No Holy Koolaid, This Verse does not Secretly Undermine All of Christianity

There are cases of individuals who do not read the Bible with any semblance of fairness or proper representation.

A video by Holy Koolaid claims there is one verse in the Bible that undermines Christianity, the video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTnQydJ4O4k&t=358s

Firstly, Let's deal with a few things.

First, the Word Faith preachers do not represent the Bible or Christianity. Their false teachings comes from the theosophists of the 19th Century that gave rise to the New Age Movement.

Former apologist Keith Thompson demonstrates the falsehoods of this movement in two documentaries that he did.

Word of Faith Teachers Origins & Errors of Their Teaching Full Film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku_UGovwkkM

Joel Osteen_ Origins and Errors of His Teaching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne34FMXm2XY

It also ignores the fact that there are teachers in the Christian Church who have opposed the garbage put forward by the word of faith movement. Such lions in Jesus Christ who have opposed this movement include but are not limited to Justin Peters, Paul Washer, John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham Jr, the late R.C Sproul and Conrad Mbewe.

The Bible not only allows us to question the Word of Faith movement and other heresies, it tells us to shun them. John even goes so far as to say not to welcome a false teacher into your home lest you partake in their wicked works. (2 John 1:11)

Second, Jesus' sacrifice isn't repudiated by his forgiving of the paralytic nor is it repudiated when he forgives the thief. Jesus forgives the paralytic to show that he as God has the authority to forgive sins. In the former case, the Mosaic Law is in operation as is the temple in Jerusalem and thus the sacrifices were still present and at the time of Jesus' death, his sacrifice would cover the sins of the thief on the cross. There is no reason to think Jesus undermines his own teaching by simply granting forgiveness or even the Christian teaching.

This was not a fabrication done as a result of a supposed Messiah who was supposed to conquer the Romans and usher in a golden age and failing, the Messiah had come to earth but not in a manner that the Jews expected.

For that matter, What scholars say that the New Testament was not written by Jesus' apostles? They were by his apostles. Once again Keith Thompson has written article on this subject: https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/gospel_authorship.html

And funnily enough, his article provides scholars and commentators that deal with this issue. 

While geared towards Muslim apologists, it adequately deals with the ideas presented by liberals, atheists and agnostics who wish to deny their authorship. 

If Koolaid wants to say one cannot use the Bible in this way. Thompson says the following regarding the Bible.

"Some Muslims may object and assert that one can not use the Bible to prove Paul. However, such a surface level objection is based on ignorance since, again, the New Testament is a collection of valuable early historical documents, many of which speak directly to this issue. To discard the 1st century documents that are in the Bible and not include them in our study would be to neglect the earliest sources we have concerning this issue. That method would essentially be to irresponsibly throw away important data, which no serious historian or researcher would ever do. If historical sources don’t count then we can’t know anything about history." https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/paul-historical.html

Though his article is geared mainly to Paul, it nevertheless is applicable to the Gospels and other writings found in the Bible.

Third, the other issues of feminism and homosexuality I write on here though fuller points on homosexuality have been addressed elsewhere: https://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2017/11/social-justice-warriors-destruction-of.html

It is however unfair to lump those who oppose homosexuality and feminism for biblical reasons (not hate or misogyny which have been overused deflections that say nothing) with flat earthers, word of faith preachers and theocratic nationalists. It also ignores the atheistic misuse of the Bible to justify anything and everything. 

Miley Cyrus even misused the Bible in this way: https://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/01/center-of-controversy-response-to-miley.html

Fourth, God the Father allowing his Son Jesus Christ to be killed by "filthy apes like us." was necessary to deal with our sin. No mental gymnastics involved. It's either Jesus Christ takes your place as a substitute or you pay for your sins eternally. It was planned in eternity past by the divine wisdom of the Holy Triune God, YHWH of scripture.

It is disrespectful and even blasphemous to suggest that God was getting some kink over the torture of his Jesus' death wasn't necessary.

Lastly, Jesus did not go to hell, he went to Sheol or Hades, the waiting room of the dead, specifically to the section referred by theologians as Abraham's bosom. Jesus went to the underworld or Sheol when he died and he didn't cease to exist, He was full conscious and communicating which can be found 1 Peter 3:19. Jesus, as the God Man, DIED, but he didn't cease to exist. 

Furthermore, After the resurrection, the saints in Abraham's bosom To heaven. Thus they were still alive, even in Sheol. Lazarus went to Sheol as well and Christ raised him.

The late Robert Morey wrote an excellent book I recommend called "Death and the Afterlife."

Answering Judaism

Sacrificial Ignorance: A response to William Hall

Time to look at a ridiculous comment:

First of all, provide a reference for this claim that if a sacrifice comes back to life, it’s not a real sacrifice. 

Second, the comment made by Stuart Federow of “Jesus gave up his life for a weekend.” is a silly and ignorant comment. Jesus talked about giving his life as a ransom in addition to pointing out he came to suffer, die and rise again.

The resurrection doesn’t cancel out a sacrifice, the New Testament writers would not have conceived of such an absurdity.

This is just mockery with no real argumentation. Do better next time.

Answering Judaism

The Lamb of God 2: Response to The Counter Missionary Voice

 There is a post I have come across which I like to provide a response to the Counter Missionary Voice. It was written by Yehuda Yisrael. Let us take a look. (italics mine)

~The "lamb" of G-d~

It's that time of year again! What's more, Pesach and Easter happened to coincide with each other this year. Many Christians look to these verses in Genesis to justify their faith that Jesus is their "Passover lamb":

Genesis 22:7 And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father, and he said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And they both went together.

The Christians assert that this reference to a "lamb" must refer to Jesus, since Abraham sacrifices a ram and not a lamb, later in the chapter. Never mind the fact that Jesus was not sacrificed as a burnt offering on a fire, as Isaac inquires. And never mind the fact that the Israelites sacrificed literal lambs in Exodus chapter 12 and roasted them over a fire, literally a burnt offering!

This misses the point of New Testament Typology arguments. 

Obviously Christ wasn't burned, but what was the connection that was made by Christians between Christ and the binding of Isaac? Abraham saw a ram with it's head caught in a thorn bush. A ram was provided in the place of Isaac, just as Christ was a substitute for us, to cleanse us from transgression. The subject of the method of sacrificing is not an issue that Christians think about, it's what the lamb's sacrifice was pointing to, a righteous substitute. Another thing is the hill that Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac on the altar on the very mountain that Jesus was crucified. The one who raises the point about Christ not being a burnt offering as an argument miss the entire point that Christians make regarding this point.

The Christian doesn't care to let the Torah speak to itself. This "lamb" must refer to Jesus!

What's even more incredulous about the Christian obsession with "the lamb of G-d" is that the Christians have the chutzpah to literally elevate this "lamb" to the status of a god! The ironic thing is, the Christians weren't the first to do this. The Egyptians beat them to the punch!:

Exodus 8:22 But Moses said, "It is improper to do that, for we will sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to God our Lord. Will we sacrifice the deity of the Egyptians before their eyes, and they will not stone us?

Indeed, the Egyptians worshiped the lamb as a deity, just as the Christians do today, albeit in a roundabout way. The "lamb of G-d" was never meant to be elevated to the status of G-d, but rather to be transformed into an act of service to G-d. The Christians have reverted back to the ways of the Egyptians by deifying and worshiping the "lamb." May we all gain clarity and break free from the worship of "the lamb" and devote our worship to the One True G-d of Israel!

-Yehuda Yisrael

The "lamb of God obsession" from Christians has nothing to do with Egypt and even if Egypt did it first, there is literally no connection between the two and are different contexts.

On a side note from a previous article I wrote, The Lamb of God, There were other cases where Jesus is referred to as a lamb (which was raised to me by another Jew,) such as in Acts 8:32 and in 1 Peter 3:19. With respect to the point in Peter, I am aware that unblemished lamb in the Torah refers to blind lambs or crippled or any defect. This is a point I also address in my response to Eli Cohen:

"Leviticus 4:28 and the sin they have committed becomes known, they must bring as their offering for the sin they committed a female goat without defect.

Cohen rightly points out that a female goat doesn't mean the goat is sinless, but rather defects that the interviewer alludes to. I already know this, a defect in the lamb to me would of been something wrong with it's eyes, legs or any part of his body that is broken, bruised, or battered. I am already aware of this as are other informed Christians. He also goes onto say it doesn't have to be a rightous animal, just a wholesome animal. However, what Cohen doesn't realise is that the lamb is a picture or an antitype of Jesus being our vicarious atonement." (http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html)

Peter is making the point that due to Christ's sinlessness, his atonement satisfied the wrath of God. He is using the blemish of the lambs to illustrate his point.

Answering Judaism.