jesus are pretty darn clear, but oftentimes in our zealousness for our faith, we often get pulled away from the basics and eventually end up living in a way that we believe is honoring to God, but is actually contradictory to everything he has taught us."

Well Christians should obey Jesus. Some do fall into extremes and need to correct their thinking and line it up with biblical thinking.

That is all I have to say on this article for now. Thanks for reading.

Answering Judaism.

Edit: I put "but that doesn't mean he himself did not approve of sin" by mistake. I meant to say Jesus did not approve of their sin.

Thursday, 18 December 2014

Value of Good works: What do they do?

Specifically, this article is going take a look at one specific objection often raised, used by many to justify false prophets and heretics and this refers to a multitude of groups. Essentially, what is the value of good works in the sight of God when a man of wickedness does "good".

We observe a few examples within the context of the TANAKH or the Old Testament. For example, we have Omri, the king of Israel in 1 Kings 16.
"21 Then the people of Israel were split into two factions; half supported Tibni son of Ginath for king, and the other half supported Omri. 22 But Omri’s followers proved stronger than those of Tibni son of Ginath. So Tibni died and Omri became king.

23 In the thirty-first year of Asa king of Judah, Omri became king of Israel, and he reigned twelve years, six of them in Tirzah. 24 He bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer for two talents[a] of silver and built a city on the hill, calling it Samaria, after Shemer, the name of the former owner of the hill.

25 But Omri did evil in the eyes of the Lord and sinned more than all those before him. 26 He followed completely the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat, committing the same sin Jeroboam had caused Israel to commit, so that they aroused the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, by their worthless idols.

27 As for the other events of Omri’s reign, what he did and the things he achieved, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? 28 Omri rested with his ancestors and was buried in Samaria. And Ahab his son succeeded him as king."

Omri accomplished many feats, including the building of the city and also was presumably a brilliant military tactician. But alas despite his feats, though they were recorded, he is dismissed for the fact that he did evil in the sight of the Lord.

The good works that a man does outside of Christ are filthy rags and we cannot merit our salvation via our good works.

"Isaiah 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
    and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
    and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
7 No one calls on your name
    or strives to lay hold of you;
for you have hidden your face from us
    and have given us over to[b] our sins."

To drive his point home of how tainted our works are thanks to original sin, Isaiah in the Hebrew uses the illustration of a used menstrual cloth (a tampon in the modern era if you will). This is what our works are like in the sight of God, hence why no amount of good deeds before a holy god can merit our salvation. When a person comes to Christ through repentant faith, he is justified, and by the Holy Spirit, he is sanctified. Good works of a man are something that Christians do out of gratitude to Christ, not something to merit or earn their salvation. See my article on James 2: 

Keith Thompson in his article on Justification by faith alone, notes the following:
"Now, the other argument is that since James 2:21 says Abraham was justified by works when he offered up Isaac on the alter in Genesis 22, this must mean Abraham was justified more than once in the same way in which Paul describes in Genesis 15:6. However, the problem with this argument is that James and Paul are talking about two different things. Paul is talking about Abraham being declared righteous or acquitted by faith apart from works based on righteousness being credited or imputed to Abraham’s account. This is not what James is talking about. As New Testament scholar Robert Reymond observes, “Whereas Paul intends by ‘justified’ the actual act on God’s part whereby he pardons and imputes righteousness to the ungodly, James intends by ‘justified’ the verdict which God declares when the actually (previously) justified man has demonstrated his actual righteous state by obedience and good works” (Robert Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, [Christian Focus Publications, 2000], p. 442). To demonstrate the existence of this concept Reymond further notes, “That a distinction must be drawn between God’s actual act of justification whereby he pardons and constitutes the sinner righteous and his subsequent declaring act of justification whereby he openly acquits the justified sinner before others is verified by our Lord’s actions in connection with the woman who washed his feet in Luke 7:36-50. He openly declares to Simon the Pharisee and to the woman herself that her many sins were forgiven (vss 47-48) ‘because she loved much [ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ]’ (47). But it is apparent that she had already been actually forgiven on some previous occasion because her acts of devotion toward him – the fruit and evidence of a lively faith – were due, he states, to her having already had ‘her debt cancelled’ (41-43). The chain of events then is as follows: On some previous occasion Jesus had forgiven her (her actualjustification). This provoked in her both love for him and acts of devotion toward him. This outward evidence of her justified state evoked from Christ his open declaration that she was forgiven (herdeclared justification)” (Robert Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, [Christian Focus Publications, 2000], p. 442 n. 27). Indeed, James is teaching by doing works Abraham was declared to have already been justified by faith (James 2:23), that is his "declared justification," not that he was made right with God through works. Paul is clear that comes by faith apart from works so that no one can boast (Romans 4:2-8). James is affirming, then, works are the evidence of being declared righteous or justified by faith and they result in God openly declaring the person to be justified. Every true believer will exhibit these works, not because they merit right standing with God or contribute to actual acquittal, but because they are the evidence of justification, or the completion of faith (James 2:22)." (Keith Thompson, Justification is by Faith Alone: Issues and Evidence.)

Many excuse the sins and false teachings of say, the Pope, Word Faith teachers, Kansas City Prophets and other groups like them teaching abominable heresy. Even in the case of Anti-Trinitarians like TROTKP author Itzhak Shapira, some have also excused his false christology.

As I have said before, What about their doctrine? Even if the person has a quality life and a supposed repentance, We are not automatically assume they are from the Lord, because repentance is not the only criteria of truth and neither is a holy life the only criteria. Doctrine encompasses what you teach and how you live.

The individuals I have mentioned and other groups I can list, It doesn't matter how many good works they accomplish, If they are not right with God and if they teach falsehood, they are wasting their time.

That's really all I have to day on this matter.

For info, read the following papers:


Answering Judaism.

Thursday, 11 December 2014

Produce a Surah like it: Is this even a challenge?

One of the challenges presented by the Quran to prove it's authenticity is to produce to the following, according to Surah Al Baqarah:

"Surah 2:23 And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful. 24 But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers."

I am aware that there is a website that has sought to answer this challenge called suralikeit.com and I am aware Anis Shorrosh has also attempted this challenge.

David Wood of Answering Muslims has pointed out in the past the subjectivity and absurdity of this challenge when he and Robert Spencer debated controversial Muslim Leaders Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Que1xs81Wts

Is this challenge from the Quran even a good challenge at all? No, for two reasons

1. It is too subjective, People can argue back and forth as to what makes a good surah and pretty much argue repeatedly and not getting anywhere.
2. It's a cop out, It's nothing more than a trumpcard excuse by the Quran itself to justify it's existence and seems to be a means to dismiss evidence that may refute it.

Imagine if someone asked me to produce a screenplay like Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan or The Dark Knight, if my screenplay happened to be similar in terms of writing quality to these brilliant masterpieces of cinema, would it be the case universally? Would have I made a screenplay like Nicolas Meyer and his co writers or the Nolan Brothers? No, because while there are standards to art, what makes a classic film is subjective to a certain degree. My screenplay could be phenomenal (Which isn't the case with my writing because I am not a great screenwriter) and some of my audience could believe that it comes close to Nicolas Meyer's writing or the Nolan brothers writing, but others who are big fans of the Dark Knight or Wrath of Khan may disagree with those who say this.

Likewise, A Christian or anyone who has read the Quran or to go further assume they have read the Arabic and understand Arabic, they may think they have produced a Surah like the Quran, The Muslim themselves would disagree and pretty much throw the newly made Surah under the bus because they think it is not a Surah that even matches that of the Quran.

Here are the quotes from Sam Shamoun and Osama Abdallah in a debate done a decade ago. (I was 12 at the time and not on Paltalk). Sam Shamoun vs Osama Q&A (is Mohammed a True Prophet Part2) 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9KIP1nlo2Y (Watch from 4:56-5:48 for Shamoun's comments and watch from 6:48-7:28 for Abdallah's comments)

The entire debate can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF7qgivEmRddYGw23Fovj1aoEr7AgtqxG

One can go back an forth on what makes a good Surah like the Quran, but ultimately, the whole argument from the Quran itself is a vacuous argument and to be honest, doesn't say anything to prove the Quran.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday, 7 December 2014

How to write an article: Tips of the Trade

Roberto Orci: It wasn't actually we got to into tv that we actually realized Oh, an outline is helpful. To me an outline is kinda like prelaunch and then writing it is launch and once you're launched, it is very hard to make course corrections if you don't have the right... if you don't have all your telemetry kind of put together before you actually launch.

Alex Kurtzman: Yeah if your spine isn't there.. I mean you know, the story that you're telling and the direction of the story is really dictated by the structure a lot of the time but it's equally dictated by character and if your spine isn't there, it's very hard to build up.
Screenwriters KURTZMAN & ORCI: Tricks of the Trade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwgjKLoJHdc

These are the words of my two favorite screenwriters, responsible for the Amazing Spiderman 2, one of the best comic book movies out there. However, that isn't the reason why Orci and Kurtzman are mentioned here.

My reason for mentioning them here is simply for those who want a basic understanding of how you are to write an article if you are planning to be an apologist for the Lord.

I hope to give valuable tips on how to do one.

How are you going to begin writing a paper be it to exegete the scriptures and comment on them, or refuting the other side of your opponents if you haven't got a basic structure down? It is helpful to note down the arguments that your opponent has brought to you and their point needs to be evaluated. Commentaries and Lexicons can be helpful in your studies, but it's also important to read the scripture in context and see what conclusions can be drawn from the Biblical text.

In the case of Rabbinic Judaism, sometimes they may have an element of truth that might conform to the Biblical text, so it is worth reading the text first, then seeing how they interpret it to see if what they say is exegetically viable.

For examples of this, read the following:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/contra-blumenthal-examination-of-contra.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/addendum-to-contra-blumenthal-daniel.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/addendum-to-contra-blumenthal-isaiah-53.html

Another point you need to consider is how much of the article is going to be dedicated to a subject? Like say Isaiah 53 or transubstantiation? Are you going to tackle multiple subjects or just one in particular?

It may be best to address several objections in one paper, depending on the individuals you have spoken to, how many have come to you and how many objections have been given to you. Sometimes it could be a quick article addressing one minor objection or a large article addressing an objection that requires a lot of detail.

The detail however is not to be empty, but have meaning instead and also, rambling in your paper or even a transcript if you are planning a video, is not the right course of action. Think about how you are going to present the information to your audience and obviously, try to make as much sense to your audience as you can.

It is important to go back an read your paper before submitting your paper. This is a culpable mistake I have made in the past, namely there is something I have said that is wrongly worded or doesn't look right and I have to correct it. It is preferable to proof read the article itself to check for spelling mistakes, missing words, punctuation errors etc, just to be sure that your article is understood correctly and not misconstrued. Read the article over and over if you have to until you are satisfied with the final result.

You also need to encourage your readers to be Bereans (Acts 17:11) and check what you have said with the scriptures, DO NOT tell your audience to blindly accept what you are saying but rather tell them to study for themselves. I might be of great help to someone in these papers, but ultimately, Sola Scriptura, what the Bible says goes in other words.

Finally, ultimately you need to study certain issues before beginning writing. Acquire at least a rudimentary understanding and move from there. Sometimes a rebuttal you receive or a response to someone else who has used a similar article can be used to help you understand the other side more and then hopefully you can respond to the rebuttal itself and also go from there.

That is all that is to be said on this topic folks. Make sure your spine for your article is there, or your article is hard to build up.

Answering Judaism.

Saturday, 6 December 2014

Perspective on Loyalty

Loyalty and love are important terms and in the Hebrew are the same word. The Hebrew is "chesed".

Loving an individual entails having a loyalty to them that is difficult to destroy and abolish.

God has this kind of love towards those are in him and remain faithful to him. He has a loyalty that isn't so easily diminished. He also still has his love for his chosen people Israel, the Jewish people. Though they have rejected him, he hasn't rejected them and indeed calls for them to return to him and he will return to them. This doesn't mean every Jew who has ever lived will be saved, They need the gospel, as many are dying and going to hell as this article is being read.

Loving God. the blessed Trinity, entails more than just admiration, it's a devotion to him no matter the cost, a loyalty above possessions, family etc.

God knows not of a love without loyalty, otherwise Jesus would not of said "If you love me, my commandments", not to mention he calls us to "deny yourselves, take up the cross and follow me". How can one say he loves Jesus when he doesn't even do what he says? Seems to be a nonsensical contradiction to me,

Another sobering thought for the true Christian is that they are never truly alone. Although many individuals may abandon you due to taking a biblical stance on the issues of this word, or even if you lovingly confront your friends abandon you due to this, God himself will never abandon you and will be with you to back you to the helm. Loyalty to God is a hard thing indeed and may be costly, but it nothing compares to the splendor of heaven.

Don't lose heart if a friend abandons you for doing what is right, take comfort in the fact that God himself will not leave you, but remain with you and it is better to be faithful to God no matter what, than worry about losing friends due to confrontation or any other scenario.

Hope this article is a blessing.

Answering Judaism.

Friday, 5 December 2014

Clearing the air once again 2

I may dedicate another article to QuinQue Viae and his arguments but I want to spend this article dealing with a few comments made by this deceiver.

"Well, it seems he's done it again! Bobo on his blog Answering-Judaism has gone off on another long-winded rant on Catholic doctrine. This time he is attacking Saintly Intercession and the Real Presence. I guess getting royally owned on Sola Scriptura and Oral Tradition has left a bad taste in his mouth and he has to hide and run to a brand new issue. This is the typical "Shotgun approach" that Anti-Catholics generally apply in arguments. What on earth does Transubstantiation have to do with Saintly Intercession? He just throws these issues together to make it more difficult for one to respond, since they have the burden of now carefully explaining two issues to him."

I already have an article on Sola Scriptura AND NO I wasn't jumping or shotgunning, I was addressing comments Quin made on an article HE commented on which had more than one point: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/clearing-air-once-again.html

Here is the Sola Scriptura article: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/sola-scriptura-response-to-quinque-viae.html

"Now for some background on Bobo: the guy is a rather popular user on paltalk. He is famous for his antics on the chat program; Such as screaming on the mic at the top of his lungsb calling CBD a, "Mary worshiping idolater." And adminning in an anti-catholic room that calls Catholics "gay," "evil," "wicked" and has us bounced, banned, or blocked on entrance. Or perhaps the time he came on audio and started screaming about Sam Shamoun blocking him for allegedly trying to contact Sam and his family personally. Now whether or not Bobo actually has tried these things to Sam, I do not know. But this behavior from a "christian" apologist is extremely unbecoming. I do wonder where Bobo can go to the Bible to justify these sort of unseemly actions, it quite honestly makes me wonder if he's ever truly read the Bible and understood the role of God in his life. He obviously has an unregenerate personality and is an all-around unsavory character."

The reason I referred to cbd94 as a Mary worshipping pagan is
1. Hyperdulia is idolatry
2. cbd94 kept saying I cloned Sam Shamoun.

As I said previously, Liars sprang up to claim that Shamoun was cloning me, when he did NO such thing and I repudiated the claim in the room. Whoever brought it up first I forget, but both Quin (as xgamer) and cbd94, both kept claiming that I was saying Shamoun was cloning me, when I said in the room OVER AND OVER AGAIN "The Sam Shamoun I know would NEVER do that."

Despite pointing out I NEVER made the claim, cbd94 persisted saying so and xgamer threatened to dob me and jonnykzj in, for something he and I never said.

It doesn't help having people lying about me or Shamoun because that would have made previous hostility between us WORSE.

Another thing. I haven't admin in fitzy's room for A LONG TIME. The last time if I recall was early 2013. I haven't adminned since then and I seldom admin in rooms these days.

For that matter, what Quin fails to inform his audience that he actually came into fitzy's room under another nic and said this:
"Veronica_AngelHeart: Answering Judaism the jew-worshiper is now worshiping the anti-christian dacon. look at his status LOL 


Veronica_AngelHeart: Yeah all you do is worship Jews 
Veronica_AngelHeart: You worship Jews as the master race 
    
Veronica_AngelHeart: and cannot debate catholics on your youtube page.. lol 

Veronica_AngelHeart: yep 
Veronica_AngelHeart: Better get out of ireland, anglo-scum 
Veronica_AngelHeart:   

Veronica_AngelHeart: Obviously refering to British troops in ireland 
Veronica_AngelHeart: genius 

Veronica_AngelHeart: Bobo tries to debate catholics on his blog, then when anyone responds he runs to the hills 
Veronica_AngelHeart: And goes back to praising Jews as the master race and promoting dispensationalism 

Veronica_AngelHeart: Bobo let cbd and dk-man butt-rape him 
Veronica_AngelHeart: in a public room "

Now fitzy did react in the room after dotting xgamer. Should anyone be referred to as gay as a general insult? No. Anyway, Then Quin (as xgamer) goes into the mic whining about himself being attacked, failing to mention to the room HE ATTACKED ME FIRST.

I was intending to arrange another dialogue with DACON9 and I was saying in effect if he wants another dialogue with me.

You can read on this topic here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/clearing-air-more-lies-to-disperse.html

I never contacted Shamoun's family nor accused him of cloning me. Those who claim this LIE through their teeth.

            I know of quite a few Protestants that have come to me in private and said Bobo's behavior and abuse of mentally ill paltalk users, some of whom are severely brain damaged, is extremely vile and distasteful. I cannot say I disagree with them in the least, I urge all Christians, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, to denounce the behavior of this guy and ask for his repentance. Whether your theological views are Catholic or non-catholic, this type of childish behavior and clownish antics simply cannot be tolerated if one is truly following a biblically-based worldview. God will have to judge Bobo and he will have to answer for his association with these bigoted rooms and mocking of disabled people on paltalk.
                      
      Now on to the actual "arguments" presented by Bobo the Clown from paltalk:"

I don't abuse mentally ill users at all. If you are talking about someone like westoftherockies, Keep in mind that his behaviour towards me was vile and I RARELY interact with him. Plus, he has even said to Keith Thompson to "f off" when he was just asking a question on what his position is. Quin has commented on a video of mine which you can find here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlGbF3EdMAc


be nice to westoftherockies the guy does have problems. he was in a coma for several months and isn't able to think properly sometimes. He sometimes does things that are not reasonable or rational but that's just due to his condition. It doesn't give you the right to bully him
Reply
 · 


So pointing out I was unfairly treated in that room by him is somehow bullying him? I was actually told by him that I don't trust in the blood of Christ just because I believe you can lose your salvation. He even told Keith to F*** off once, just because he was asking a question. He was not interested in dialouging with me at all.

I don't know who is mentally ill on Paltalk and who isn't and how would I know he was in a coma for sometime because of TWO interactions? Quin claiming I knowingly abuse those who are mentally ill is unfounded. I DON'T KNOW WHO IS MENTALLY ILL AND WHO ISN'T!!! You cannot assume I know everything about other users.

If I know someone is disabled, I will not treat them harshly.

Furthermore, Paul did speak harshly of false teachers, as did Jesus. Remember the Pharisees? They were referred to as white washed tombs, hypocrites, false teachers, brood of vipers etc.

Is it any wonder I have used harsh words of false prophets like Erano or even some apostates I have named?

Just thought I'd might get these points cleared up.

Answering Judaism.

PS. Regarding the gay comment, I would suggest both fitzy and Quin talk this over.