When it comes to ancient cultures, we often become fascinated as humans with the traditions and customs that may be very attractive on the outside, including it's rich history and the religious practices. Maybe there are times where we have been to another country and the cultures put on a dancing show of some kind, based on some old ritual that has been passed down to them.
Idolatry is dangerous in the Bible, it is never looked on in a positive light in scripture, it's giving attention to an object that cannot save rather than giving worship and adoration to YHWH himself.
It is one thing for a work of fiction to use a false god as a means of telling a moral story, such as Hercules trying to discover where he belongs, Thor learning to humble himself and walk the road to being a better king as a result of his banishment from Asgard and Moana learning what her purpose in life is and the purpose of her people. All these messages we can challenge scripturally and see which parts of the films stand the biblical test or not.
However, it is quite another issue to worship a false god or appreciate a pagan custom. To quote the words of Voddie Baucham "Worship God without rivals, you have an idol in your home, you destory it and get rid of it". Have nothing to do idols.
Idolatry is luring for several reasons. It allows humanity to create it's own rules and moral standards rather than allowing God to be the one to make the decisions what is right for us. It allows us to submit to a being which we know in our hearts cannot truly destory or punish. Sure, nations have crime and punishment, as government was something that God put in place to restrain evil. Whether it be fines, restrictions or inprisonment, God created the justice system to punish evil doers.
Although many humans are willing to accept customs handed down to them, there is the ability for a human being to question those beliefs later down the road, sometimes for good, other times for evil but whatever the case, there is something in man that recognises, whether they admit it or not, the false god isn't really there and that YHWH himself is there as the true god.
Humans have a tendency to look at something on a surface level if the wrong level of emotion is in play. For example, Sometimes in film you see like Brockback Mountain and Carol (both films I haven't seen but aware of) portray a homosexual relationship as a positive wonderful thing to embrace, ignoring the fact that the characters in those films themselves have fallen in love with mirror images and even cause damage to existing relationships. People look to the emotional aspect saying "They love each other, what does it matter if they get together" and ignore the reality of the fact in the case of male homosexuals, sexual disease is rife and I am not going to go into detail why, there is no need and ignoring the fact two women cannot conceive a child.
We may think that a dance from an ancient culture may be beautiful, but we must be wary of the significance of that dance to that culture.
Even in video game franchises such as Final Fantasy and others, while the games themselves can potentially be played with a clear conscience and the person recognises they should behave differently, that doesn't change the fact that we must be wary of what the particular concept in the game takes inspiration from. Final Fantasy wiki as one example is honest where the name of Sephiroth comes from (10 Sephirot in Kabbalah), what inspiration from other religions for the Yevonite religion, be it Buddhism, Shintoism and Catholicism as well as Yuna's sending dance being based on a shinto dance called Kagura (God Entertainment) and other things.
Sometimes ancient religion is revived, whether it be Norse religion, Druid religion or whatever it maybe but nevertheless, YHWH is always present, leaving man without an excuse for their idolatry and immorality. Paul bears witness of this in Romans 1:
"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."
We see also, that human beings know in their heart of hearts that God exists, he has written his existance into their conscience and they know that he is there, but refuse to acknowledge it. As a result of their unwillingness to turn from their iniquity and this ties in with the Old Testament with how God treated the Israelites when they rebelled against him in the Nev'im or the Prophets. He handed them over to their sinful desires because of their stubborn refusal to repent and of course, he will treat unrepentant Christians in exactly the same manner.
Furthermore, Some specific sins are listed, including "men commiting indecent acts with other men and women with women" which is not simply talking sexual acts connected with idols but it lists homosexuality and other sins as well.
Paul is not advocating the death penalty, Christ took that away when he died upon the cross, after all, he is the telos or goal that the law was pointing to. When Paul is speaking of those who deserve death, he is not saying that they are to be put to death by Christians, he is saying they are doing evil in the sight of God that indeed is worthy of death, but the context doesn't suggest that a Christian, a follower of Jesus, should ever consider putting someone to death. There is nothing in the New Testament however that stops secular governments using the death penalty on criminals, but there is no licence in the New Testament for Christians to carry this out themselves.
Although there have been "Christian" governments who have done this, They did it contrary to the New Testament teaching. In fact, The idea of a state church is not even what the apostles had in mind, let alone a death penalty carried out by Christians. I am aware that certain sins warranted death in the Old Testament, but this was part of the Old Covenant which has been fulfilled in Christ, thus need not be carried out.
In any case, Paul taught the men and women of the Gentiles to repent, turn from idols to serve the living and await the return of Jesus, the acts of repentance he praised the Thessalonians for in his first letter to them (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10).
There is a danger with humans to look on the surface of something that may seem benign, but when you uncover it, it is truly sinister. We need to realise idolatry not matter how it looks it's a snare and people must be snatched from them before it's too late.
Answering Judaism.
Sunday, 31 December 2017
Sunday, 10 December 2017
Voddie Baucham and The Proud Family
Once thing I didn't understand years ago and for a while even today up until a few months ago, I didn't know why in some shows and movies, the father character didn't let his daughter date or even let her pursue a man without his approval and even when the man meets the daughter's father, he would hold him to close scrutiny, seeing whether or not he is a suitable person for her to date or marry. That is until I saw Voddie Baucham's talks on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.
One talk of his in particular certainly spoke to this issue (as well as refuting laziness and commenting on the primacy of the family.) of a man who is commited to God's law.
In a Disney program, called the Proud Family, specifically the episode called Rumours, Oscar Proud (the father of Penny Proud, the main character) in one episode, allowed Penny and her friends to have the house to themselves but with one rule which he repeated three times (Trudy Proud his wife mentioned other rules but Oscar recited in between Trudy's rules) the statement "No Boys".
Naturally Penny's friends didn't take this onboard and Penny caved in and they invited the boys round. Penny was left with one boy named Myron who was a a nerd to put it lightly and she was shut in the cupboard with him. Unfortunately Myron suffers from claustriphobia and falls unconcious, with Penny trying to resusitate him, which Oscar assumes he kissed her, a misunderstanding indeed.
That isn't the entire point of the episode but it does bring to light one thing that Voddie Baucham made very clear (even if the episode is not making a point about biblical manhood). Why give your daughter to a man who isn't commited to the law of God?
It is dangerous to give a woman over to a man who is not willing to take care of her and his children, as well as giving her to a man who will disrespect and hurt her.
Laziness also is a problem and an example came to mind today when listening to the talk on Biblical Manhood by Voddie Baucham again today when he mentioned that lazy people are not lazy in making excuses. This made me think of Onslow from the show Keeping Up Apperances, his house is an absolutely messy. Onslow has no job, he sits in front of the TV watching the horse races, he drinks beer and eats bacon sandwiches (Watching TV, drinking beer and eating bacon sandwiches are not sinful themselves just to clarify, laziness is sinful, not the three things I mentioned). It does have an impact on his wife Daisy as the two of them have not sort to keep their house in order. If a man doesn't work hard, that is going to rub off onto the woman too and also the kids if they were to have kids.
Who should godly men give their daughters to? Well it's obvious, a man who knows God and his law, Is hard working and diligent and also commited to the primacy of the family. Even if one isn't married, he still must be respectful and honour his family.
There is a dangerous risk of having a woman seeking out the wrong man (just as bad vice versa) so is it any wonder in the Proud Family, Oscar doesn't want his daughter dating and Is it an wonder that in Meet the Parents that Greg is under close scrutiny from Jack (albeit exagerrated)?
Men even outside a biblical context do have a right to be concerned and it is legitimate not to let anyone go near your daughter if they are not suitable, who may take advantage of your daughter.
A point that I didn't understand years ago, is something I finally know now.
Answering Judaism.
One talk of his in particular certainly spoke to this issue (as well as refuting laziness and commenting on the primacy of the family.) of a man who is commited to God's law.
In a Disney program, called the Proud Family, specifically the episode called Rumours, Oscar Proud (the father of Penny Proud, the main character) in one episode, allowed Penny and her friends to have the house to themselves but with one rule which he repeated three times (Trudy Proud his wife mentioned other rules but Oscar recited in between Trudy's rules) the statement "No Boys".
Naturally Penny's friends didn't take this onboard and Penny caved in and they invited the boys round. Penny was left with one boy named Myron who was a a nerd to put it lightly and she was shut in the cupboard with him. Unfortunately Myron suffers from claustriphobia and falls unconcious, with Penny trying to resusitate him, which Oscar assumes he kissed her, a misunderstanding indeed.
That isn't the entire point of the episode but it does bring to light one thing that Voddie Baucham made very clear (even if the episode is not making a point about biblical manhood). Why give your daughter to a man who isn't commited to the law of God?
It is dangerous to give a woman over to a man who is not willing to take care of her and his children, as well as giving her to a man who will disrespect and hurt her.
Laziness also is a problem and an example came to mind today when listening to the talk on Biblical Manhood by Voddie Baucham again today when he mentioned that lazy people are not lazy in making excuses. This made me think of Onslow from the show Keeping Up Apperances, his house is an absolutely messy. Onslow has no job, he sits in front of the TV watching the horse races, he drinks beer and eats bacon sandwiches (Watching TV, drinking beer and eating bacon sandwiches are not sinful themselves just to clarify, laziness is sinful, not the three things I mentioned). It does have an impact on his wife Daisy as the two of them have not sort to keep their house in order. If a man doesn't work hard, that is going to rub off onto the woman too and also the kids if they were to have kids.
Who should godly men give their daughters to? Well it's obvious, a man who knows God and his law, Is hard working and diligent and also commited to the primacy of the family. Even if one isn't married, he still must be respectful and honour his family.
There is a dangerous risk of having a woman seeking out the wrong man (just as bad vice versa) so is it any wonder in the Proud Family, Oscar doesn't want his daughter dating and Is it an wonder that in Meet the Parents that Greg is under close scrutiny from Jack (albeit exagerrated)?
Men even outside a biblical context do have a right to be concerned and it is legitimate not to let anyone go near your daughter if they are not suitable, who may take advantage of your daughter.
A point that I didn't understand years ago, is something I finally know now.
Answering Judaism.
Thursday, 30 November 2017
Donald Trump and Britain First: My thoughts on the situation
Recently Donald Trump on Twitter shared 3 tweets from Britain First member Jayla Fransen, (one of which supposedly a mock tweet) but what has got people rolling their heads was Trump sharing the tweets from her anyway.
I direct you to a paper which does point out problems with Britain First as an organisation: http://costaconnected.com/what-it-really-means-when-you-like-or-share-content-from-britain-first/
Theresa May disagreed with Donald Trump on posting the tweets from Britain First. But will Trump be banned from entering the United Kingdom.
Here's what I have to say on the matter.
Of all the groups Donald Trump could have picked to share on Twitter to warn about Radical Islam, why Britain First, specifically Jayla Fransen? There are surely better options like Milo Yiannopolis and Ben Shapiro who themselves don't lean toward Britain First whom the president could have shared videos or tweets of. The left is going to have a field day with Trump tweeting this from a vile organisation and lends credibility to the lie and false narrative that Trump is a white supremacist, something he himself is not (Neither is Britain First for that matter but they are white nationalists, which doesn't change how bad they are).
See Dave Cullen's video on 8 lies about Donald Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J13UBjmoPfs&t=203s
Unlike the pretentious virtue signalling leftists (not all leftists), I'm going to give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt with his tweeting of Jayla Fransen. I don't think Trump shared the tweet with evil or malicious intent. His concern is about the radical Muslim terrorists who are causing trouble for other people in the UK. It's an issue that is close to home for him I think, especially the trouble his country have had to put up with. That doesn't excuse sharing the tweets of Fransen but it does go far in explaining why. I just wish Trump shared a tweet from someone else. I am hoping Trump may learn from this and retract the tweets.
Donald Trump is not a hateful bigot, careless sometimes and a bit abrasive but he is not hateful. I sense no malicious intent in sharing the tweets in question. As said before there are better right leaning individuals he could have shared. If Trump were to look into Britain First's background, I am sure he would be disgusted with their rhetoric. While Trump may not be a saint from a biblical standpoint, in comparison to former President of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe and North Korea's president Kim Jong Un, from a human standpoint Trump is a good guy.
Again, I am giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, I cannot get into his mind and tell you what he thinks and what I can infer is that it is this is well intentioned but very severely misguided act on his part.
Remember the travel ban on 7 Muslim countries in the Middle East (mentioned in Dave Cullen's video above), he only issued a 90 ban so that investigation into where the terrorist attacks were coming from. Does this mean Donald Trump hates Muslims? No, but certainly sharing a tweet from Britain First is going to put a dent in the point that he doesn't. Does Theresa May have a legitimate concern about Trump's tweets? Yes. Should we ban Donald Trump from the country because of what has happened, No, However, if Donald Trump knowingly is promoting hate speech, he should not be allowed into the country. If anyone should be banned from the country, it's Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri, not Robert Spencer and least of all, Donald Trump. Is this what we have come to? If Donald Trump made an honest mistake and won't admit it, that's one thing but if he is knowingly sharing hate speech, that is a problem and Trump needs to deal with that and retract the tweets.
Mr President, please if you are reading this, do not share any tweet from Britain First or anyone affiliated with them, you only damage your reputation and allow your detractors to smear you further, something you have condemned the left, including CNN for doing in the past. You are giving ammunition to your detractors to further incriminate you.
Answering Judaism.
I direct you to a paper which does point out problems with Britain First as an organisation: http://costaconnected.com/what-it-really-means-when-you-like-or-share-content-from-britain-first/
Theresa May disagreed with Donald Trump on posting the tweets from Britain First. But will Trump be banned from entering the United Kingdom.
Here's what I have to say on the matter.
Of all the groups Donald Trump could have picked to share on Twitter to warn about Radical Islam, why Britain First, specifically Jayla Fransen? There are surely better options like Milo Yiannopolis and Ben Shapiro who themselves don't lean toward Britain First whom the president could have shared videos or tweets of. The left is going to have a field day with Trump tweeting this from a vile organisation and lends credibility to the lie and false narrative that Trump is a white supremacist, something he himself is not (Neither is Britain First for that matter but they are white nationalists, which doesn't change how bad they are).
See Dave Cullen's video on 8 lies about Donald Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J13UBjmoPfs&t=203s
Unlike the pretentious virtue signalling leftists (not all leftists), I'm going to give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt with his tweeting of Jayla Fransen. I don't think Trump shared the tweet with evil or malicious intent. His concern is about the radical Muslim terrorists who are causing trouble for other people in the UK. It's an issue that is close to home for him I think, especially the trouble his country have had to put up with. That doesn't excuse sharing the tweets of Fransen but it does go far in explaining why. I just wish Trump shared a tweet from someone else. I am hoping Trump may learn from this and retract the tweets.
Donald Trump is not a hateful bigot, careless sometimes and a bit abrasive but he is not hateful. I sense no malicious intent in sharing the tweets in question. As said before there are better right leaning individuals he could have shared. If Trump were to look into Britain First's background, I am sure he would be disgusted with their rhetoric. While Trump may not be a saint from a biblical standpoint, in comparison to former President of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe and North Korea's president Kim Jong Un, from a human standpoint Trump is a good guy.
Again, I am giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, I cannot get into his mind and tell you what he thinks and what I can infer is that it is this is well intentioned but very severely misguided act on his part.
Remember the travel ban on 7 Muslim countries in the Middle East (mentioned in Dave Cullen's video above), he only issued a 90 ban so that investigation into where the terrorist attacks were coming from. Does this mean Donald Trump hates Muslims? No, but certainly sharing a tweet from Britain First is going to put a dent in the point that he doesn't. Does Theresa May have a legitimate concern about Trump's tweets? Yes. Should we ban Donald Trump from the country because of what has happened, No, However, if Donald Trump knowingly is promoting hate speech, he should not be allowed into the country. If anyone should be banned from the country, it's Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri, not Robert Spencer and least of all, Donald Trump. Is this what we have come to? If Donald Trump made an honest mistake and won't admit it, that's one thing but if he is knowingly sharing hate speech, that is a problem and Trump needs to deal with that and retract the tweets.
Mr President, please if you are reading this, do not share any tweet from Britain First or anyone affiliated with them, you only damage your reputation and allow your detractors to smear you further, something you have condemned the left, including CNN for doing in the past. You are giving ammunition to your detractors to further incriminate you.
Answering Judaism.
Monday, 6 November 2017
Theory of the Planet of the Apes: A subtle refutation of Reverse Racism?
While I am not a fan of the anti-religious undertone of the original Planet of the Apes, there's no denying that it and it's 4 sequels, while varying in quality and the (in my opinion) superior Rupert Wyatt/Matt Reeves reboot trilogy, have been commentaries on racism, predjudice, fear, trust and revenge, hence why the franchise still has a following to this day and speaks to problems that are still relevant in our Western culture.
Background and Context
One consistent idea throughout the films presented is that racism is something that exists on both sides. There will be spoilers for the films themselves so watch before reading this article (unless you don't care for spoilers) and the time of writing, I have only seen reviews of the Tim Burton reimagining, not actually seen it properly.
In the first film, astronaut George Taylor with two of his co-workers (originally three but she died in stasis) are hunted by the apes with other humans after having their clothes stolen and seeing other humans, ones who cannot speak. Taylor, injured on his neck and rendered mute for a time, is then along with one of his co-workers captured while the other was shot dead. Taylor is recovered by Zira, one of the doctors and is amazed when Taylor understands what she is saying, much to her fiance Cornelius' surprise, with skepticism from Dr Zaius.
The humans in the film are forced to live in cages like cattle with Taylor eventually telling one of the apes to take their stinkin' paws him. This along with Taylor reading and writing is a threat to the religous establishment and to Dr Zaius who knows more than he is letting on and charges Cornelius and Zira with heresy.
Near the end of the film, an excavation site that Cornelius was involved in showed various aritifacts, including a doll that cried "Momma" much to their surprise, exposing Zaius' deception.
Taylor leaves the group but not before tying up Zaius against a rock, who warns Taylor "you may not like what you find", the excavation site is buried via explosions and thus one of the most famous plot twists in history is shown, Taylor was on Earth the whole time and he curses humanity for destorying the earth and we see The Statue of Liberty, decaying and buried in the sand.
It's sequel Beneath the Planet of the Apes, shows Brent, another astronaut who was sent to rescue Taylor, finds himself in a similiar situation to Taylor but escapes underground with Nova, a mute human given to Taylor in the first film as a mate and they find humans who not only have telepathic powers but speak English and hide their mutations with masks. Zaius eventually finds his way with an army behind him the hideout of the humans and a fight ensues, ending with Brent dying and Taylor destroying the world by igniting a nuclear bomb (which the mutant humans worshipped as God for some bizarre reason) but not before Zaius pointing how destructive humanity is.
Escape sees Dr Milo (who is killed early on), Cornelius and Zira use Taylor's ship to leave the earth and the blast from the bomb sends them back in time to 1973 where they are accepted by society and become celebrities but concerns about Zira correcting herself in court (she said disect but then changed her words.) leads Dr Otto Hasslein, the President and others to enquire what happens to the human race, learning of the ape uprising and seek to kill Zira's unborn baby and sterilise both apes.
The film ends with Cornelius and Zira dead as well as an infant that Zira swapped with another chimp, leaving her son alive in the care of circus master Senor Armando.
Conquest sees the apes being subject to slavery in response to the future the humans were told about in order to suppress it and a hunt for Caeser, the son of Cornelius and Zira. After nearly causing someone to find him, Armando and he seperate with Armando being captured and interrogated while Caesar goes into slavery, not revealing his true nature until the proper time and vows venegance after learning of Armando's death.
The uprising is successful and after persuasion by Malcolm MacDonald, himself a descendent of black slaves and the chief aide of Governor Breck and Lisa, Caesar spares Breck's life and declares it will be the Birth of the Planet of the Apes.
Battle sees the humans and the apes living together under Caeser's rule with tensions strained, especially since the humans are treated as lower class citizens. With his aide Virgil and assistant Bruce MacDonald, Caeser goes to a ruined city to learn the truth of his parents and what will happen in the future while Aldo, a gorilla general, rebels against Caeser and wants no peace between apes and humans, with his actions leading the humans to be imprisoned and Cornelius, the son of Caesar, dead.
A brief battle ensures between the humans of the forbidden city and the apes, with the apes winning the battle and a brief confrontation between Caesar and Aldo ends with Aldo's death and the humans and apes being allowed to live as equals and we cut to the Lawgiver, who is used as the framing device for the film, as he is regaling the tale of Caesar, with the future of both human and ape, being left ambiguous.
The reboot trilogy took cues from Conquest and Battle but made their own stories with similiar messages while new ones.
The reboot trilogy, from Rise to Dawn to War shows the story of Caeser, who in this continuity is an ape born of a test ape injected with ALZ-112, a virus designed to cure Alzheimers by repairing and creating cells in the brain. The original test ape is shot dead by mistake with Will Rodman, a scientist taking the young Caesar in and raising him, surprised by Caesar's remarkable intelligence from the virus, which compells him to give a dosage to his ailing father Charles, who suffers from Alzheimers himself.
The treatment works albeit temporarily due to the virus being destoryed by anti-bodies, leading to a stronger strain being created, ALZ-113, which Caesar steals after his escape from the sanctuary and uses it to increases the intelligence the other apes, after taking charge and earning the respect of his fellow apes.
Caesar is taken to a chimp sancturary after trying to protect Charles and starts resenting humans, including Will because of his misrtreatment in the sanctuary.
Caesar enables a rebellion, freeing apes as he and his army run to the Muir Woods, a forest that Caesar was taken to in his youth.
Caesar and Will reconcile and part ways but little does Caesar know that the ALZ-113 spread out of the Gen-Sys facility (thanks to a bonobo named Koba infecting one of the doctors by knocking his mask off while the virus was being administered.) and starts to kill the human population on the planet, leaving small groups of humans left, immune the effects of the virus.
10 years later, Caesar and the apes live alone in the forest and in the remains of San Francisco, humans are trying to survive. Malcolm and a team of humans from the San Francisco are spared by Caesar which compells Caesar to warn the humans to stay away from him and his family and try to live in peace with the humans, While Koba, due to his mistreatment by humans throughout his life, wants nothing more than the humans to be enslaved and destoryed.
Malcolm wins the trust of Caesar after the repair of the dam and after Caesar's wife Cornelia is given medical attention after suffering an infection.
Unfortunately, Koba killed three humans, shot Caesar and decieved the apes into following him, to lead them to kill and enslave the humans in San Francisco, imprisoning apes who refused to help him and Dreyfus, the leader of the humans in the area, called in the military to take out the apes.
With the help of his son Blue Eyes, Caeser recovers from his wounds and kills Koba for his rebellion and betrayal. Malcolm escapes with he and Caesar saying one last goodbye after Caesar tells him to escape while lamenting the loss of his once trusted friend and the fact that there is no chance of ape and humankind living in peace.
2 years later, Caesar and the apes are on the run and trying to survive facing against the renegade military division known as Alpha-Omega, let by Colonel Mccullough. The ALZ-113 virus, dubbed the Simian Flu since it's outbreak has evolved to render humans mute and reduce them to beasts. Caesar goes on a quest to find the Colonel after Blue Eyes and Cornelia are brutally murdered by him, with Maurice, Rocket and Luca accompanying Caesar on his quest, meeting Nova (this time a young girl infected with the Simian Flu and can't talk) and Bad Ape, a hermit ape who learned how to speak, along the way. Caesar's pursuit of revenge leads him down a dark path, killing a traitor called Winter by accident, with Maurice later comparing Caesar to Koba. Luca is killed and Caesar, Maurice and Rocket are kidnapped, while Big Ape and Nova escape.
Caesar to his horror while on his quest, finds his clan as well as his still living son, Cornelius, have been rounded up by the Colonel and is forced to watch his fellow apes in a concentration camp while he suffers being strung up in the cold, taunted by Koba in his dreams. The Colonel explains to Caesar why he does what he does, the Simian Flu is still afflicting the human race and he exterminated people, even his own son, who had even mild symptoms of the Simian Flu and believes he is doing it for the greater good.
Nova later finds Caesar in the facility giving him food, water and a rag doll that Maurice gave to her.
Once Caesar redeems himself in the eyes of his clan, the apes escape, the Colonel fails in his mission and is infected by Nova's doll which contained the virus, killing himself after Caesar refuses to kill him and while the military is successful in defeating Alpha-Omega, their victory is short lived when they are killed by an avalanche, leaving only the apes to survive the aftermath.
Caesar is mortally wounded in the battle and lives long enough to lead his clan to an oasis where they will be safe and Maurice to tell his friend that Cornelius, that he will be remembered for what he did, leaving Caesar to die in peace with the knowledge that his family will be, with or without him, together strong.
Myth of Reverse Racism?
One of the running themes through the Planet of the Apes. is the idea of racism and predjudice, a common problem that has existed for countless years. The movies, especially in the reboot films, don't present one side as good and one side as evil as there are both good and evil on both sides. There are ones who want peace and security on both sides and the two races to live in peace with each other while there are other individuals who do not desire reconcilation because of their circumstances.
Koba in particular hates humans because of his mistreatement at their hands and wants nothing more than to either kill or enslave whereas Caesar, having been raised by kind humans, sees the good in humanity and wants to give them a chance, as well as only killing humans who pose a threat to his family. Both are very similiar to Charles Xavier and Magneto from the X-Men Shared Universe, another franchise owned by 20th Century Fox (the film rights they possess, not the comic rights themselves.)
Dr Zaius has his own predjudice against humans, recognising their predisposition towards violence and that they will destory each other. He is a very cynical individual who refuses to see that man does have the capacity to seek peace and not be corrupt and destructive. Even in his final moments in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, he doesn't shift from this viewpoint. If Caesar was successful in uniting Apes in Battle for the Planet of the Apes, perhaps Dr Zaius would have a different view of humans, even welcoming them as fellow citizens, including Taylor and Brent, into his village, or Caesar may have failed, meaning that humanity and apes are doomed and the time loop in Escape from the Planet of the Apes really doesn't allow for possible change, meaning Zaius will remain the way he is.
Planet of the Apes, either intentionally or unintentionally destroys the leftist idea that all whites are inherently racist and that all ethnic minorities are oppressed. The franchise establishes there is hatred and love (or even indifference or tolerance) on both sides of the racial spectrum.
The films expose and bring light to the fact that no one race is inherently racist to another collectively, only individuals. Racism exists within all races, but not all of a particular race are racists. Racism can arise due to circumstances and what happens around us and sometimes can be something that a person develops without external forces or can be imbued subliminally.
The idea of being racist to white people and get away with it while if they are racist to those who are non-white, they are condemned, is an unjust balance, hypocritical and also unbiblical. See Proverbs 20:10
"10 Unequal[a] weights and unequal measures
are both alike an abomination to the Lord."
Being consistent is key, either you condemn ALL racism, including against white people, or you condemn NONE of it.
Why can a person who isn't white be as racist and as dehumanising as possible yet if the white man says anything like that they are demonised. Leslie Jones, a famous actress noted for being in the incredibly average Ghostbusters reboot, has been made racist comments on Twitter yet cries foul when others are racist to her. Racism goes both ways as does sexism.
I hear the term whitewashing a lot in recent years when it comes to white leads in a given context in the movie industry or in animation.
Isn't that label racist in and of itself, or so you love some make believe world where you can get away with being racist to white people without repercussions?
I'm sorry, if you are to be slammed for being racists to someone who is black, or asian or latino or whatever race, why can't others be slammed for racism to white people.
Racism is a two way street, stop being inconsistent.
When the Planet of the Apes franchise can be used as a means of showing how racism can exist anywhere, in Hollywood of all places, there is absolutely no excuse to allow for racist hate and bigotry, regardless of your melanin count and facial appearance.
The left calls for diversity and tolerance yet people who disagree with them are labelled with the classic buzzwords I have mentioned in a previous paper: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/social-justice-warriors-destruction-of.html
Jesus is not a racist, his command in the Great Commision in Matthew 28:19-20 was to "make disciples of all nations" referring to all ethnic groups:
"19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”"
Paul stated in Galatians 3:27-29 the following with respect to salvation:
"27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
Let us no also forget the following verses in the Old Testament, namely Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34, Numbers 10:32, Deuteronomy 10:19 and 23:7
Reverse Racism which the Bible makes clear, is not a biblical concept and when even a Hollywood franchise like Planet of the Apes recognises this, there is a serious problem. Let us abandon racism and flee to the one who can save us from it, Jesus Christ, who like the Father has no favourites as James tells us in his letter in chapter 2, verses 1-13:
"2 My brothers,[a] show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."
Answering Judaism.
Background and Context
One consistent idea throughout the films presented is that racism is something that exists on both sides. There will be spoilers for the films themselves so watch before reading this article (unless you don't care for spoilers) and the time of writing, I have only seen reviews of the Tim Burton reimagining, not actually seen it properly.
In the first film, astronaut George Taylor with two of his co-workers (originally three but she died in stasis) are hunted by the apes with other humans after having their clothes stolen and seeing other humans, ones who cannot speak. Taylor, injured on his neck and rendered mute for a time, is then along with one of his co-workers captured while the other was shot dead. Taylor is recovered by Zira, one of the doctors and is amazed when Taylor understands what she is saying, much to her fiance Cornelius' surprise, with skepticism from Dr Zaius.
The humans in the film are forced to live in cages like cattle with Taylor eventually telling one of the apes to take their stinkin' paws him. This along with Taylor reading and writing is a threat to the religous establishment and to Dr Zaius who knows more than he is letting on and charges Cornelius and Zira with heresy.
Near the end of the film, an excavation site that Cornelius was involved in showed various aritifacts, including a doll that cried "Momma" much to their surprise, exposing Zaius' deception.
Taylor leaves the group but not before tying up Zaius against a rock, who warns Taylor "you may not like what you find", the excavation site is buried via explosions and thus one of the most famous plot twists in history is shown, Taylor was on Earth the whole time and he curses humanity for destorying the earth and we see The Statue of Liberty, decaying and buried in the sand.
It's sequel Beneath the Planet of the Apes, shows Brent, another astronaut who was sent to rescue Taylor, finds himself in a similiar situation to Taylor but escapes underground with Nova, a mute human given to Taylor in the first film as a mate and they find humans who not only have telepathic powers but speak English and hide their mutations with masks. Zaius eventually finds his way with an army behind him the hideout of the humans and a fight ensues, ending with Brent dying and Taylor destroying the world by igniting a nuclear bomb (which the mutant humans worshipped as God for some bizarre reason) but not before Zaius pointing how destructive humanity is.
Escape sees Dr Milo (who is killed early on), Cornelius and Zira use Taylor's ship to leave the earth and the blast from the bomb sends them back in time to 1973 where they are accepted by society and become celebrities but concerns about Zira correcting herself in court (she said disect but then changed her words.) leads Dr Otto Hasslein, the President and others to enquire what happens to the human race, learning of the ape uprising and seek to kill Zira's unborn baby and sterilise both apes.
The film ends with Cornelius and Zira dead as well as an infant that Zira swapped with another chimp, leaving her son alive in the care of circus master Senor Armando.
Conquest sees the apes being subject to slavery in response to the future the humans were told about in order to suppress it and a hunt for Caeser, the son of Cornelius and Zira. After nearly causing someone to find him, Armando and he seperate with Armando being captured and interrogated while Caesar goes into slavery, not revealing his true nature until the proper time and vows venegance after learning of Armando's death.
The uprising is successful and after persuasion by Malcolm MacDonald, himself a descendent of black slaves and the chief aide of Governor Breck and Lisa, Caesar spares Breck's life and declares it will be the Birth of the Planet of the Apes.
Battle sees the humans and the apes living together under Caeser's rule with tensions strained, especially since the humans are treated as lower class citizens. With his aide Virgil and assistant Bruce MacDonald, Caeser goes to a ruined city to learn the truth of his parents and what will happen in the future while Aldo, a gorilla general, rebels against Caeser and wants no peace between apes and humans, with his actions leading the humans to be imprisoned and Cornelius, the son of Caesar, dead.
A brief battle ensures between the humans of the forbidden city and the apes, with the apes winning the battle and a brief confrontation between Caesar and Aldo ends with Aldo's death and the humans and apes being allowed to live as equals and we cut to the Lawgiver, who is used as the framing device for the film, as he is regaling the tale of Caesar, with the future of both human and ape, being left ambiguous.
The reboot trilogy took cues from Conquest and Battle but made their own stories with similiar messages while new ones.
The reboot trilogy, from Rise to Dawn to War shows the story of Caeser, who in this continuity is an ape born of a test ape injected with ALZ-112, a virus designed to cure Alzheimers by repairing and creating cells in the brain. The original test ape is shot dead by mistake with Will Rodman, a scientist taking the young Caesar in and raising him, surprised by Caesar's remarkable intelligence from the virus, which compells him to give a dosage to his ailing father Charles, who suffers from Alzheimers himself.
The treatment works albeit temporarily due to the virus being destoryed by anti-bodies, leading to a stronger strain being created, ALZ-113, which Caesar steals after his escape from the sanctuary and uses it to increases the intelligence the other apes, after taking charge and earning the respect of his fellow apes.
Caesar is taken to a chimp sancturary after trying to protect Charles and starts resenting humans, including Will because of his misrtreatment in the sanctuary.
Caesar enables a rebellion, freeing apes as he and his army run to the Muir Woods, a forest that Caesar was taken to in his youth.
Caesar and Will reconcile and part ways but little does Caesar know that the ALZ-113 spread out of the Gen-Sys facility (thanks to a bonobo named Koba infecting one of the doctors by knocking his mask off while the virus was being administered.) and starts to kill the human population on the planet, leaving small groups of humans left, immune the effects of the virus.
10 years later, Caesar and the apes live alone in the forest and in the remains of San Francisco, humans are trying to survive. Malcolm and a team of humans from the San Francisco are spared by Caesar which compells Caesar to warn the humans to stay away from him and his family and try to live in peace with the humans, While Koba, due to his mistreatment by humans throughout his life, wants nothing more than the humans to be enslaved and destoryed.
Malcolm wins the trust of Caesar after the repair of the dam and after Caesar's wife Cornelia is given medical attention after suffering an infection.
Unfortunately, Koba killed three humans, shot Caesar and decieved the apes into following him, to lead them to kill and enslave the humans in San Francisco, imprisoning apes who refused to help him and Dreyfus, the leader of the humans in the area, called in the military to take out the apes.
With the help of his son Blue Eyes, Caeser recovers from his wounds and kills Koba for his rebellion and betrayal. Malcolm escapes with he and Caesar saying one last goodbye after Caesar tells him to escape while lamenting the loss of his once trusted friend and the fact that there is no chance of ape and humankind living in peace.
2 years later, Caesar and the apes are on the run and trying to survive facing against the renegade military division known as Alpha-Omega, let by Colonel Mccullough. The ALZ-113 virus, dubbed the Simian Flu since it's outbreak has evolved to render humans mute and reduce them to beasts. Caesar goes on a quest to find the Colonel after Blue Eyes and Cornelia are brutally murdered by him, with Maurice, Rocket and Luca accompanying Caesar on his quest, meeting Nova (this time a young girl infected with the Simian Flu and can't talk) and Bad Ape, a hermit ape who learned how to speak, along the way. Caesar's pursuit of revenge leads him down a dark path, killing a traitor called Winter by accident, with Maurice later comparing Caesar to Koba. Luca is killed and Caesar, Maurice and Rocket are kidnapped, while Big Ape and Nova escape.
Caesar to his horror while on his quest, finds his clan as well as his still living son, Cornelius, have been rounded up by the Colonel and is forced to watch his fellow apes in a concentration camp while he suffers being strung up in the cold, taunted by Koba in his dreams. The Colonel explains to Caesar why he does what he does, the Simian Flu is still afflicting the human race and he exterminated people, even his own son, who had even mild symptoms of the Simian Flu and believes he is doing it for the greater good.
Nova later finds Caesar in the facility giving him food, water and a rag doll that Maurice gave to her.
Once Caesar redeems himself in the eyes of his clan, the apes escape, the Colonel fails in his mission and is infected by Nova's doll which contained the virus, killing himself after Caesar refuses to kill him and while the military is successful in defeating Alpha-Omega, their victory is short lived when they are killed by an avalanche, leaving only the apes to survive the aftermath.
Caesar is mortally wounded in the battle and lives long enough to lead his clan to an oasis where they will be safe and Maurice to tell his friend that Cornelius, that he will be remembered for what he did, leaving Caesar to die in peace with the knowledge that his family will be, with or without him, together strong.
Myth of Reverse Racism?
One of the running themes through the Planet of the Apes. is the idea of racism and predjudice, a common problem that has existed for countless years. The movies, especially in the reboot films, don't present one side as good and one side as evil as there are both good and evil on both sides. There are ones who want peace and security on both sides and the two races to live in peace with each other while there are other individuals who do not desire reconcilation because of their circumstances.
Koba in particular hates humans because of his mistreatement at their hands and wants nothing more than to either kill or enslave whereas Caesar, having been raised by kind humans, sees the good in humanity and wants to give them a chance, as well as only killing humans who pose a threat to his family. Both are very similiar to Charles Xavier and Magneto from the X-Men Shared Universe, another franchise owned by 20th Century Fox (the film rights they possess, not the comic rights themselves.)
Dr Zaius has his own predjudice against humans, recognising their predisposition towards violence and that they will destory each other. He is a very cynical individual who refuses to see that man does have the capacity to seek peace and not be corrupt and destructive. Even in his final moments in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, he doesn't shift from this viewpoint. If Caesar was successful in uniting Apes in Battle for the Planet of the Apes, perhaps Dr Zaius would have a different view of humans, even welcoming them as fellow citizens, including Taylor and Brent, into his village, or Caesar may have failed, meaning that humanity and apes are doomed and the time loop in Escape from the Planet of the Apes really doesn't allow for possible change, meaning Zaius will remain the way he is.
Planet of the Apes, either intentionally or unintentionally destroys the leftist idea that all whites are inherently racist and that all ethnic minorities are oppressed. The franchise establishes there is hatred and love (or even indifference or tolerance) on both sides of the racial spectrum.
The films expose and bring light to the fact that no one race is inherently racist to another collectively, only individuals. Racism exists within all races, but not all of a particular race are racists. Racism can arise due to circumstances and what happens around us and sometimes can be something that a person develops without external forces or can be imbued subliminally.
The idea of being racist to white people and get away with it while if they are racist to those who are non-white, they are condemned, is an unjust balance, hypocritical and also unbiblical. See Proverbs 20:10
"10 Unequal[a] weights and unequal measures
are both alike an abomination to the Lord."
Being consistent is key, either you condemn ALL racism, including against white people, or you condemn NONE of it.
Why can a person who isn't white be as racist and as dehumanising as possible yet if the white man says anything like that they are demonised. Leslie Jones, a famous actress noted for being in the incredibly average Ghostbusters reboot, has been made racist comments on Twitter yet cries foul when others are racist to her. Racism goes both ways as does sexism.
I hear the term whitewashing a lot in recent years when it comes to white leads in a given context in the movie industry or in animation.
Isn't that label racist in and of itself, or so you love some make believe world where you can get away with being racist to white people without repercussions?
I'm sorry, if you are to be slammed for being racists to someone who is black, or asian or latino or whatever race, why can't others be slammed for racism to white people.
Racism is a two way street, stop being inconsistent.
When the Planet of the Apes franchise can be used as a means of showing how racism can exist anywhere, in Hollywood of all places, there is absolutely no excuse to allow for racist hate and bigotry, regardless of your melanin count and facial appearance.
The left calls for diversity and tolerance yet people who disagree with them are labelled with the classic buzzwords I have mentioned in a previous paper: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/social-justice-warriors-destruction-of.html
Jesus is not a racist, his command in the Great Commision in Matthew 28:19-20 was to "make disciples of all nations" referring to all ethnic groups:
"19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”"
Paul stated in Galatians 3:27-29 the following with respect to salvation:
"27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
Let us no also forget the following verses in the Old Testament, namely Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34, Numbers 10:32, Deuteronomy 10:19 and 23:7
Reverse Racism which the Bible makes clear, is not a biblical concept and when even a Hollywood franchise like Planet of the Apes recognises this, there is a serious problem. Let us abandon racism and flee to the one who can save us from it, Jesus Christ, who like the Father has no favourites as James tells us in his letter in chapter 2, verses 1-13:
"2 My brothers,[a] show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."
Answering Judaism.
Sunday, 5 November 2017
Social Justice Warriors: The destruction of the nation
There are first some links I want to share here before I begin with this paper.
Voddie Baucham: Biblical Manhood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx86u7o1k-Q
Voddie Baucham: Biblical Womanhood:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fduvf-DsJaA&t=5s
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugISx5nBRFY&t=5s
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I97s3izqG4
Paul Washer: Biblical Manhood:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U-JmgBnFHk
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXXm49qg0I
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJqE9qchGpo
Paul Washer: Biblical Womanhood:
https://illbehonest.com/recovering-biblical-womanhood-paul-washer
I also would recommend the video which inspired this article by Dave Cullen who while he may not be a Christian himself, he has found himself agreeing with them on many points:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGBf4o1M2uo
Cullen's work on feminism and social justice warriors can be found on his main YouTube channel, Computing Forever: https://www.youtube.com/user/LACK78
See also Keith Thompson's video on the leftists immoral views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oETivbBtlAE
I am not against a woman having a career and I believe they should look after the home and children when they are married but I won't go into too much detail on that as I have written a paper on this issue of women in the workplace: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/roles-of-women-in-church-what-can-they.html
I have become more acutely aware of the cancerous and dangerous toxin that is infecting social media, entertainment, politics, education and other spheres of the world coupled with backing from liberals in those fields with a pretentious, self righteous and outright insulting definition of morality that want people to conform to their ways or be called "racist", "mysoginist", "homophobe", "transphobe", "islamophobe" and of course "Trump Supporter".
Not only has the church been negligent or even outright accepted these people's skewed and twisted emotional rhetoric,the opposite is true to an extent in the unbelieving world. More and more unbelievers, people who don't even believe in Jesus are waking up to the realisation that this cancer is destroying society and the family, regardless of leaning to more egalitarian or not.
I first became aware of the Social Justice Warriors or SJWs for short when I started listening to the podcast group known as Midnight's Edge, when they were talking about Fant4stic, a reboot of the Fantastic Four movie franchise as an example of an audience that was hoped to support the film. The video in question discussed the aftermath which you can find here, Viewers discretion at one point because there is a joke about ripping of the privates of Ben Grimm which is to be honest distasteful despite the information presented by Andre, Kevin and Trollinthedungeon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOSbF1xz86Y
Social Justice Warriors have had their airy fairy, easily triggered and nonsensical views been taken very seriously by many but the truth of the matter is, these SJWs will not be satisfied in their appeasement. Many industries have kowtowed and been infected with this ideology.
The video from Cullen that started this article was a case in Canada where a rape claim was made against a man who was protesting his innocence and because of the judge's ideological bias, accepted the rape claimant was granted her case. See the link to his video above.
It is disgraceful to be honest to allow this bias and prejudice against men creep into the courts. Fairness and justice is what the courts should be dispensing and not examining the facts and ascertaining whether the man should be acquitted or sentenced accordingly is disgusting and despicable.
See my article on false witnessing: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/false-witnessing-what-is-it.html
While we are not under the Torah, there are principles found to use when building a case against an individual, that the charges must be based on facts and must have multiple witnesses.
False rape claims are one of the many problems in the West and men are rightly terrified by them because when one is on the sex offender registries (the countries that have those laws), they have restrictions placed on them and it's hard for them to get employment or retain their jobs or even their home and of course their families suffer abuse and scorn as a result and even after their removal from the registries, they carry this stigma with them for life. Thankfully there was a case some time back where a man was saved from prison by evidence on a recording device which had the woman who accused him convicted instead.
There are feminists who actually defend this practice of deception regarding rape claims with the point "Well that case may have been proven false but it makes us aware of the issues of rape in our culture". What?!!
The police are not going to take rape claims like that seriously if you keep using deception to falsely imprison innocent men and ruin their lives. It's wickedness like that which prevent real rape claimants from coming forward. Rape is treated very seriously in western nations and is wicked in the sight of God. You devalue helping actual oppressed women with these lies about innocent men. I wouldn't be surprised if this actually encouraged people to rape and get away with it because there are no severe consequences for them to reap. If anything, feminists who use false rape claims are part of the problem they supposedly are trying to stop and making people aware of these issues, while also making claims that all men must be taught not to rape women because apparently all men are predators which is absurd and flat out misandry. (Don't you dare say it isn't because of men having power and privilege).
Third Wave Feminism is destructive to both men and women. If a woman wants to be a housewife, you don't stifle that, you let her go do it. The idea of a house wife being oppressive to women is a ludicrous lie and in case you are wondering, no, The 1950s housewife is not Biblical Christianity. I recommend reading Rebekah Mirkle's book Eve in Exile for more information.
David Pawson once said: "God didn't intend chauvinism but he did intend chivalry."
You want to see true oppression? Live under shariah law or go to a country that also devalues women.
We also have the destruction of the entertainment industry, where nowadays women must be "strong independent women who don't need no man" (a phrase I am sick of hearing to be honest and was familiar with the phrase in 2015 but can't remember when I first heard it) and the men are portrayed as incompetent idiots or completely emasculated.
Of course there is also the following which have one thing in common in fiction and they are all called misogynistic:
"
" https://bechdeltest.com/
This is the one of the most pathetic, pointless, shallow and unnecessary examinations of a film. If this is designed to write off a work of fiction, It's a terrible way of doing so.
Back in 2016 when X-Men Apocalypse was released, 20th Century Fox apologised for a poster of Apocalypse strangling Mystique after the backlash the poster received. (Of course there is a context to what happened in the film and Apocalypse would have done that to anyone). It's sad on a side note that when X-Men Apocalypse is used as a means of attacking YHWH (It's first trailer actually had Apocalypse say "I have been called many things, Ra, Krishna, YHWH") and people don't complain about that but when a woman is being strangled by the villain, apparently the film is misogynistic which is completely absurd when you watch the film in context. Our priorities really have taken a turn for the worst.
And while we are on the subject of Marvel, specifically it's comic division (but not so much the movie division as Kevin Feige, The Marvel Cinematic Universe's architect, is not virtue signalling as far as I can tell), Many users on YouTube, on Facebook and elsewhere have highlighted Marvel going into the identity politics and are trying to appeal to an audience and people who are not interested in their work to begin with. Thanks to the SJW appeasement, Marvel comic sales have dropped low and the user Diversity & Comics has done reviews of comics which have been infected with this cancer. One of the comic book series I have picked up was the Superior Spiderman which while it got used to the series and got better as the series progressed right up to it's great conclusion, It didn't have the things that many individuals complained about with respect to the SJW problems, at least none I could detect because I wasn't aware of the issues at the time.
It's one thing in fiction for a woman or non-whites to take center stage as a main character, that isn't the problem and is fine. What many take issue with is using the genders and the races as a licence to force feminist and social justice propaganda down their throats.
Let us not also forget telling white children in schools about white privilege and telling them that they are responsible for the slavery of black people in the West (of course if these vile hypocrites were consistent they should tell black children that some of their ancestors were slave owners of their own race themselves and they wouldn't tell the black children that because they would be labeled racist by their own for saying that), which is a wicked thing to tell a child who doesn't understand these issues. (Don't you dare tell me also that whites can be insulted due to their privilege). What's white privilege anyway? There is no advantage that white people have over other races? You are hired based on merit, not melanin count.
And of course we cannot forget the wickedness of gender fluidity where children are taught to accept there are billions of genders, which as many know is absurd as well as flies in the face of what biology has shown not to mention the suicide rates are higher among the transgender community in comparison to the non-trans. Children do not have the understanding to deal with these kinds of issues and opening children up to these kinds of practices are absolutely evil. Teachers who allow this kind of sexual deviancy to permeate their campuses to children should be themselves put on the sex offenders registry.
An issue can be highlighted but not at an age where someone doesn't have the means to process properly how immoral it is.
We also cannot forget open borders and allowing individuals in without the proper means of checking them and people wonder why terrorism has arisen in their country more and more. Immigration control is there for a reason and the only immigrants that have a right to be in The United States (This also applies to my own country of The United Kingdom and other nations) are LEGAL immigrants, ones who have proven themselves to be honest hard working people who are willing to live in a society different from theirs. Illegal immigrants (the liberals love calling them undocumented which is the same thing) who may possibly be a embezzler, terrorist, sex offender or benefit thieves or even if they work hard violate the VISA that there were given which may not permit them to work are the ones who should be deported back to their country or detained.
Ancient Israel I think had a better immigration than some of the countries in the West have today. See Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34, Numbers 10:32, Deuteronomy 10:19 and 23:7.
In the curses uttered in Deuteronomy 27, verse 19 says the following:
"19 “‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen."
Does the Bible say treat the foreigner well in your midst? Yes, but any foreigner who wanted to live in Israel had to live by its rules. The verses in question are not a licence to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry into the country. There is a reason border control exists, it's for safety and security of a country.
I won't deny there are refugees who need help but they must be examined, to see if they have or had a criminal past of some kind or connection to a malicious organisation. They must also have the appropriate documentation to work and live in the country. If there is nothing wrong, they are free to come in, but they must abide by the laws of the country. You cannot just let them in without any grounds to do so. Not every single person is a refugee.
When atheists, non Christians who have some influence from Christianity whether they admit it or not, recognise the problems with a feminised culture, you have a serious problem in your midst and have to do something about it.
Not only has this cancer of feminism destroyed men for many reasons given in this video again by Cullen: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY7NoryHAX0&) which are quite correct, it's destroyed women too. Even the entertainment industry has been ruined by these SJWs who should never be appeased and should be ignored because surprise surprise, they cannot be pleased... ever. They'll never be satisfied.
The far left for too long have bullied conservatives, shamed them and attacked them. Leftists (not all) are the ones destroying their countries with open borders, dehumanising of people who differ from them, a false righteousness that borders or pretentious virtue signaling as mentioned earlier in this article, shaming white heterosexual men (because apparently that's not racist or sexist at all even though it's just another form of racism) and falsely proclaiming this narrative of Donald Trump being an oppressive bigot, despite the fact he isn't such a person in context. I don't like his "locker room" talk and the number of divorces and remarriages is a failure to recognise the sanctity of marriage but I don't see how Trump is the despot people make him out to be.
While I don't agree with Donald Trump supporting homosexual marriage or even allowing abortion under the circumstances of rape and incest (abortion is still murder), he hasn't taken people's rights from doing those things. This is nothing more than lies being thrown at Trump, as well as the lies that he is a racist against Mexicans and other races. Are you kidding me? He is only kicking out ILLEGAL immigrants, not the legal immigrants who have earned the right to be there.
And yet the Americans wanted Hilary Clinton, a woman who shouldn't have been running for president and should have been imprisoned long ago for her crimes? Really?
If you don't like either candidate fine, I would have preferred someone more virtuous and righteous as the President but still, have an accurate reason why to dismiss either candidate and observing Trump even occasionally, the man has common sense, despite his rash and sometimes childish approach of dealing with his opponents and I am not saying this to disrespect Trump, he is 55 years my senior after all. I initially saw him as a bombastic windbag but overtime have warmed up to him.
I feel sorry for the next generation of children who have to live with this satanic social justice garbage. They are never going to mature or grow and both future generations of Men and Women alike are going to subject to this refuse and poisonous brainwashing. "Oh but you Christians brainwash children", No we don't, You liberals and social justice warriors are the ones who abuse children and turn them into immature and infantile adults who haven't grown up, need safe spaces and can't face the harshness of life as well as the endorsement of wickedness that would have been condemned for a long time.
You are brainwashing children into sexual perversion and allowing practices which were taboo 50 years ago and more. Explain how BIBLICAL Christians, not the Westboro Baptist Church or the like or cults but biblical Bible believing Christians, whether it be David Pawson, John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, Keith Thompson and others brainwashing people. They are not and would express disgust and do express disgust with the brainwashing of the human race by the devil, who himself is the father of lies. I think it is God's judgement on the West that all this is happening.
"Oh but we fight for their rights, equality and love and diversity, you are the ones who hate not love". Oh really? Why is it ok to be racist and sexist towards white, heterosexual men but not ok to be those things to the genders and races you claim to fight for? You are not guilty of reverse racism, you are guilty of racism. It also doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman, you are not to be sexist. Be consistent, either ban all racism, including to white people or do not talk about racism at all.
No I don't say homosexuals and trans people and people of other religions and races cannot work and have a job, they can, but allowing you in the work place doesn't mean you have to agree with me or anyone else on anything.
With respect to homosexuality and transvestism, why do you want to endorse practices that have been shown to destroy the family and destroy a person's body through not only physical disease such as AIDS and HIV as well as higher suicide rates? I don't care if they claim to love each other, The homosexuals cannot reproduce a child with their union? They are in love with a mirror image, there is nothing to complement the relationship or birth a new human into the world, you have to adopt a human from a person who is willing to have the baby to be a "family". Even adopting a child, it doesn't matter about the noble intention of raising the child, they are raised in an environment where the gender roles are to be perfectly franked, skewed and promotes the sin of homosexuality.
To quote the words of James White: "The emasculation of men and the masculation of women is evil".
See my article response to Dr Mona West: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/does-bible-condone-homosexuality.html
I am sensitive to the fact and should be sensitive to the fact that not all feminists are horrible monsters but do have a legitimate concern about women's rights, but unfortunately, the loud mouth SJWs are the ones who have the loudest voice, some people have even joked or stated that SJWs spend their time complaining on tumblr.
I am also aware there are those who left leaning who while they disagree, do allow opposing opinions to challenge them, which is commendable.
We should have both dialogues, not monologues and if SJWs continue to dominate the playing field, conservatives will lose. The field should be leveled.
Answering Judaism.
Voddie Baucham: Biblical Manhood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx86u7o1k-Q
Voddie Baucham: Biblical Womanhood:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fduvf-DsJaA&t=5s
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugISx5nBRFY&t=5s
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I97s3izqG4
Paul Washer: Biblical Manhood:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U-JmgBnFHk
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXXm49qg0I
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJqE9qchGpo
Paul Washer: Biblical Womanhood:
https://illbehonest.com/recovering-biblical-womanhood-paul-washer
I also would recommend the video which inspired this article by Dave Cullen who while he may not be a Christian himself, he has found himself agreeing with them on many points:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGBf4o1M2uo
Cullen's work on feminism and social justice warriors can be found on his main YouTube channel, Computing Forever: https://www.youtube.com/user/LACK78
See also Keith Thompson's video on the leftists immoral views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oETivbBtlAE
I am not against a woman having a career and I believe they should look after the home and children when they are married but I won't go into too much detail on that as I have written a paper on this issue of women in the workplace: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/roles-of-women-in-church-what-can-they.html
I have become more acutely aware of the cancerous and dangerous toxin that is infecting social media, entertainment, politics, education and other spheres of the world coupled with backing from liberals in those fields with a pretentious, self righteous and outright insulting definition of morality that want people to conform to their ways or be called "racist", "mysoginist", "homophobe", "transphobe", "islamophobe" and of course "Trump Supporter".
Not only has the church been negligent or even outright accepted these people's skewed and twisted emotional rhetoric,the opposite is true to an extent in the unbelieving world. More and more unbelievers, people who don't even believe in Jesus are waking up to the realisation that this cancer is destroying society and the family, regardless of leaning to more egalitarian or not.
I first became aware of the Social Justice Warriors or SJWs for short when I started listening to the podcast group known as Midnight's Edge, when they were talking about Fant4stic, a reboot of the Fantastic Four movie franchise as an example of an audience that was hoped to support the film. The video in question discussed the aftermath which you can find here, Viewers discretion at one point because there is a joke about ripping of the privates of Ben Grimm which is to be honest distasteful despite the information presented by Andre, Kevin and Trollinthedungeon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOSbF1xz86Y
Social Justice Warriors have had their airy fairy, easily triggered and nonsensical views been taken very seriously by many but the truth of the matter is, these SJWs will not be satisfied in their appeasement. Many industries have kowtowed and been infected with this ideology.
The video from Cullen that started this article was a case in Canada where a rape claim was made against a man who was protesting his innocence and because of the judge's ideological bias, accepted the rape claimant was granted her case. See the link to his video above.
It is disgraceful to be honest to allow this bias and prejudice against men creep into the courts. Fairness and justice is what the courts should be dispensing and not examining the facts and ascertaining whether the man should be acquitted or sentenced accordingly is disgusting and despicable.
See my article on false witnessing: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/false-witnessing-what-is-it.html
While we are not under the Torah, there are principles found to use when building a case against an individual, that the charges must be based on facts and must have multiple witnesses.
False rape claims are one of the many problems in the West and men are rightly terrified by them because when one is on the sex offender registries (the countries that have those laws), they have restrictions placed on them and it's hard for them to get employment or retain their jobs or even their home and of course their families suffer abuse and scorn as a result and even after their removal from the registries, they carry this stigma with them for life. Thankfully there was a case some time back where a man was saved from prison by evidence on a recording device which had the woman who accused him convicted instead.
There are feminists who actually defend this practice of deception regarding rape claims with the point "Well that case may have been proven false but it makes us aware of the issues of rape in our culture". What?!!
The police are not going to take rape claims like that seriously if you keep using deception to falsely imprison innocent men and ruin their lives. It's wickedness like that which prevent real rape claimants from coming forward. Rape is treated very seriously in western nations and is wicked in the sight of God. You devalue helping actual oppressed women with these lies about innocent men. I wouldn't be surprised if this actually encouraged people to rape and get away with it because there are no severe consequences for them to reap. If anything, feminists who use false rape claims are part of the problem they supposedly are trying to stop and making people aware of these issues, while also making claims that all men must be taught not to rape women because apparently all men are predators which is absurd and flat out misandry. (Don't you dare say it isn't because of men having power and privilege).
Third Wave Feminism is destructive to both men and women. If a woman wants to be a housewife, you don't stifle that, you let her go do it. The idea of a house wife being oppressive to women is a ludicrous lie and in case you are wondering, no, The 1950s housewife is not Biblical Christianity. I recommend reading Rebekah Mirkle's book Eve in Exile for more information.
David Pawson once said: "God didn't intend chauvinism but he did intend chivalry."
You want to see true oppression? Live under shariah law or go to a country that also devalues women.
We also have the destruction of the entertainment industry, where nowadays women must be "strong independent women who don't need no man" (a phrase I am sick of hearing to be honest and was familiar with the phrase in 2015 but can't remember when I first heard it) and the men are portrayed as incompetent idiots or completely emasculated.
Of course there is also the following which have one thing in common in fiction and they are all called misogynistic:
- A woman who doesn't fight.
- A woman who is captured.
- A woman who is rescued by a man (but can be rescued by another woman and rescue a man).
- A woman who settles down with a man.
"
1. It has to have at least two [named] women in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man
This is the one of the most pathetic, pointless, shallow and unnecessary examinations of a film. If this is designed to write off a work of fiction, It's a terrible way of doing so.
Back in 2016 when X-Men Apocalypse was released, 20th Century Fox apologised for a poster of Apocalypse strangling Mystique after the backlash the poster received. (Of course there is a context to what happened in the film and Apocalypse would have done that to anyone). It's sad on a side note that when X-Men Apocalypse is used as a means of attacking YHWH (It's first trailer actually had Apocalypse say "I have been called many things, Ra, Krishna, YHWH") and people don't complain about that but when a woman is being strangled by the villain, apparently the film is misogynistic which is completely absurd when you watch the film in context. Our priorities really have taken a turn for the worst.
And while we are on the subject of Marvel, specifically it's comic division (but not so much the movie division as Kevin Feige, The Marvel Cinematic Universe's architect, is not virtue signalling as far as I can tell), Many users on YouTube, on Facebook and elsewhere have highlighted Marvel going into the identity politics and are trying to appeal to an audience and people who are not interested in their work to begin with. Thanks to the SJW appeasement, Marvel comic sales have dropped low and the user Diversity & Comics has done reviews of comics which have been infected with this cancer. One of the comic book series I have picked up was the Superior Spiderman which while it got used to the series and got better as the series progressed right up to it's great conclusion, It didn't have the things that many individuals complained about with respect to the SJW problems, at least none I could detect because I wasn't aware of the issues at the time.
It's one thing in fiction for a woman or non-whites to take center stage as a main character, that isn't the problem and is fine. What many take issue with is using the genders and the races as a licence to force feminist and social justice propaganda down their throats.
Let us not also forget telling white children in schools about white privilege and telling them that they are responsible for the slavery of black people in the West (of course if these vile hypocrites were consistent they should tell black children that some of their ancestors were slave owners of their own race themselves and they wouldn't tell the black children that because they would be labeled racist by their own for saying that), which is a wicked thing to tell a child who doesn't understand these issues. (Don't you dare tell me also that whites can be insulted due to their privilege). What's white privilege anyway? There is no advantage that white people have over other races? You are hired based on merit, not melanin count.
And of course we cannot forget the wickedness of gender fluidity where children are taught to accept there are billions of genders, which as many know is absurd as well as flies in the face of what biology has shown not to mention the suicide rates are higher among the transgender community in comparison to the non-trans. Children do not have the understanding to deal with these kinds of issues and opening children up to these kinds of practices are absolutely evil. Teachers who allow this kind of sexual deviancy to permeate their campuses to children should be themselves put on the sex offenders registry.
An issue can be highlighted but not at an age where someone doesn't have the means to process properly how immoral it is.
We also cannot forget open borders and allowing individuals in without the proper means of checking them and people wonder why terrorism has arisen in their country more and more. Immigration control is there for a reason and the only immigrants that have a right to be in The United States (This also applies to my own country of The United Kingdom and other nations) are LEGAL immigrants, ones who have proven themselves to be honest hard working people who are willing to live in a society different from theirs. Illegal immigrants (the liberals love calling them undocumented which is the same thing) who may possibly be a embezzler, terrorist, sex offender or benefit thieves or even if they work hard violate the VISA that there were given which may not permit them to work are the ones who should be deported back to their country or detained.
Ancient Israel I think had a better immigration than some of the countries in the West have today. See Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34, Numbers 10:32, Deuteronomy 10:19 and 23:7.
In the curses uttered in Deuteronomy 27, verse 19 says the following:
"19 “‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen."
Does the Bible say treat the foreigner well in your midst? Yes, but any foreigner who wanted to live in Israel had to live by its rules. The verses in question are not a licence to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry into the country. There is a reason border control exists, it's for safety and security of a country.
I won't deny there are refugees who need help but they must be examined, to see if they have or had a criminal past of some kind or connection to a malicious organisation. They must also have the appropriate documentation to work and live in the country. If there is nothing wrong, they are free to come in, but they must abide by the laws of the country. You cannot just let them in without any grounds to do so. Not every single person is a refugee.
When atheists, non Christians who have some influence from Christianity whether they admit it or not, recognise the problems with a feminised culture, you have a serious problem in your midst and have to do something about it.
Not only has this cancer of feminism destroyed men for many reasons given in this video again by Cullen: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY7NoryHAX0&) which are quite correct, it's destroyed women too. Even the entertainment industry has been ruined by these SJWs who should never be appeased and should be ignored because surprise surprise, they cannot be pleased... ever. They'll never be satisfied.
The far left for too long have bullied conservatives, shamed them and attacked them. Leftists (not all) are the ones destroying their countries with open borders, dehumanising of people who differ from them, a false righteousness that borders or pretentious virtue signaling as mentioned earlier in this article, shaming white heterosexual men (because apparently that's not racist or sexist at all even though it's just another form of racism) and falsely proclaiming this narrative of Donald Trump being an oppressive bigot, despite the fact he isn't such a person in context. I don't like his "locker room" talk and the number of divorces and remarriages is a failure to recognise the sanctity of marriage but I don't see how Trump is the despot people make him out to be.
While I don't agree with Donald Trump supporting homosexual marriage or even allowing abortion under the circumstances of rape and incest (abortion is still murder), he hasn't taken people's rights from doing those things. This is nothing more than lies being thrown at Trump, as well as the lies that he is a racist against Mexicans and other races. Are you kidding me? He is only kicking out ILLEGAL immigrants, not the legal immigrants who have earned the right to be there.
And yet the Americans wanted Hilary Clinton, a woman who shouldn't have been running for president and should have been imprisoned long ago for her crimes? Really?
If you don't like either candidate fine, I would have preferred someone more virtuous and righteous as the President but still, have an accurate reason why to dismiss either candidate and observing Trump even occasionally, the man has common sense, despite his rash and sometimes childish approach of dealing with his opponents and I am not saying this to disrespect Trump, he is 55 years my senior after all. I initially saw him as a bombastic windbag but overtime have warmed up to him.
I feel sorry for the next generation of children who have to live with this satanic social justice garbage. They are never going to mature or grow and both future generations of Men and Women alike are going to subject to this refuse and poisonous brainwashing. "Oh but you Christians brainwash children", No we don't, You liberals and social justice warriors are the ones who abuse children and turn them into immature and infantile adults who haven't grown up, need safe spaces and can't face the harshness of life as well as the endorsement of wickedness that would have been condemned for a long time.
You are brainwashing children into sexual perversion and allowing practices which were taboo 50 years ago and more. Explain how BIBLICAL Christians, not the Westboro Baptist Church or the like or cults but biblical Bible believing Christians, whether it be David Pawson, John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, Keith Thompson and others brainwashing people. They are not and would express disgust and do express disgust with the brainwashing of the human race by the devil, who himself is the father of lies. I think it is God's judgement on the West that all this is happening.
"Oh but we fight for their rights, equality and love and diversity, you are the ones who hate not love". Oh really? Why is it ok to be racist and sexist towards white, heterosexual men but not ok to be those things to the genders and races you claim to fight for? You are not guilty of reverse racism, you are guilty of racism. It also doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman, you are not to be sexist. Be consistent, either ban all racism, including to white people or do not talk about racism at all.
No I don't say homosexuals and trans people and people of other religions and races cannot work and have a job, they can, but allowing you in the work place doesn't mean you have to agree with me or anyone else on anything.
With respect to homosexuality and transvestism, why do you want to endorse practices that have been shown to destroy the family and destroy a person's body through not only physical disease such as AIDS and HIV as well as higher suicide rates? I don't care if they claim to love each other, The homosexuals cannot reproduce a child with their union? They are in love with a mirror image, there is nothing to complement the relationship or birth a new human into the world, you have to adopt a human from a person who is willing to have the baby to be a "family". Even adopting a child, it doesn't matter about the noble intention of raising the child, they are raised in an environment where the gender roles are to be perfectly franked, skewed and promotes the sin of homosexuality.
To quote the words of James White: "The emasculation of men and the masculation of women is evil".
See my article response to Dr Mona West: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/does-bible-condone-homosexuality.html
I am sensitive to the fact and should be sensitive to the fact that not all feminists are horrible monsters but do have a legitimate concern about women's rights, but unfortunately, the loud mouth SJWs are the ones who have the loudest voice, some people have even joked or stated that SJWs spend their time complaining on tumblr.
I am also aware there are those who left leaning who while they disagree, do allow opposing opinions to challenge them, which is commendable.
We should have both dialogues, not monologues and if SJWs continue to dominate the playing field, conservatives will lose. The field should be leveled.
Answering Judaism.
Friday, 27 October 2017
More Muslim objections to address: Response to ibn_saleh
ibn_saleh of Paltalk raised these objections to me a few days ago. Let's address the points
Which Bible? 73 or 66?
66, The Apocrypha isn't canon. This article will not dive into that but there are articles that I recommend that do:
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/appendix-addressing-some-arguments-in.html
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/is-jewish-apocrypha-inspired-scripture_23.html
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/is-jewish-apocrypha-inspired-scripture_1537.html
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/is-jewish-apocrypha-inspired-scripture_2120.html
http://www.jiminger.com/apocrypha/index.html
When Jesus paid our sin debt, who was it paid to? Who paid the price? Was the Son paying himself?
Jesus is the one who paid the price for our sins, He was not paying himself, he was paying the price to the Father and satisfy his justice and wrath against sin.
It was paid to the Father. Sin demands payment and justice and atonement is to be made to God because he is sinned against. Atonement means to compensate and Jesus' death satisfies God's wrath against us. There is no evidence scriptural that any debt to Satan was paid. Satan in the Old Testament although it is downplayed in the New Testament had the job of reporting sins. He was know in the Old Testament as "The Satan" or the accuser. Because of this, Satan has no reason to be paid anything, as he is not the one who mankind has sinned against. If you stole property or an item, you return it to it's rightful owner, not to someone who is your accuser. If you sin, Satan is not one to whom the debt is paid.
Read the following article on who Satan is: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/tackling-rabbinic-objections-2.html
God is so holy that he cannot just sweep sin under the rug and he must deal with it in some way and the death of Jesus was the answer, the second person of the Trinity dying for our sins, a debt that we ourselves could not pay.
Is Atonement a Biblical idea or a Greek idea?
It's certainly not a Greek idea, it goes right back to the Old Testament with respect to the issue of dealing with sin through blood.
There is nothing in Greek Mythology to my knowledge that is even remotely similar to the death of Jesus on the cross (Don't you dare tell me Zeitgeist is a credible source of information.) The Old Testament sacrifices pointed to Jesus who would eventually be our ultimate atonement and he saves us from bringing a ram or sheep or ox or any animal as a sacrifice for sins.
The idea of expiation via an animal's death is as old as that of when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, when God slaughtered the first animal to give the two humans garments and the means of atonement (Genesis 3). Cain and Abel's offering you can dispute as to their reasons, maybe merely fruit wasn't what God wanted of Cain gave with the wrong motive or perhaps Cain trying to merit his worthiness with God whereas Abel recognized he fell short and relied on God and loved him anyway (Genesis 4) We simply do not know the reason but in any case, blood was offered in Abel's offering and even Noah offered a possible blood sacrifice of thanks once he left the ark.
"Genesis 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse[a] the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. 22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”"
Leviticus itself also has copius references to blood offerings in the sacrificial offerings and before anyone makes the claim that blood isn't necessary, I direct you to articles I have written previously on the subject:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-asher-meza-blood.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/hezekiah-and-manasseh-blood-atonement.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-jono-vandor-and-jason.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-jono-vandor-and-jason_13.html
Hope this answers your questions.
There will be an article that talks on the subject of sin debt to whom linked here in the future.
Answering Judaism.
28th of October 2017. Here is the article in question: http://internetbiblecollege.net/Lessons/Was%20The%20Ransom%20Paid%20To%20Satan%20Or%20To%20God.htm
Which Bible? 73 or 66?
66, The Apocrypha isn't canon. This article will not dive into that but there are articles that I recommend that do:
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/appendix-addressing-some-arguments-in.html
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/is-jewish-apocrypha-inspired-scripture_23.html
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/is-jewish-apocrypha-inspired-scripture_1537.html
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/is-jewish-apocrypha-inspired-scripture_2120.html
http://www.jiminger.com/apocrypha/index.html
When Jesus paid our sin debt, who was it paid to? Who paid the price? Was the Son paying himself?
Jesus is the one who paid the price for our sins, He was not paying himself, he was paying the price to the Father and satisfy his justice and wrath against sin.
It was paid to the Father. Sin demands payment and justice and atonement is to be made to God because he is sinned against. Atonement means to compensate and Jesus' death satisfies God's wrath against us. There is no evidence scriptural that any debt to Satan was paid. Satan in the Old Testament although it is downplayed in the New Testament had the job of reporting sins. He was know in the Old Testament as "The Satan" or the accuser. Because of this, Satan has no reason to be paid anything, as he is not the one who mankind has sinned against. If you stole property or an item, you return it to it's rightful owner, not to someone who is your accuser. If you sin, Satan is not one to whom the debt is paid.
Read the following article on who Satan is: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/tackling-rabbinic-objections-2.html
God is so holy that he cannot just sweep sin under the rug and he must deal with it in some way and the death of Jesus was the answer, the second person of the Trinity dying for our sins, a debt that we ourselves could not pay.
Is Atonement a Biblical idea or a Greek idea?
It's certainly not a Greek idea, it goes right back to the Old Testament with respect to the issue of dealing with sin through blood.
There is nothing in Greek Mythology to my knowledge that is even remotely similar to the death of Jesus on the cross (Don't you dare tell me Zeitgeist is a credible source of information.) The Old Testament sacrifices pointed to Jesus who would eventually be our ultimate atonement and he saves us from bringing a ram or sheep or ox or any animal as a sacrifice for sins.
The idea of expiation via an animal's death is as old as that of when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, when God slaughtered the first animal to give the two humans garments and the means of atonement (Genesis 3). Cain and Abel's offering you can dispute as to their reasons, maybe merely fruit wasn't what God wanted of Cain gave with the wrong motive or perhaps Cain trying to merit his worthiness with God whereas Abel recognized he fell short and relied on God and loved him anyway (Genesis 4) We simply do not know the reason but in any case, blood was offered in Abel's offering and even Noah offered a possible blood sacrifice of thanks once he left the ark.
"Genesis 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse[a] the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. 22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”"
Leviticus itself also has copius references to blood offerings in the sacrificial offerings and before anyone makes the claim that blood isn't necessary, I direct you to articles I have written previously on the subject:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-asher-meza-blood.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/hezekiah-and-manasseh-blood-atonement.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-jono-vandor-and-jason.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-jono-vandor-and-jason_13.html
Hope this answers your questions.
There will be an article that talks on the subject of sin debt to whom linked here in the future.
Answering Judaism.
28th of October 2017. Here is the article in question: http://internetbiblecollege.net/Lessons/Was%20The%20Ransom%20Paid%20To%20Satan%20Or%20To%20God.htm
Wednesday, 18 October 2017
Exodus 22:28: A response to Virtual Yeshiva 3
Now we are going to respond to Arikm7.messiahtruth on his points.
"I apologize in advance for what appears to be a "tirade"...
Again...Not only is there NO proof that he existed but it's clear that Jesus was not a prophet according to Judaism/Tanach as the age of prophecy (which is NOT fortune-telling) ended with the last of the Prophets, Malachi and the Great Assembly. Again, not one of the prophets ever used the kind of language you find in the NT in addressing the nation or its leaders. Even when the Prophets presented Israel and Judah with some very graphic and illicit imagery, the Prophets stopped short of damning the entire nation! You'll never see/read the type of wanton cursing in Isaiah as you'll find in "Matthew". I mean, to even put the two on the same level is insulting to Israel's great prophets."
Jesus didn't damn every one in the nation, never forget his followers were Jews themselves. This I need not go over again:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/exodus-2228-response-to-virtual-yeshiva_17.html.
Not sure why the fortune telling thing was even brought up though.
"So for Jesus to prattle and blow (or rather his followers for him) as some kind of legitimate prophet, is not only a deception but the ultimate bottom-scraping form of denigration. In fact, the "proof" that Jesus was whatever gospel wants to shade him is predicated upon a complete and purposeful mistranslation, misapplication, molested and maligned use of passages from the Tanach. If the writers of the Nt can't accurately and honestly reproduce verses from the Tanach (since it would totally destroy the raison detre for their being used by the gospel writers), how seriously are we to take this stuff? "
For them to prove Jesus they would have know the Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim inside out. In Luke 24 after the resurrection, Jesus is stated to have "opened their minds to understand the scriptures" (referring to his disciples): See my article on Luke 24:44-48: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/luke-2444-48-forgery.html
The New Testament writers reaction would have been "Ah, so that's how he fulfilled that prophecy" Was there any purposeful and willful translation on the part of the writers? No and as mentioned before in the previous paper, the resurrection would be a vindication of Jesus' claims as well as how the verses of the TANAKH applies to him. The events of Luke 24 happened after the resurrection and if the resurrection happened, there is no plausible way the disciples could be deceptive, especially since they were significantly changed after the resurrection from cowards to bold men.
"Now we have certain individuals who want buffet-pick what words Jesus may have said and that which he may not have said? "oh jesus could not have cursed the entire nation because that would include himself". Are you serious?? Who makes the determination what goes, what stays and what gets translated and understood how? And what qualifies him to make that decision?? He wants to use the NT to substantiate that Jesus was a historical figure but yet also wants to employ an arbitrary "keep"/"discard" decision of that SAME body of writing (the NT) as to HIS Jesus creation. Then if that weren't enough there's this trying to sell it back to us if not as a bona fide fact, then certainly as an alternative we must consider. Such a tactic is nothing less than an imitation and duplication of the very devices the actual writers of the Gospels have utilized in creating their story and their version of Jesus. And it is nothing short of being intellectually dishonest and simply a diversion/stall tactic to avoid the topic at hand-- that the jesus character for all bluster of his being a torah-observant jew (either by his own claims or by his followers) was NOT. No Torah-observant Jew I know of would use such language. Not when there are sages who had devoted their entire lives to learning, teaching and living the laws against Lashon Hara (the Chofetz Chaim, being one such sage!). If they were to, they would most certainly be called on the carpet. But the Jesus of the NT is a Bet-Din unto himself and answers to NO ONE, which is the ultimate form of a Jew who as they say 'has gone way off the derech (path)"."
Buffet pick Jesus' words? No one who reads the New Testament denies what Jesus said to the Jews but it's false to say we buffet pick when it comes to what he said. The point of contention is what do those words mean. Are they words of hatred, or words that were justified and righteous with no malice at all?
The New Testament is rightly used as a historical account of Jesus Christ but there is no arbitrary keep/discard decision among Christians (biblical not apostates) on what Jesus meant and it certainly did not entail hatred against his own people.
If you want to talk about vile language, there are many individuals among the Jews who have said horrific things about Jesus (especially on Paltalk and no surprise there are individuals in the entertainment industry who have such language or bile), but it's fair to say not all Jews have hatred of Jesus, some are just indifferent.
Galilee and Samaria weren't perfect, there is in John 4 the story of the Samaritan Woman who was involved in many adulterous marriages.
"John 4:16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”"
Jesus also further points out the errors that the woman makes:
"19 The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” 21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” 26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”"
Pretty soon in the context, people of many races will to worship YHWH, Jew and Gentile alike and this is brought about by the Jewish people, specifically the Messiah being the one to accomplish this, but where does the Messiah hail from? The Jewish people. Hardly insulting to Jews or Gentiles.
I ask this question. Did Jesus actually reject the Written Torah? or did he actually reject the Oral Traditions the Phariees added? If it was the latter, he did the right thing if there was a tradition that contradicted what Moses said.
"And while we're on the subject of what Jesus may or may not have said: Why is it that you NEVER hear Jesus say anything NEGATIVE of the Roman government, its leaders or its despotic puppet-men? Forget comparing inflective! You never hear anything negative about the Romans. When reading the gospels, one would think that all was well and peaceful along the galilean country side, with benign roman soldiers and their commanders, respectful leaders and god-fearing, genuflecting (to Jesus, that is) rulers. Amazingly, Pilate is painted as some sort of RIGHTEOUS individual wanting to do the right thing but is forced to doing "evil" by those damned Jews! No..it's rainbows and butterflies and tweeting bluebirds for all! Thousands of People congregate on the hillside for a huge open air dissertation (and a free lunch!)---no one is forced to work as servants, no one is enslaved, and certainly no one is being harassed by the "benign" Romans! The enemy of the story is "those damned Jews!". All the while, Rome directly (and via their puppets, the Herods) were butchering men and women with gleeful impunity in Galilee. Only once does Matthew slip up in his Idyllic Galilee presentation when he inadvertently has Jesus mention about Judah of Galilee. Of course, he's quick to move on lest the obvious question would be "well, what happened to him regarding that tower?""
I have written an article on Pontius Pilate here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/pontius-pilate-righteous-man.html
What the Romans were doing to the Jews was inconsequential to the point that the New Testament writers were making. No where is Pontius Pilate painted as a righteous man.
When the Messianic Drew was still around as a Messianic Jew said this to me:
"Pilate was the typical politician. He played both sides against each other. To Jesus, he acted like he was a friend trying to release him. To the Jewish nationalist crowds, he kept holding back on their request until they swore loyalty to Caesar and Rome."
Tony Griffin also mentioned the following:
"Actually the text teaches that he was trying to pacify the Jewish leadership because he was afraid of a revolt and history teaches that another revolt or insurrection would cost him his life and possibly his job as well because he had already been warned by Ceasar to crush any revolts because there were so many issues going on in Palestine. Pilate because he was having trouble crushing all the revolts that had been going on had been warned by Cesar already . He thought that by crucifying Christ he was doing the Jewish leadership a favor because they themselves would've stopped a revolt if he agreed to condemn Jesus. Pilate condemned Jesus and there was no revolt ."
The New Testament doesn't paint all is well in Galilee. Here is the context for the tower that was mentioned:
"13 There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”"
Jesus is making the point "What difference does it make to the severity of their wickedness, they must all repent of their evil deeds regardless. How serious it is inconsequential" This ties into a later point.
"You'll never see Jesus spouting off against the Romans who actually killed his countrymen (and later his followers---as a "prophet", you'd think he'd know his followers' fate!), crucified thousands, butchered, raped and pillaged villages and enslaved countless Jews. No, no. You'll never hear Jesus use the kind of language against them as you will hear him churn against the Jews. Of course, we know it's not Jesus but the writers of the gospels themselves, but still...it's attributed to Jesus."
As Jesus mentioned, it doesn't make a difference how wicked someone is, Jew and Gentile alike must repent of their evil ways.
No Jesus doesn't address the atrocities of the Romans, I think it would have been a given how wicked the Romans are but his language towards his kinsmen can be seen as "You should know better, you are God's light to the nations." Again, what the Romans did was not relevant to the point of the New Testament writers.
"Jesus and his followers are to Judaism and Jewish History as crude oil to pure water.
As such, it's almost a nonsensical and a complete pointless endeavor to try to put Jesus (and by extension, the NT) to the test of what the Torah's injunctions are. We KNOW every single passage, page and parcel of the NT is diametrically opposed to anything the Torah has to say on an issue. As such, we don't need to apologize for the conclusions drawn when we compare what the NT said vs. the Mitzvot involving Leaders.
Trying to make the Jesus character "kosher" for the utterly putrid bile that spews from his alleged mouth onto the pages of the Gospels and Revelation is really, really, REALLY reaching and a suspension of reality (not to mention reading and comprehension skills). Wrapping the argument in suppositions and "what if's" is just that.. a futile diversion from what the black and white texts state."
Already pointed out how Jesus was not guilty of "bile" and pointing at that Jesus is not a wicked transgressor does not arise from a suspension of reality or reading and comprehension skills, it stems from reading Jesus' words in context and interpreting them correctly.
I point out again that Jesus was perfectly justified in what he did and did not violate Exodus 22:28.
Answering Judaism.
"I apologize in advance for what appears to be a "tirade"...
Again...Not only is there NO proof that he existed but it's clear that Jesus was not a prophet according to Judaism/Tanach as the age of prophecy (which is NOT fortune-telling) ended with the last of the Prophets, Malachi and the Great Assembly. Again, not one of the prophets ever used the kind of language you find in the NT in addressing the nation or its leaders. Even when the Prophets presented Israel and Judah with some very graphic and illicit imagery, the Prophets stopped short of damning the entire nation! You'll never see/read the type of wanton cursing in Isaiah as you'll find in "Matthew". I mean, to even put the two on the same level is insulting to Israel's great prophets."
Jesus didn't damn every one in the nation, never forget his followers were Jews themselves. This I need not go over again:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/exodus-2228-response-to-virtual-yeshiva_17.html.
Not sure why the fortune telling thing was even brought up though.
"So for Jesus to prattle and blow (or rather his followers for him) as some kind of legitimate prophet, is not only a deception but the ultimate bottom-scraping form of denigration. In fact, the "proof" that Jesus was whatever gospel wants to shade him is predicated upon a complete and purposeful mistranslation, misapplication, molested and maligned use of passages from the Tanach. If the writers of the Nt can't accurately and honestly reproduce verses from the Tanach (since it would totally destroy the raison detre for their being used by the gospel writers), how seriously are we to take this stuff? "
For them to prove Jesus they would have know the Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim inside out. In Luke 24 after the resurrection, Jesus is stated to have "opened their minds to understand the scriptures" (referring to his disciples): See my article on Luke 24:44-48: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/luke-2444-48-forgery.html
The New Testament writers reaction would have been "Ah, so that's how he fulfilled that prophecy" Was there any purposeful and willful translation on the part of the writers? No and as mentioned before in the previous paper, the resurrection would be a vindication of Jesus' claims as well as how the verses of the TANAKH applies to him. The events of Luke 24 happened after the resurrection and if the resurrection happened, there is no plausible way the disciples could be deceptive, especially since they were significantly changed after the resurrection from cowards to bold men.
"Now we have certain individuals who want buffet-pick what words Jesus may have said and that which he may not have said? "oh jesus could not have cursed the entire nation because that would include himself". Are you serious?? Who makes the determination what goes, what stays and what gets translated and understood how? And what qualifies him to make that decision?? He wants to use the NT to substantiate that Jesus was a historical figure but yet also wants to employ an arbitrary "keep"/"discard" decision of that SAME body of writing (the NT) as to HIS Jesus creation. Then if that weren't enough there's this trying to sell it back to us if not as a bona fide fact, then certainly as an alternative we must consider. Such a tactic is nothing less than an imitation and duplication of the very devices the actual writers of the Gospels have utilized in creating their story and their version of Jesus. And it is nothing short of being intellectually dishonest and simply a diversion/stall tactic to avoid the topic at hand-- that the jesus character for all bluster of his being a torah-observant jew (either by his own claims or by his followers) was NOT. No Torah-observant Jew I know of would use such language. Not when there are sages who had devoted their entire lives to learning, teaching and living the laws against Lashon Hara (the Chofetz Chaim, being one such sage!). If they were to, they would most certainly be called on the carpet. But the Jesus of the NT is a Bet-Din unto himself and answers to NO ONE, which is the ultimate form of a Jew who as they say 'has gone way off the derech (path)"."
Buffet pick Jesus' words? No one who reads the New Testament denies what Jesus said to the Jews but it's false to say we buffet pick when it comes to what he said. The point of contention is what do those words mean. Are they words of hatred, or words that were justified and righteous with no malice at all?
The New Testament is rightly used as a historical account of Jesus Christ but there is no arbitrary keep/discard decision among Christians (biblical not apostates) on what Jesus meant and it certainly did not entail hatred against his own people.
If you want to talk about vile language, there are many individuals among the Jews who have said horrific things about Jesus (especially on Paltalk and no surprise there are individuals in the entertainment industry who have such language or bile), but it's fair to say not all Jews have hatred of Jesus, some are just indifferent.
Galilee and Samaria weren't perfect, there is in John 4 the story of the Samaritan Woman who was involved in many adulterous marriages.
"John 4:16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”"
Jesus also further points out the errors that the woman makes:
"19 The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” 21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” 26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”"
Pretty soon in the context, people of many races will to worship YHWH, Jew and Gentile alike and this is brought about by the Jewish people, specifically the Messiah being the one to accomplish this, but where does the Messiah hail from? The Jewish people. Hardly insulting to Jews or Gentiles.
I ask this question. Did Jesus actually reject the Written Torah? or did he actually reject the Oral Traditions the Phariees added? If it was the latter, he did the right thing if there was a tradition that contradicted what Moses said.
"And while we're on the subject of what Jesus may or may not have said: Why is it that you NEVER hear Jesus say anything NEGATIVE of the Roman government, its leaders or its despotic puppet-men? Forget comparing inflective! You never hear anything negative about the Romans. When reading the gospels, one would think that all was well and peaceful along the galilean country side, with benign roman soldiers and their commanders, respectful leaders and god-fearing, genuflecting (to Jesus, that is) rulers. Amazingly, Pilate is painted as some sort of RIGHTEOUS individual wanting to do the right thing but is forced to doing "evil" by those damned Jews! No..it's rainbows and butterflies and tweeting bluebirds for all! Thousands of People congregate on the hillside for a huge open air dissertation (and a free lunch!)---no one is forced to work as servants, no one is enslaved, and certainly no one is being harassed by the "benign" Romans! The enemy of the story is "those damned Jews!". All the while, Rome directly (and via their puppets, the Herods) were butchering men and women with gleeful impunity in Galilee. Only once does Matthew slip up in his Idyllic Galilee presentation when he inadvertently has Jesus mention about Judah of Galilee. Of course, he's quick to move on lest the obvious question would be "well, what happened to him regarding that tower?""
I have written an article on Pontius Pilate here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/pontius-pilate-righteous-man.html
What the Romans were doing to the Jews was inconsequential to the point that the New Testament writers were making. No where is Pontius Pilate painted as a righteous man.
When the Messianic Drew was still around as a Messianic Jew said this to me:
"Pilate was the typical politician. He played both sides against each other. To Jesus, he acted like he was a friend trying to release him. To the Jewish nationalist crowds, he kept holding back on their request until they swore loyalty to Caesar and Rome."
Tony Griffin also mentioned the following:
"Actually the text teaches that he was trying to pacify the Jewish leadership because he was afraid of a revolt and history teaches that another revolt or insurrection would cost him his life and possibly his job as well because he had already been warned by Ceasar to crush any revolts because there were so many issues going on in Palestine. Pilate because he was having trouble crushing all the revolts that had been going on had been warned by Cesar already . He thought that by crucifying Christ he was doing the Jewish leadership a favor because they themselves would've stopped a revolt if he agreed to condemn Jesus. Pilate condemned Jesus and there was no revolt ."
The New Testament doesn't paint all is well in Galilee. Here is the context for the tower that was mentioned:
"13 There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”"
Jesus is making the point "What difference does it make to the severity of their wickedness, they must all repent of their evil deeds regardless. How serious it is inconsequential" This ties into a later point.
"You'll never see Jesus spouting off against the Romans who actually killed his countrymen (and later his followers---as a "prophet", you'd think he'd know his followers' fate!), crucified thousands, butchered, raped and pillaged villages and enslaved countless Jews. No, no. You'll never hear Jesus use the kind of language against them as you will hear him churn against the Jews. Of course, we know it's not Jesus but the writers of the gospels themselves, but still...it's attributed to Jesus."
As Jesus mentioned, it doesn't make a difference how wicked someone is, Jew and Gentile alike must repent of their evil ways.
No Jesus doesn't address the atrocities of the Romans, I think it would have been a given how wicked the Romans are but his language towards his kinsmen can be seen as "You should know better, you are God's light to the nations." Again, what the Romans did was not relevant to the point of the New Testament writers.
"Jesus and his followers are to Judaism and Jewish History as crude oil to pure water.
As such, it's almost a nonsensical and a complete pointless endeavor to try to put Jesus (and by extension, the NT) to the test of what the Torah's injunctions are. We KNOW every single passage, page and parcel of the NT is diametrically opposed to anything the Torah has to say on an issue. As such, we don't need to apologize for the conclusions drawn when we compare what the NT said vs. the Mitzvot involving Leaders.
Trying to make the Jesus character "kosher" for the utterly putrid bile that spews from his alleged mouth onto the pages of the Gospels and Revelation is really, really, REALLY reaching and a suspension of reality (not to mention reading and comprehension skills). Wrapping the argument in suppositions and "what if's" is just that.. a futile diversion from what the black and white texts state."
Already pointed out how Jesus was not guilty of "bile" and pointing at that Jesus is not a wicked transgressor does not arise from a suspension of reality or reading and comprehension skills, it stems from reading Jesus' words in context and interpreting them correctly.
I point out again that Jesus was perfectly justified in what he did and did not violate Exodus 22:28.
Answering Judaism.
Tuesday, 17 October 2017
Exodus 22:28: A response to Virtual Yeshiva 2
Moving on the next point:
"Things have taken a very ugly turn here, and I'm not going to pursue that question any farther.
You asked it, and you can pursue it if you like." Proteus
"I completely agree with everything that Sophie said." Hebrew wander
Let's take a look at the next point:
"Why is it that when someone shows the actual vitriol and utter disgusting things that the Gospels relate as having been spewed from Jesus do some suddenly say that "things have taken an ugly turn here"?
The truth is that Jesus was NOT a prophet, had no authority to speak as one, and was far more disgusting in his tone, language and verbiage than even that used by LEGITIMATE and REAL prophets (included the greatest of all Prophets, Moses). To spew the kind of bile that Jesus allegedly did (or is attributed to him) is in direct violation of the Torah that xians love to blather that he came to "fulfill". And if he did actually exist, according to Jewish Law, his vile insults and accusations carry with them the death penalty; not because the Jewish leaders and/or nation is beyond reproach. It is rather because such unbridled slander and unmitigated and unsubstantiated lashon hara is akin to murder and murder was a crime punishable by death. " Arikm7.messiahtruth
Or maybe because claiming the New Testament is guilty of hateful vitriol is ludicrous when you read the New Testament in context. I fail to see any difference between what Jesus said and what Moses and the Prophets said. Just saying.
ProfBenTziyyon then said:
"It’s called Ostrichianism, Arik."
"Professor:
Apparently, so. And the sand of those holes must be very deep!
I also think it belies a certain intellectual dishonesty on their part. They not only just want us to just willingly and without any reservation, accept as fact the unsubstantiated and unproven assertion of Jesus' existence, but also (and far more fantastic) that he was on par with those holy personalties of the Hebrew Scriptures. If we protest, then we're the ones guilty of turning things "ugly".
I find it utterly hypocritical, deceptive and self-serving. I, for one, would be very interested in further comments from the moderators as to the injunctions of the Torah concerning this issue and concerning how utterly out of scope and out of line with Torah and G-d the entire NT truly is (as it would relate to polemics or personalities). In short, for every bombastically made claim as to Jesus being this or Jesus being that, there are at least four passages from the Torah alone which not only refutes the silly claim, but also reveals the persona of Jesus being in direct opposition to the self-same Torah."
Jesus' existence is testified not only in the New Testament as historical documents (Which is where most seek their information about Jesus).
Josephus is one example, Jesus is referenced briefly in one of Josephus' own letters, though some have dismissed his letter as a forgery. However, only part of Josephus' words regarding Jesus are not authentic, which is what people who try to deny Jesus is mentioned in Josephus fail to mention when they propound their belief.
If you take out the interpolations, you are left with the following:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."
Notice the reference to Jesus being the Christ or Messiah and also the reference to his resurrection are omitted, since they were a later addition to the words of Josephus, rather than his words. Even without the admissions, you still have an acknowledgement of his existence. Josephus, regardless of his reputation among Jews, good or bad, should not be dismissed as an invalid source of information.
Nakdimon has done an excellent series of videos responding to Gomerozdubar on what historical document aside from the New Testament mentions the crucifixion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uKFFI7Sctg&list=PLCE63E5B6421B2A6B
Finally:
"I have been participating here for ... since 2005.
In all that time, there is a particular tactic that I've called the sukah punch, that one and only one Moderator uses.
It consists of accusing the Christian of exactly that misconduct in which the accuser is about to engage.
In the present instance, this person accused me of deflection, which I had not done; and then deflected.
Do any of the prophets ever criticize a judge or leader? That was the question." Proteus.
"For J. to have condemned "all Jews," he would necessarily have to have condemned also himself and all his disciples; as during his life, he had no goyishe disciples." Proteus.
To which Sophiee1 said the following:
"The question is not whether any prophet criticized a fellow Jew -- that is not only deflection it is a typical missionary ploy of changing the topic and redirecting the conversation. I already addressed this red herring in my earlier post -- it is one thing to criticize a fellow Jew to bring them to observance (it is one of the 613 mitzvot -- Vayikra / Leviticus 19:17!) and quite another to condemn all Jews -- for all times -- for no reason and without hope of redemption other than worshiping the man who condemned them!
The original question had to do with CURSING a leader. My comments have already been made, along with biblical quotes and quotes from the Christian bible supporting my perspective. In return there has been bluster and protestations -- and that is all.
Was Jesus a Jew? Heck, we don't even know if Jesus existed! Whoever wrote the Christian bible and "put words in Jesus' mouth" and the mouths of his followers are rabidly anti-Jewish. Plenty of Jews have separated themselves from their fellow Jews and Judaism -- consider the golden calf incident or those Jews who worshiped Ba'al. Pablo Chrstiani who debated with the famous Ramban was a former Jew who converted to Christianity. . . so to use the excuse that Jesus was a Jew so could not be anti-Jewish fails at the start. One only need read the Christian bible to see that it reeks with anti-Jewish fervor."
It's absurd to claim we don't know Jesus existed, because when we take the New Testament as historical documents, it mentions Jesus himself and that is the source that most people use when they want to know who he is.
I have already pointed out in other papers that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament were not anti-Jewish so I need not go over that again.
Where did Jesus condemn all Jews? The ones who submitted to him and repented to God. While Jesus pointed to himself, he ultimately point others back to God and to worship him.
A Jew who accepts Jesus doesn't cease being a Jew, especially when you consider Paul's words in Galatians 3:28:
"23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.".
When read in context, it is referring to our equal status before God. Not only are men and women equally sinners under God's wrath, they have equal standing in Christ when they are adopted into the family of God. Also to point of fact it is talking about there being one in Christ and there is no difference as to OUR SALVATION.
This also applies to Jews and Gentiles, both purified from paganism and wickedness and now are no longer separated, but are one new people in Christ.
I'd argue that reading the New Testament in context doesn't cause one to conclude it is anti-Jewish, nothing of the kind is found in the words of Jesus or the apostles as already addressed in the articles I wrote responding to Uri Yosef (and another article of his was posted by Sophiee which if the Lord Wills I'll respond to that one too.)
Now one final comment for this article and for the next one, I'll look at Arikm7.messiahtruth's comment another time.
"Certainly they did, when the criticism was appropriate and deserved. That was a prophets’ function, but Yoshke’s criticisms were neither “appropriate” nor “deserved”. Moreover, Yoshke was not a prophet and there is no record of him ever presenting proof that he was (as happened in M'lachim Alĕf 13:3, for example). Anyone can claim “I am a prophet from God”, which is why every genuine prophet has to prove that he is what he claims (this is implied by D'varim18:21-22)."
Jesus proved his claims and one simple event aside from the miracles he did in God's name backs his claims to the helm, namely the resurrection. Why? Because if Jesus rose from the dead, then Jesus has God's stamp of approval and thus must be accepted.
Before you cry foul and claim Deuteronomy 13 refutes my point, I have already written on the subject in previous papers:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication-2.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/spiritual-experiences-what-can-they.html
See also an earlier paper on Anointed Ones and Strange Gods as well: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/anointed-ones-and-strange-gods.html
Jesus' criticisms thus by this criteria were perfectly appropriate and deserved, just not in the way they have been interpreted by the forum.
Answering Judaism.
More updates if the Lord Wills may be added.
"Things have taken a very ugly turn here, and I'm not going to pursue that question any farther.
You asked it, and you can pursue it if you like." Proteus
"I completely agree with everything that Sophie said." Hebrew wander
Let's take a look at the next point:
"Why is it that when someone shows the actual vitriol and utter disgusting things that the Gospels relate as having been spewed from Jesus do some suddenly say that "things have taken an ugly turn here"?
The truth is that Jesus was NOT a prophet, had no authority to speak as one, and was far more disgusting in his tone, language and verbiage than even that used by LEGITIMATE and REAL prophets (included the greatest of all Prophets, Moses). To spew the kind of bile that Jesus allegedly did (or is attributed to him) is in direct violation of the Torah that xians love to blather that he came to "fulfill". And if he did actually exist, according to Jewish Law, his vile insults and accusations carry with them the death penalty; not because the Jewish leaders and/or nation is beyond reproach. It is rather because such unbridled slander and unmitigated and unsubstantiated lashon hara is akin to murder and murder was a crime punishable by death. " Arikm7.messiahtruth
Or maybe because claiming the New Testament is guilty of hateful vitriol is ludicrous when you read the New Testament in context. I fail to see any difference between what Jesus said and what Moses and the Prophets said. Just saying.
ProfBenTziyyon then said:
"It’s called Ostrichianism, Arik."
"Professor:
Apparently, so. And the sand of those holes must be very deep!
I also think it belies a certain intellectual dishonesty on their part. They not only just want us to just willingly and without any reservation, accept as fact the unsubstantiated and unproven assertion of Jesus' existence, but also (and far more fantastic) that he was on par with those holy personalties of the Hebrew Scriptures. If we protest, then we're the ones guilty of turning things "ugly".
I find it utterly hypocritical, deceptive and self-serving. I, for one, would be very interested in further comments from the moderators as to the injunctions of the Torah concerning this issue and concerning how utterly out of scope and out of line with Torah and G-d the entire NT truly is (as it would relate to polemics or personalities). In short, for every bombastically made claim as to Jesus being this or Jesus being that, there are at least four passages from the Torah alone which not only refutes the silly claim, but also reveals the persona of Jesus being in direct opposition to the self-same Torah."
Jesus' existence is testified not only in the New Testament as historical documents (Which is where most seek their information about Jesus).
Josephus is one example, Jesus is referenced briefly in one of Josephus' own letters, though some have dismissed his letter as a forgery. However, only part of Josephus' words regarding Jesus are not authentic, which is what people who try to deny Jesus is mentioned in Josephus fail to mention when they propound their belief.
If you take out the interpolations, you are left with the following:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."
Notice the reference to Jesus being the Christ or Messiah and also the reference to his resurrection are omitted, since they were a later addition to the words of Josephus, rather than his words. Even without the admissions, you still have an acknowledgement of his existence. Josephus, regardless of his reputation among Jews, good or bad, should not be dismissed as an invalid source of information.
Nakdimon has done an excellent series of videos responding to Gomerozdubar on what historical document aside from the New Testament mentions the crucifixion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uKFFI7Sctg&list=PLCE63E5B6421B2A6B
Finally:
"I have been participating here for ... since 2005.
In all that time, there is a particular tactic that I've called the sukah punch, that one and only one Moderator uses.
It consists of accusing the Christian of exactly that misconduct in which the accuser is about to engage.
In the present instance, this person accused me of deflection, which I had not done; and then deflected.
Do any of the prophets ever criticize a judge or leader? That was the question." Proteus.
"For J. to have condemned "all Jews," he would necessarily have to have condemned also himself and all his disciples; as during his life, he had no goyishe disciples." Proteus.
To which Sophiee1 said the following:
"The question is not whether any prophet criticized a fellow Jew -- that is not only deflection it is a typical missionary ploy of changing the topic and redirecting the conversation. I already addressed this red herring in my earlier post -- it is one thing to criticize a fellow Jew to bring them to observance (it is one of the 613 mitzvot -- Vayikra / Leviticus 19:17!) and quite another to condemn all Jews -- for all times -- for no reason and without hope of redemption other than worshiping the man who condemned them!
The original question had to do with CURSING a leader. My comments have already been made, along with biblical quotes and quotes from the Christian bible supporting my perspective. In return there has been bluster and protestations -- and that is all.
Was Jesus a Jew? Heck, we don't even know if Jesus existed! Whoever wrote the Christian bible and "put words in Jesus' mouth" and the mouths of his followers are rabidly anti-Jewish. Plenty of Jews have separated themselves from their fellow Jews and Judaism -- consider the golden calf incident or those Jews who worshiped Ba'al. Pablo Chrstiani who debated with the famous Ramban was a former Jew who converted to Christianity. . . so to use the excuse that Jesus was a Jew so could not be anti-Jewish fails at the start. One only need read the Christian bible to see that it reeks with anti-Jewish fervor."
It's absurd to claim we don't know Jesus existed, because when we take the New Testament as historical documents, it mentions Jesus himself and that is the source that most people use when they want to know who he is.
I have already pointed out in other papers that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament were not anti-Jewish so I need not go over that again.
Where did Jesus condemn all Jews? The ones who submitted to him and repented to God. While Jesus pointed to himself, he ultimately point others back to God and to worship him.
A Jew who accepts Jesus doesn't cease being a Jew, especially when you consider Paul's words in Galatians 3:28:
"23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.".
When read in context, it is referring to our equal status before God. Not only are men and women equally sinners under God's wrath, they have equal standing in Christ when they are adopted into the family of God. Also to point of fact it is talking about there being one in Christ and there is no difference as to OUR SALVATION.
This also applies to Jews and Gentiles, both purified from paganism and wickedness and now are no longer separated, but are one new people in Christ.
I'd argue that reading the New Testament in context doesn't cause one to conclude it is anti-Jewish, nothing of the kind is found in the words of Jesus or the apostles as already addressed in the articles I wrote responding to Uri Yosef (and another article of his was posted by Sophiee which if the Lord Wills I'll respond to that one too.)
Now one final comment for this article and for the next one, I'll look at Arikm7.messiahtruth's comment another time.
"Certainly they did, when the criticism was appropriate and deserved. That was a prophets’ function, but Yoshke’s criticisms were neither “appropriate” nor “deserved”. Moreover, Yoshke was not a prophet and there is no record of him ever presenting proof that he was (as happened in M'lachim Alĕf 13:3, for example). Anyone can claim “I am a prophet from God”, which is why every genuine prophet has to prove that he is what he claims (this is implied by D'varim18:21-22)."
Jesus proved his claims and one simple event aside from the miracles he did in God's name backs his claims to the helm, namely the resurrection. Why? Because if Jesus rose from the dead, then Jesus has God's stamp of approval and thus must be accepted.
Before you cry foul and claim Deuteronomy 13 refutes my point, I have already written on the subject in previous papers:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication-2.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/spiritual-experiences-what-can-they.html
See also an earlier paper on Anointed Ones and Strange Gods as well: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/anointed-ones-and-strange-gods.html
Jesus' criticisms thus by this criteria were perfectly appropriate and deserved, just not in the way they have been interpreted by the forum.
Answering Judaism.
More updates if the Lord Wills may be added.
Monday, 16 October 2017
Exodus 22:28: A response to Virtual Yeshiva
A website formerly known as Messiah Truth has a link discussing this text:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/messiahtruth/exodus-22-28-don-t-curse-a-leader-t4935.html#.UsdPT_RDulo
Uri Yosef had posted this to me on my website a while ago on one of my papers:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_30.html
I took a look at the link in question on 15th of October 2017 and there was a discussion that was taking place on the site. I will be looking at some of their points and responding to them as they discuss Jesus violating Exodus 22:28.
Sound familiar?
Uri Yosef posted the following on the site:
"
3. Not Honoring a Torah Sage"Honor the face of an elder [zaken] " (Leviticus 19:32). Zaken does not simply mean an old person; for that is the subject of the first half of the verse ("You shall rise before an old person [seiva]"). This is a commandment to respect Torah scholars. Judges and religious leaders are typically called zaken in the Bible (Exodus 24:14, Leviticus 4:15, Numbers 11:25, Deuteronomy 22:16, 25:7). If Jesus did not violate this by calling them "vipers," no one ever did (Matthew 23:13-33)."
Low and behold, this is almost exactly word for word what Barry Umansky posted: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/interesting-objections-from-rabbinic.html
"3.Not Honoring a Torah Sage
"Honor the face of an elder [zaken] " (Leviticus 19:32). Zaken does not simply mean an old person; for that is the subject of the first half of the verse ("You shall rise before an old person [seiva]"). This is a commandment to respect Torah scholars. Judges and religious leaders are typically called zaken in the Bible (Exodus 24:14, Leviticus 4:15, Numbers 11:25, Deuteronomy 22:16, 25:7). If Jesus did not violate this by calling them "vipers," no one ever did (Matthew 23:13-33)."
My response is this.
Indeed one should respect their leaders or speak evil. However, one calling out a leader as a hypocrite when it's the truth, is not a sin and is not a violation of the Torah. Furthermore, Isaiah refers to his people as a brood of vipers because of their wickedness, which would include the scribes, judges and religious leaders who were encouraging their people in their idolatry.
Calling someone a hypocrite because of the fact they are doing evil in the sight of the Lord is not disrespect to any leader if they are responsible for bringing instructing people in the ways of Ha Shem or God. In the days of the NT, the Pharisees, though not guilty of worshiping statues, where certainly guilty of Avodah Zara or alien worship. They substituted the commands of God for the traditions of men, just as the people in Isaiah 29 did and Jesus quotes this passage to condemn the Pharisees in Matthew 15.
Of course in the forum post itself, there is the contention that the prophets were justified and encouraged the people whereas Jesus (or the New Testament) writers spewed hate against the Jews.
Is this true?
Apparently Jesus was insulting, badmouthing and reviling? For calling out religious leaders as hypocrites? There is nothing unbiblical about that nor is Jesus guilty of sin. Matthew 23 highlights major sins the Pharisees in his day. You can find the context here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23
Bottom line, calling out a religious leader on disobeying scripture (In this case, The TANAKH) is perfectly justified.
Sophiee1's posting of Uri Yosef's article on Sinless Jesus has objections which Barry Umansky quoted and which I responded to in the post above. If the Lord Wills I'll look at the article from Uri Yosef but the response to half (slightly more) will be fine for now.
Spewing of Hate from Jesus and the New Testament writers?
What is the truth? Let's look at the points:
"I'm surpised that weboh and others didn't bring up the prophets or Moses to prove that j-man didn't break this mitzvot." Hebrew wander
"Good point" Proteus
Now the objection in question from Arikm7.messiahtruth:
"HW:
They don't know their own NT, how could they (erroneously and mistakingly) use the personalities of the Tanach as a reference?
Regardless of what fabrications they try to posit to support that their godling didn't violate the Torah (and worshipping a man as god is not a violation in and of itself??), the point is that there is more than enough evidence in black and white for Jesus' vitriol against not only the Jewish leaders of Israel, but also (as in the case of 'John") the Jewish people themselves. Such hatred is unfounded, wanton and downright libelous. The xian gospels and the figurehead itself will stoop to any level to lie and demonize the Jew, all the while trying to disguise its vitriol as being righteous indignation. In my mind there is no difference in the words of Matthew ("snakes, vipers, white washed tombs, hypocrites, liars") John's bile ("you are children of your father, the Devil"), Paul's verbal vomit ("they killed the christ and god's prophets", "they are only concerned with their stomachs") and the propaganda spewed by Luther and later in ultimate extremes, the Nazis."
Comparing the statements of the New Testament to that of Martin Luther and the Nazis is nothing more than comparing apples and oranges. The Nazis were murderers who had no biblical justification for what they did to the Jews and none of the statements about the Jewish people in the New Testament are hate speech or vitriol.
Read my articles responding to Uri Yosef on his claims of Anti Semitism in the New Testament if you want more information on whether the New Testament is Anti-Semitic (His article was posted by Sophiee:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_27.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_8351.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_6026.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_28.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_4202.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_30.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_3.html
The articles specifically address the texts he mentions in his paper called "The Anti-Jewish New Testament": http://thejewishhome.org/counter/AntiJewishNT.pdf
Read also my response to Yisroel Blumenthal on whether or not Jesus labeled all Pharisees and Jews as evil: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/did-jesus-label-all-pharisees-and-jews.html
I recommend reading also another response I made to Yisroel Blumenthal to his article "Judge Not": http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/critique-of-judge-not-response-to.html
"The slander of the elders of Israel and later, of the Jews, didn't start with the alleged Jesus (though it certainly gets no better approval/authority for doing so than via the words of xianity's god-man). It started with Paul and his letters (which pre-date the gospels) and later by the unknown writers of the gospels themselves. I say unknown as authorship of the four gospels (five, if you include the Gospel of Q on which "Mark" is based) comes to us from Catholic Tradition. Nevertheless, hating, demonizing and opposing the Jewish leaders and later the Jewish people as a whole is part and parcel of xianity's "gospel"."
Unknown writers? The authors were who they said they were and may have dictated to others to write their gospels down. Can anyone be sure that the TANAKH itself was written by the prophets or dictated by them to others if we hold to TANAKH AND the NT to the same standard which we should?
I recommend all to read this article by Keith Thompson on this issue:
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2012/02/who-wrote-gospels-internal-and-external.html
Regardless of whether or not they were written by the apostles, can any text be cited to prove that part and parcel of Christianity's Gospel is demonisation of the Jewish people, both leader and lay person alike? See the article responses to Uri Yosef above.
"Yet xians want to make the incredibly fanciful assertion that Jesus and company were most certainly "Torah-observant"; ignoring the litany of violations of that Torah throughout verse and passage of the Gospels. It's a virtual checklist of Torah violations culminating in vitriol and down right slander. I've said this before and I'll continue to say it a million more times, the Road to Auschwitz was paved with stones from the Damascus Road. Paul's anti-Jewish and anti-Judaism rants set the stage for the Gospel writers to have their main character Jesus be the blasphemer and the (false) accuser of the Jewish People. "
Most of the "violations" committed by Jesus or the apostles were against Rabbinic tradition that was either burdensome, not required or unbiblical and yes that includes the rubbing of the corn between the hands.*2
It also makes no sense to say Paul was anti-Jewish as some of his allies were Jewish followers of Jesus. See Romans 16:7:
"7 Greet Andronicus and Junia,[c] my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles,[d] and they were in Christ before me."
Some translations say Jews but the meaning is the same, his fellow race of people, his kinsmen:
http://biblehub.com/greek/sungeneis_4773.htm
"Then to say then that this accuser/liar against the Jewish People is a Torah-observant Jew or a Prophet chastizing the sins of Israel is nothing short of being both sickening and disgusting. Not even Moses himself used such vile language when upbraiding the "Wilderness generation" of Israel! Not even Elijah dared to accuse the Jews of being of the 'devil". In fact, when he asserted that ALL the Jews were worshipping Baal, G-d Himself had to correct Elijah of that assertion (7,000 Jews had NOT worshipped Ba'al) and then summarily "fired" Elijah and made Elisha His prophet. What, pray tell, would have been Jesus' punishment if (aside from actually existing) he were, for the sake of argument, a prophet?
And those who don't see the vile and bile of the NT conveniently don't want to see it. There is none so blind as one who does not want to see."
Odd to describe Elijah as "fired" since God still used him until he was taken to heaven. Never have I ever made that connection that Elijah was fired for what he said, but I digress. No Elijah didn't go as far as Jesus did in referring to (not all Jews but some) but Jesus did no wrong.
To go back to John 8:44, The Jews who were speaking to Jesus are Jews who believed in him, supposedly. However, as Jesus speaks, he reveals their heart's attitude towards him, Once again, this is referring to specific Jews in a given context, he is not saying ALL Jews are of the devil, he is condemning a particular group of Jews. They were shocked by his claims and also couldn't stand what he had said about them. They were superficially believing in Jesus, not really submitting to him. This is the one statement in all the Gospels that is commonly quoted by the Counter-Missionaries to attack the NT and accuse it of Jew Hatred.
Jesus statements in John 8:44 are not a blanket condemnation of all Jews, especially since his own apostles were Jews along with many others.
As for refusing to see vile and bile in the New Testament, It's not blindness, it's recognition that the New Testament in context were never intended to be anti-semitic documents.
Let's go to the next points:
"No one claims that Moses or any of the prophets were without sin -- or were more than human." Sophiee1.
"But when prophets railed against leaders, how does that differ from what J. supposedly did?" Proteus
To which we now respond to Sophiee
"Never in the bible does Moses or any of the prophets attack the Jews and curse them as Jesus does in the Christian bible -- condemning the Jews IN TOTAL, calling us hypocrites, devils, blind -- calling the devil our father and so on."
Jesus doesn't condemn the Jews in total, that's nonsense. He followers who were Jews. I point out that the condemnation of the Jews by him was not applicable to all of them in my response to Uri Yosef.
"Moses and the prophets never did such outrageous things.
When the prophets did castigate the Jews it was for turning away from G-d -- not for being observant!
Consider the incident of the golden calf. When G-d tells Moses what happened Moses pleaded for G-d to not turn away from the Jews (link). Moses gets angry, but he punishes only the evil doers -- never does he condemn everyone for the acts of a few.
Unlike Jesus.
The message of the prophets repeatedly is that those who sin should repent, become better people and return to G-d. The message of the prophets is always: be good people because this is what G-d wants from you.
" Isaiah called his people a brood of vipers in Isaiah 57:3, Is that outrageous and why not? How is that different from the statements of Jesus?
One of the messages from the Gospels of Jesus was to repent, much like Moses and the prophets. One paper has compiled from both the TANAKH and the New Testament references to repentance, including that of Jesus and Paul: http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/repentance-bible-verses/
"Jesus' lack of forgiveness seems to be eternal: one weeps. One gnashes one’s teeth. One burns in eternal torment. ETERNAL.
The message of Jesus is that if you don't believe in him you are damned eternally.
"
Accusing Jesus of a lack of forgiveness is a very serious charge. Not to get into the technicalities of it all but Jesus forgives people on countless occasions (Luke 7:36-50 has a sinful woman anointing Jesus with oil, Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:17-26 he forgives a paralytic and John 7:53-8:11 he forgives an adulterous woman).
Does Jesus proclaim that if you don't believe in him you are damned, Yes and if his claims are true, nothing else matters and we have to heed his warnings.*
"But as I already wrote -- it is hypocritical for a Christian to support Jesus' evil words and deeds by saying "someone else did it, too." This is reminiscent of a petulant child who does something bad and says "but all the kids are doing it." The bad behavior of others is not an excuse for bad behavior by Jesus.
And let us not forget that these same apologists state that Jesus was "perfect" and "without sin" and a god even. There is no comparison -- and to lump Moses and the prophets in with Jesus cursing others is slanderous -- while using the missionary's favorite ploy of deflecting attention away from what Jesus REALLY did."
No hypocrisy. If Isaiah can get away with calling his people a brood of vipers, Jesus if his claims are accurate can get away with calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers. Jesus committed no evil with his words against the Pharisees, they were just and right.
Where is the deflection from what Jesus did when his words are misrepresented by you and you claim the missionaries deflect attention from Jesus actions? I am not attacking you on a personal level Sophiee but what deflection is present?
Lord Willing more objections maybe addressed in another paper.
Answering Judaism.
*In addition, Jesus is warning against insulting your brother in faith and that they are in danger of hellfire, not that they can't be forgiven. There is no lack of forgiveness unless repentance is now where to be found.
17th of October 2017 *2 Rubbing the corn isn't what is bad, but the prohibition is not a capital offense.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/messiahtruth/exodus-22-28-don-t-curse-a-leader-t4935.html#.UsdPT_RDulo
Uri Yosef had posted this to me on my website a while ago on one of my papers:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_30.html
I took a look at the link in question on 15th of October 2017 and there was a discussion that was taking place on the site. I will be looking at some of their points and responding to them as they discuss Jesus violating Exodus 22:28.
Sound familiar?
Uri Yosef posted the following on the site:
"
3. Not Honoring a Torah Sage"Honor the face of an elder [zaken] " (Leviticus 19:32). Zaken does not simply mean an old person; for that is the subject of the first half of the verse ("You shall rise before an old person [seiva]"). This is a commandment to respect Torah scholars. Judges and religious leaders are typically called zaken in the Bible (Exodus 24:14, Leviticus 4:15, Numbers 11:25, Deuteronomy 22:16, 25:7). If Jesus did not violate this by calling them "vipers," no one ever did (Matthew 23:13-33)."
Low and behold, this is almost exactly word for word what Barry Umansky posted: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/interesting-objections-from-rabbinic.html
"3.Not Honoring a Torah Sage
"Honor the face of an elder [zaken] " (Leviticus 19:32). Zaken does not simply mean an old person; for that is the subject of the first half of the verse ("You shall rise before an old person [seiva]"). This is a commandment to respect Torah scholars. Judges and religious leaders are typically called zaken in the Bible (Exodus 24:14, Leviticus 4:15, Numbers 11:25, Deuteronomy 22:16, 25:7). If Jesus did not violate this by calling them "vipers," no one ever did (Matthew 23:13-33)."
My response is this.
Indeed one should respect their leaders or speak evil. However, one calling out a leader as a hypocrite when it's the truth, is not a sin and is not a violation of the Torah. Furthermore, Isaiah refers to his people as a brood of vipers because of their wickedness, which would include the scribes, judges and religious leaders who were encouraging their people in their idolatry.
Calling someone a hypocrite because of the fact they are doing evil in the sight of the Lord is not disrespect to any leader if they are responsible for bringing instructing people in the ways of Ha Shem or God. In the days of the NT, the Pharisees, though not guilty of worshiping statues, where certainly guilty of Avodah Zara or alien worship. They substituted the commands of God for the traditions of men, just as the people in Isaiah 29 did and Jesus quotes this passage to condemn the Pharisees in Matthew 15.
Of course in the forum post itself, there is the contention that the prophets were justified and encouraged the people whereas Jesus (or the New Testament) writers spewed hate against the Jews.
Is this true?
Apparently Jesus was insulting, badmouthing and reviling? For calling out religious leaders as hypocrites? There is nothing unbiblical about that nor is Jesus guilty of sin. Matthew 23 highlights major sins the Pharisees in his day. You can find the context here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23
Bottom line, calling out a religious leader on disobeying scripture (In this case, The TANAKH) is perfectly justified.
Sophiee1's posting of Uri Yosef's article on Sinless Jesus has objections which Barry Umansky quoted and which I responded to in the post above. If the Lord Wills I'll look at the article from Uri Yosef but the response to half (slightly more) will be fine for now.
Spewing of Hate from Jesus and the New Testament writers?
What is the truth? Let's look at the points:
"I'm surpised that weboh and others didn't bring up the prophets or Moses to prove that j-man didn't break this mitzvot." Hebrew wander
"Good point" Proteus
Now the objection in question from Arikm7.messiahtruth:
"HW:
They don't know their own NT, how could they (erroneously and mistakingly) use the personalities of the Tanach as a reference?
Regardless of what fabrications they try to posit to support that their godling didn't violate the Torah (and worshipping a man as god is not a violation in and of itself??), the point is that there is more than enough evidence in black and white for Jesus' vitriol against not only the Jewish leaders of Israel, but also (as in the case of 'John") the Jewish people themselves. Such hatred is unfounded, wanton and downright libelous. The xian gospels and the figurehead itself will stoop to any level to lie and demonize the Jew, all the while trying to disguise its vitriol as being righteous indignation. In my mind there is no difference in the words of Matthew ("snakes, vipers, white washed tombs, hypocrites, liars") John's bile ("you are children of your father, the Devil"), Paul's verbal vomit ("they killed the christ and god's prophets", "they are only concerned with their stomachs") and the propaganda spewed by Luther and later in ultimate extremes, the Nazis."
Comparing the statements of the New Testament to that of Martin Luther and the Nazis is nothing more than comparing apples and oranges. The Nazis were murderers who had no biblical justification for what they did to the Jews and none of the statements about the Jewish people in the New Testament are hate speech or vitriol.
Read my articles responding to Uri Yosef on his claims of Anti Semitism in the New Testament if you want more information on whether the New Testament is Anti-Semitic (His article was posted by Sophiee:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_27.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_8351.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_6026.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_28.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_4202.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_30.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_3.html
The articles specifically address the texts he mentions in his paper called "The Anti-Jewish New Testament": http://thejewishhome.org/counter/AntiJewishNT.pdf
Read also my response to Yisroel Blumenthal on whether or not Jesus labeled all Pharisees and Jews as evil: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/did-jesus-label-all-pharisees-and-jews.html
I recommend reading also another response I made to Yisroel Blumenthal to his article "Judge Not": http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/critique-of-judge-not-response-to.html
"The slander of the elders of Israel and later, of the Jews, didn't start with the alleged Jesus (though it certainly gets no better approval/authority for doing so than via the words of xianity's god-man). It started with Paul and his letters (which pre-date the gospels) and later by the unknown writers of the gospels themselves. I say unknown as authorship of the four gospels (five, if you include the Gospel of Q on which "Mark" is based) comes to us from Catholic Tradition. Nevertheless, hating, demonizing and opposing the Jewish leaders and later the Jewish people as a whole is part and parcel of xianity's "gospel"."
Unknown writers? The authors were who they said they were and may have dictated to others to write their gospels down. Can anyone be sure that the TANAKH itself was written by the prophets or dictated by them to others if we hold to TANAKH AND the NT to the same standard which we should?
I recommend all to read this article by Keith Thompson on this issue:
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2012/02/who-wrote-gospels-internal-and-external.html
Regardless of whether or not they were written by the apostles, can any text be cited to prove that part and parcel of Christianity's Gospel is demonisation of the Jewish people, both leader and lay person alike? See the article responses to Uri Yosef above.
"Yet xians want to make the incredibly fanciful assertion that Jesus and company were most certainly "Torah-observant"; ignoring the litany of violations of that Torah throughout verse and passage of the Gospels. It's a virtual checklist of Torah violations culminating in vitriol and down right slander. I've said this before and I'll continue to say it a million more times, the Road to Auschwitz was paved with stones from the Damascus Road. Paul's anti-Jewish and anti-Judaism rants set the stage for the Gospel writers to have their main character Jesus be the blasphemer and the (false) accuser of the Jewish People. "
Most of the "violations" committed by Jesus or the apostles were against Rabbinic tradition that was either burdensome, not required or unbiblical and yes that includes the rubbing of the corn between the hands.*2
It also makes no sense to say Paul was anti-Jewish as some of his allies were Jewish followers of Jesus. See Romans 16:7:
"7 Greet Andronicus and Junia,[c] my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles,[d] and they were in Christ before me."
Some translations say Jews but the meaning is the same, his fellow race of people, his kinsmen:
http://biblehub.com/greek/sungeneis_4773.htm
"Then to say then that this accuser/liar against the Jewish People is a Torah-observant Jew or a Prophet chastizing the sins of Israel is nothing short of being both sickening and disgusting. Not even Moses himself used such vile language when upbraiding the "Wilderness generation" of Israel! Not even Elijah dared to accuse the Jews of being of the 'devil". In fact, when he asserted that ALL the Jews were worshipping Baal, G-d Himself had to correct Elijah of that assertion (7,000 Jews had NOT worshipped Ba'al) and then summarily "fired" Elijah and made Elisha His prophet. What, pray tell, would have been Jesus' punishment if (aside from actually existing) he were, for the sake of argument, a prophet?
And those who don't see the vile and bile of the NT conveniently don't want to see it. There is none so blind as one who does not want to see."
Odd to describe Elijah as "fired" since God still used him until he was taken to heaven. Never have I ever made that connection that Elijah was fired for what he said, but I digress. No Elijah didn't go as far as Jesus did in referring to (not all Jews but some) but Jesus did no wrong.
To go back to John 8:44, The Jews who were speaking to Jesus are Jews who believed in him, supposedly. However, as Jesus speaks, he reveals their heart's attitude towards him, Once again, this is referring to specific Jews in a given context, he is not saying ALL Jews are of the devil, he is condemning a particular group of Jews. They were shocked by his claims and also couldn't stand what he had said about them. They were superficially believing in Jesus, not really submitting to him. This is the one statement in all the Gospels that is commonly quoted by the Counter-Missionaries to attack the NT and accuse it of Jew Hatred.
Jesus statements in John 8:44 are not a blanket condemnation of all Jews, especially since his own apostles were Jews along with many others.
As for refusing to see vile and bile in the New Testament, It's not blindness, it's recognition that the New Testament in context were never intended to be anti-semitic documents.
Let's go to the next points:
"No one claims that Moses or any of the prophets were without sin -- or were more than human." Sophiee1.
"But when prophets railed against leaders, how does that differ from what J. supposedly did?" Proteus
To which we now respond to Sophiee
"Never in the bible does Moses or any of the prophets attack the Jews and curse them as Jesus does in the Christian bible -- condemning the Jews IN TOTAL, calling us hypocrites, devils, blind -- calling the devil our father and so on."
Jesus doesn't condemn the Jews in total, that's nonsense. He followers who were Jews. I point out that the condemnation of the Jews by him was not applicable to all of them in my response to Uri Yosef.
"Moses and the prophets never did such outrageous things.
When the prophets did castigate the Jews it was for turning away from G-d -- not for being observant!
Consider the incident of the golden calf. When G-d tells Moses what happened Moses pleaded for G-d to not turn away from the Jews (link). Moses gets angry, but he punishes only the evil doers -- never does he condemn everyone for the acts of a few.
Unlike Jesus.
The message of the prophets repeatedly is that those who sin should repent, become better people and return to G-d. The message of the prophets is always: be good people because this is what G-d wants from you.
" Isaiah called his people a brood of vipers in Isaiah 57:3, Is that outrageous and why not? How is that different from the statements of Jesus?
One of the messages from the Gospels of Jesus was to repent, much like Moses and the prophets. One paper has compiled from both the TANAKH and the New Testament references to repentance, including that of Jesus and Paul: http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/repentance-bible-verses/
"Jesus' lack of forgiveness seems to be eternal: one weeps. One gnashes one’s teeth. One burns in eternal torment. ETERNAL.
The message of Jesus is that if you don't believe in him you are damned eternally.
"
Accusing Jesus of a lack of forgiveness is a very serious charge. Not to get into the technicalities of it all but Jesus forgives people on countless occasions (Luke 7:36-50 has a sinful woman anointing Jesus with oil, Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:17-26 he forgives a paralytic and John 7:53-8:11 he forgives an adulterous woman).
Does Jesus proclaim that if you don't believe in him you are damned, Yes and if his claims are true, nothing else matters and we have to heed his warnings.*
"But as I already wrote -- it is hypocritical for a Christian to support Jesus' evil words and deeds by saying "someone else did it, too." This is reminiscent of a petulant child who does something bad and says "but all the kids are doing it." The bad behavior of others is not an excuse for bad behavior by Jesus.
And let us not forget that these same apologists state that Jesus was "perfect" and "without sin" and a god even. There is no comparison -- and to lump Moses and the prophets in with Jesus cursing others is slanderous -- while using the missionary's favorite ploy of deflecting attention away from what Jesus REALLY did."
No hypocrisy. If Isaiah can get away with calling his people a brood of vipers, Jesus if his claims are accurate can get away with calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers. Jesus committed no evil with his words against the Pharisees, they were just and right.
Where is the deflection from what Jesus did when his words are misrepresented by you and you claim the missionaries deflect attention from Jesus actions? I am not attacking you on a personal level Sophiee but what deflection is present?
Lord Willing more objections maybe addressed in another paper.
Answering Judaism.
*In addition, Jesus is warning against insulting your brother in faith and that they are in danger of hellfire, not that they can't be forgiven. There is no lack of forgiveness unless repentance is now where to be found.
17th of October 2017 *2 Rubbing the corn isn't what is bad, but the prohibition is not a capital offense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)