tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33352706076578671602024-03-13T06:18:59.046-07:00Answering JudaismChristian defence of Yeshua/Jesus as MessiahAnswering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.comBlogger457125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-13651607902820086432024-03-13T06:18:00.000-07:002024-03-13T06:18:09.416-07:00Sunday Worship? What is actually said?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRj8lrbJB6E6orUO2lwmENfOn67LJzG7-B3LWX5c4zmpSQBEe0U0Vc5gEmFVbS66-17AHK-S1AP-QLaBR2DHUw463k3gxLxwludgBbGtztMZbupScrgvh9DMBcQ5U1lofPSUDXP3sJ8c0kLjyNm-5Nk6CKdFsSxPzIF4YjJ4J6U6g3DAcvkwCV6hqmYuM/s1435/Sunday%20worship%20question%20mark.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1435" height="413" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRj8lrbJB6E6orUO2lwmENfOn67LJzG7-B3LWX5c4zmpSQBEe0U0Vc5gEmFVbS66-17AHK-S1AP-QLaBR2DHUw463k3gxLxwludgBbGtztMZbupScrgvh9DMBcQ5U1lofPSUDXP3sJ8c0kLjyNm-5Nk6CKdFsSxPzIF4YjJ4J6U6g3DAcvkwCV6hqmYuM/w548-h413/Sunday%20worship%20question%20mark.jpg" width="548" /></a></div>You are probably thinking why I posted this here. Well it's simply to respond to it. Let us take a look.<p></p><p><u><b>Isaiah 1:13</b></u></p><p>The passage in question is not displeasure with the Sabbath in and of itself. It is talking about the observances of the law become detestable because of the unrepentant sin of Israel. None of the observances were bad, it was the heart of the people being far from YHWH himself:</p><p><i>10 Hear the word of the Lord,</i></p><p><i> you rulers of Sodom!</i></p><p><i>Give ear to the teaching[b] of our God,</i></p><p><i> you people of Gomorrah!</i></p><p><i>11 “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?</i></p><p><i> says the Lord;</i></p><p><i>I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams</i></p><p><i> and the fat of well-fed beasts;</i></p><p><i>I do not delight in the blood of bulls,</i></p><p><i> or of lambs, or of goats.</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>12 “When you come to appear before me,</i></p><p><i> who has required of you</i></p><p><i> this trampling of my courts?</i></p><p><i>13 Bring no more vain offerings;</i></p><p><i> incense is an abomination to me.</i></p><p><i>New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—</i></p><p><i> I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.</i></p><p><i>14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts</i></p><p><i> my soul hates;</i></p><p><i>they have become a burden to me;</i></p><p><i> I am weary of bearing them.</i></p><p><i>15 When you spread out your hands,</i></p><p><i> I will hide my eyes from you;</i></p><p><i>even though you make many prayers,</i></p><p><i> I will not listen;</i></p><p><i> your hands are full of blood.</i></p><p><i><u>16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;</u></i></p><p><i><u> remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;</u></i></p><p><i><u>cease to do evil,</u></i></p><p><i><u>17 learn to do good;</u></i></p><p><i><u>seek justice,</u></i></p><p><i><u> correct oppression;</u></i></p><p><i><u>bring justice to the fatherless,</u></i></p><p><i><u> plead the widow's cause.</u></i></p><p><i><u><br /></u></i></p><p><i><u>18 “Come now, let us reason[c] together, says the Lord:</u></i></p><p><i><u>though your sins are like scarlet,</u></i></p><p><i><u> they shall be as white as snow;</u></i></p><p><i><u>though they are red like crimson,</u></i></p><p><i><u> they shall become like wool.</u></i></p><p><i><u>19 If you are willing and obedient,</u></i></p><p><i><u> you shall eat the good of the land;</u></i></p><p><i><u>20 but if you refuse and rebel,</u></i></p><p><i><u> you shall be eaten by the sword;</u></i></p><p><i><u> for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”</u></i></p><p>Once the people repented then the worship would be acceptable again, including the Sabbath.</p><p><u><b>Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2-9, Matthew 20:1-19</b></u></p><p>The verses in question I don't have much to say, Jesus did indeed rise on the first day of the week, as to whether or not one is obligated to celebrate that day is another issue.</p><p><u><b>Acts 20:7</b></u></p><p>Gathering together on the first week was not an obligation, it was a free choice in the early church. It is only later that it became imposed on the church and even to this day it is imposed on the individual. </p><p>The context here simply explains what Paul was going to do:</p><p><i>7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered. 9 And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer. And being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10 But Paul went down and bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, “Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.” 11 And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. 12 And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted.</i></p><p><i>13 But going ahead to the ship, we set sail for Assos, intending to take Paul aboard there, for so he had arranged, intending himself to go by land. 14 And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and went to Mitylene. 15 And sailing from there we came the following day opposite Chios; the next day we touched at Samos; and[b] the day after that we went to Miletus. 16 For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.</i></p><p><b><u>1 Corinthians 16:2</u></b></p><p>Paul is talking to the Corinthians about a collection they are to do. The context is plain and speaks for itself.</p><p><i>16 Now concerning[a] the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. 3 And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. 4 If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.</i></p><p><b><u>Colossians 2:16-17</u></b></p><p>This would also apply to Sunday service. A Christian is under no obligation to keep a special day, that is entirely the freedom of a Christ, If a congregation member chooses to observe Sunday as special or a Messianic Jew chooses to observe Saturday or both or neither, I am not to act as their judge in this matter.</p><p>The Sabbath is indeed a shadow and is not obligated to be kept though the person is free to observe it in honour of the Lord Jesus Christ, it's a matter of liberty and conscience.</p><p><i>8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities[b] and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.[c]</i></p><p><i>Let No One Disqualify You</i></p><p><i>16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions,[d] puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.</i></p><p><u><b>2 Thessalonians 2:15</b></u></p><p>The traditions here are the teachings of the apostles. It doesn't tell us to hold to "apostolic tradition." I say that because much of Rome holds to that idea. The litmus test now is, Does a teaching agree with the scriptures? </p><p>Even the full context of the passages warns against letters that seem to come from the apostles but in the end do not:</p><p><i>2 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,[a] 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness[b] is revealed, the son of destruction,[c] 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.</i></p><p><i>Stand Firm</i></p><p><i>13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits[d] to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.</i></p><p><i>16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.</i></p><p><b><u>Hebrews 4:8-9</u></b></p><p>Let us take a look at the context shall we:</p><p><i>4 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. 2 For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.[a] 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,</i></p><p><i>“As I swore in my wrath,</i></p><p><i>‘They shall not enter my rest,’”</i></p><p><i>although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this passage he said,</i></p><p><i>“They shall not enter my rest.”</i></p><p><i>6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,</i></p><p><i>“Today, if you hear his voice,</i></p><p><i>do not harden your hearts.”</i></p><p><i>8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God[b] would not have spoken of another day later on. 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, 10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.</i></p><p><i>11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.</i></p><p><i>Jesus the Great High Priest</i></p><p><i>14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.</i></p><p>The Sabbath here in question is Jesus himself, He is the Sabbath rest for Christians, not Sunday, not Saturday, but He is our rest. As said before, the observance of a day is not an obligation upon Christians in and of itself. The principle however is that Christians must not forsake fellowship with other believers.</p><p>It doesn't matter what day it is, it matters if you are doing it or not. Such is found in Hebrews 10:</p><p><i>10:19 Therefore, brothers,[c] since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.</i></p><p><u>Hebrews 7:12</u></p><p>It boggles the mind how one could even read the biblical text in this way, It addresses nothing about the Sabbath, it's talking about the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus, especially because his sacrifice actually took away our sins, not merely covered it.</p><p><i>7 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. 3 He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.</i></p><p><i>4 See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! 5 And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers,[a] though these also are descended from Abraham. 6 But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. 8 In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. 9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.</i></p><p><i>Jesus Compared to Melchizedek</i></p><p><i>11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.</i></p><p><i>15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is witnessed of him,</i></p><p><i>“You are a priest forever,</i></p><p><i> after the order of Melchizedek.”</i></p><p><i>18 For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.</i></p><p><i>20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, 21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:</i></p><p><i>“The Lord has sworn</i></p><p><i> and will not change his mind,</i></p><p><i>‘You are a priest forever.’”</i></p><p><i>22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.</i></p><p><i>23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost[b] those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.</i></p><p><i>26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. 27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.</i></p><p><u>Revelation 1:10</u></p><p>The observance of a day is not even a command here nor anything remotely to do with the Sabbath and the Rest in Jesus. John is talking about <u>when</u> he received the vision that the Holy Spirit gave him to write the Book of Revelation.</p><p>The interpretation given in the original post makes about as much sense as Steven Anderson burning non-KJV bibles through the usage of Acts 19. (Which was talking about burning witchcraft/occult material.)</p><p><i>9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11 saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”</i></p><p><i>12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.</i></p><p><i>17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. 19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this. 20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.</i></p><p><u>Matthew 16:19,18:18</u></p><p>There is an article I have written many years ago which can read here:</p><p><a href="https://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/11/more-roman-catholic-and-eastern_7.html">https://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/11/more-roman-catholic-and-eastern_7.html</a></p><p>While Binding and Losing is referring to the rabbinic ruling of permitting (losing) and prohibiting (binding), it's within the parameters that God has set through the apostles. It does not give the church the right to impose any holiday or special on it's congregants, which I have already said it is a matter of personal conscience.</p><p>Communion has to be taken though the day doesn't matter, even Jesus didn't observe it on the first day of the week and that again is personal freedom. The Lord's Supper should be regularly celebrated nonetheless.</p><p>At the end of the day, check the scriptures for yourself.</p><p>Answering Judaism.</p>Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-31112604943914807492023-12-31T07:16:00.000-08:002023-12-31T07:52:30.729-08:00Love? Examination of Spinoza.<p>This post was sent to me this morning and I was compelled to address it, it was a Facebook post on Love.</p><p><i>When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the recurring question that students asked him most was:</i></p><p><i>- Do you believe in God?</i></p><p><i>And he always answered:</i></p><p><i>- I believe in the God of Spinoza.</i></p><p><i>Baruch de Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher considered one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy, along with Descartes.</i></p><p>I am not one who has read Descartes, though that isn't relevant to what I am saying here.</p><p><i>(Spinoza) : God would say:</i></p><p><i>Stop praying.</i></p><p><i>What I want you to do is go out into the world and enjoy your life. I want you to sing, have fun and enjoy everything I've made for you.</i></p><p>This automatically is a red flag, as the Bible encourages and commands prayer. God doesn't stop you having fun in the sense of an ordinary thing that isn't moral in and of itself. You could visit a city, a field, the seaside and take the sights in. You could even try a new meal you never had, so long as the Lord's commands are obeyed and the mindset of "Lord willing we shall go into such and such a town and do business." is present (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+4%3A13-15&version=ESV" target="_blank">James 4:13-15</a>).</p><p><i>Stop going into those dark, cold temples that you built yourself and saying they are my house. My house is in the mountains, in the woods, rivers, lakes, beaches. That's where I live and there I express my love for you.</i></p><p>Whether it is at home or in a church, the worship of God is encompassed in the whole of life. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+6%3A4-7&version=ESV" target="_blank">Deuteronomy 6:4-7</a>) I don't even know what this post is going on about.</p><p><i>Stop blaming me for your miserable life; I never told you there was anything wrong with you or that you were a sinner, or that your sexuality was a bad thing. Sex is a gift I have given you and with which you can express your love, your ecstasy, your joy. So don't blame me for everything they made you believe.</i></p><p>God isn't blame for a miserable life, if anything we bring it on ourselves. He does bring trials to draw us closer to himself and make us holy, weaning us off the things of the world. While we can debate what hobbies we can have or what things we can do that aren't evil in and of themselves, the ultimate goal is the glorification of God. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A15-18%2C+James+4%3A1-12%2C+Romans+14%2C+Colossians+3%3A1-11&version=ESV" target="_blank">1 John 2:15-18, James 4:1-12, Romans 14, Colossians 3:1-11</a>)</p><p>To suggest that God doesn't tell us we are sinners is a lie, The scriptures, inspired by him tell us we are sinners in need of atonement and grace. (Romans 3:23)</p><p>Sex itself was designed as a holy gift, it's only because of the fall of man that it has been perverted into something that God didn't intend. There are specific practices that will earn the wrath of God, whether it maybe adultery, fornication, homosexuality and other sins that could be listed. Sex is a holy thing given to the human race in the confines of marriage, not something to be bandied about and altered (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A19-32%2C+1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10%2C+Galatians+5%3A16-26%2C+Revelation+21%3A8%2C+22%3A15&version=ESV" target="_blank">Romans 1:19-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:16-26, Revelation 21:8, 22:15</a>.)</p><p><i>Stop reading alleged sacred scriptures that have nothing to do with me. If you can't read me in a sunrise, in a landscape, in the look of your friends, in your son's eyes... ➤ you will find me in no book!</i></p><p>If you were talking about other "holy scriptures" I could understand but how do you know God is there? He is found in a book and that same book, the Bible, tells us that man knows God exists but their consciences convict them and as such, mankind rebels and rejects this truth. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201%3A19-32&version=ESV" target="_blank">Romans 1:19-32</a>)</p><p><i>Stop asking me "will you tell me how to do my job?" Stop being so scared of me. I do not judge you or criticize you, nor get angry, or bothered. I am pure love.</i></p><p>Love involves rebuking, correcting, condemning and judging (The irony is people who say it doesn't still engage in a moral judgement of some kind.) As long hypocrisy isn't present, that is what that matters. It also does have grace to allow the person be reconciled to God (and an offended person or party if any. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A1-5%2C+2+Timothy+3%3A16-17&version=ESV" target="_blank">Matthew 7:1-5, 2 Timothy 3:16-17</a>)</p><p><i>Stop asking for forgiveness, there's nothing to forgive. If I made you... I filled you with passions, limitations, pleasures, feelings, needs, inconsistencies... free will. How can I blame you if you respond to something I put in you? How can I punish you for being the way you are, if I'm the one who made you? Do you think I could create a place to burn all my children who behave badly for the rest of eternity? What kind of god would do that?</i></p><p>You have to ask for forgiveness, otherwise, hell is your abode, that is how it works (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5-10&version=ESV" target="_blank">1 John 5-10</a> talks about believers confessing their sins.) The only to be saved is to call on the name of the Lord and do as he bids (Acts 17:30-31) (Though this is out of gratitude and love rather than saving yourself.) </p><p>What things are put into us? While an ordinary pleasure isn't sinful necessarily, does it really fulfill you in the long run? If you live for it rather than treat it as an ordinary thing you can live without or the very least, recognise it could fail and treat it as a neutral thing and never let it be an idol, the thing will fail you in the end. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A19-24%2C+Luke+16%3A13&version=ESV" target="_blank">Matthew 6:19-24, Luke 16:13</a>.) </p><p>Where does it say God made you the way you are? That is incredibly nebulous and doesn't say anything.</p><p><i>Respect your peers and don't do what you don't want for yourself. All I ask is that you pay attention in your life, that alertness is your guide.</i></p><p><i>My beloved, this life is not a test, not a step on the way, not a rehearsal, nor a prelude to paradise. This life is the only thing here and now and it is all you need.</i></p><p><i>I have set you absolutely free, no prizes or punishments, no sins or virtues, no one carries a marker, no one keeps a record.</i></p><p><i>You are absolutely free to create in your life. Heaven or hell.</i></p><p>If your life leads you in the wrong direction to hell, all your efforts are meaningless. You must have boundaries. This kind of subjectivity is very dangerous.</p><p>Christians will ending up sinning and falling short but they will grieve over it. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5-10&version=ESV" target="_blank">1 John 1:5-10</a>.)</p><p><i>➤ I can't tell you if there's anything after this life but I can give you a tip. Live as if there is not. As if this is your only chance to enjoy, to love, to exist.</i></p><p><i>So, if there's nothing after, then you will have enjoyed the opportunity I gave you. And if there is, rest assured that I won't ask if you behaved right or wrong, I'll ask. Did you like it? Did you have fun? What did you enjoy the most? What did you learn?...</i></p><p>God will judge us based on how we have lived. If we refuse to trust in Jesus and go our own way, we are lost. God is not mocked, he will hold us to account for every thought, word and deed. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+12%3A14%2C+Matthew+12%3A36%2C+Acts+17%3A31%2C+Romans+2%3A16%2C+Hebrews+9%3A27%2C+Revelation+20%3A11-15%29&version=ESV" target="_blank">Ecclesiastes 12:14, Matthew 12:36, Acts 17:31, Romans 2:16, Hebrews 9:27, Revelation 20:11-15</a>)</p><p><i>Stop believing in me; believing is assuming, guessing, imagining. I don't want you to believe in me, I want you to believe in you. I want you to feel me in you when you kiss your beloved, when you tuck in your little girl, when you caress your dog, when you bathe in the sea.</i></p><p><i>Stop praising me, what kind of egomaniac God do you think I am?</i></p><p>We all called to self-denial, not belief in ourselves. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A24-26%2C+Mark+8%3A34-35%2C+Luke+9%3A23-24%2C+John+12%3A25-26&version=ESV" target="_blank">Matthew 16:24-26, Mark 8:34-35, Luke 9:23-24, John 12:25-26</a>.) </p><p>God isn't an egomaniac, he is our creator deserving of love, attention, worship and obedience. It is a foolish thought to refer God in this way.</p><p><i>I'm bored being praised. I'm tired of being thanked. Feeling grateful? Prove it by taking care of yourself, your health, your relationships, the world. Express your joy! That's the way to praise me.</i></p><p>God will never cease being tired of praise or being thanked. He only doesn't want either if you are in rebellion and refuse to repent. There are plenty of examples of this in the Old Testament; (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+1%3A1-20%2C+59%3A1-2%2C+Micah+6%3A6-16%2C+Jeremiah+3%3A6-14&version=ESV" target="_blank">Isaiah 1:1-20, 59:1-2, Micah 6:6-16, Jeremiah 3:6-14</a>) You should take care of yourself, others and your relationships but all have to be attended to in order to bring honour and glory to God. For one who repents, his wickedness is forgotten. (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+31%3A31-34%2C+Ezekiel+18%3A21-24&version=ESV" target="_blank">Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 18:21-24</a>, the latter warns that the opposite is also true.)</p><p><i>Stop complicating things and repeating as a parakeet what you've been taught about me.</i></p><p><i>What do you need more miracles for? So many explanations?</i></p><p><i>The only thing for sure is that you are here, that you are alive, that this world is full of wonders.</i></p><p><i>- Spinoza </i></p><p>Everything we learn from childhood by that criteria is repeated like a parakeet. In fact, the Bible in Proverbs tells us (though this isn't always true) that something seems right at first until later examined (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+18%3A17&version=ESV" target="_blank">Proverbs 18:17</a>). Granted, this verse refers to court cases but nevertheless, the principle in life is the same. Something you have been taught may have been right though you might have to correct yourself if you come across someone else who would examine that belief you hold. If you are correct, obviously there is no need for correction but if you are wrong, it is worth correcting that belief and behaviour.</p><p>Miracles also are not proof of something to be true. You can perform x number of miracles and still have no person believe. In fact, Jesus actually didn't do miracles in one town because of their unbelief (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A58&version=ESV" target="_blank">Matthew 13:58</a>.) His parable of the rich man and Lazarus is also further confirmation that even if someone is raised from the dead, a person might not believe (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A19-31&version=ESV" target="_blank">Luke 16:19-31</a>.) </p><p>Answering Judaism.</p>Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-63748326380028132062018-11-17T10:26:00.001-08:002018-11-17T10:26:25.988-08:00What did you do with your talents?We are going to look at the parable of the talents.<br />
<br />
"<b>Matthew 25:14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants[a] and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents,[b] to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.[c] You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’</b><br />
<br />
<b>22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’</b>"<br />
<br />
The basic point of this parable is our servitude to Jesus. Believers of different backgrounds, rich or poor with whatever resources they have are to live holy and obedient lives consecrated to Christ. It cuts through the idea that a lack of resources means you cannot do much.<br />
<br />
Think about it. If one is a billionaire, his or her resources can be used to help many individuals across the world, if there is a Christian billionaire. Someone of a moderate income can do what they can in their local area and possibly outside and finally, those of low income can help support their families (if possible) through their house keeping. No limit is placed on gospel preaching through your income and also, your testimony at work, your home, the club you go to (if there is one) etc., while you may not necessarily talk about God, you live your life in such a way that the individual glorifies God and some sees you as reliable and trustworthy.<br />
<br />
It matters not to God what you have, it's how you use the resources or talents (as in things you can do) given to you and there is no excuse for laziness and slackness.<br />
<br />
It also makes me think it is the little things that matter as well as the big which is nothing. For example, dusting your workplace to keep it clean is just as important as keeping the stock up and making a huge profit. The man who buried his talent could have used it to get a second talent or even go the extra mile. The master would have been pleased with being given two talents or even if the man went multiple times to get more talents. Imagine the result if he had ten talents from his efforts as opposed to the one which he hid away. It cuts through the concept of being work-shy.<br />
<br />
Rebekah Merkle's application in her book "Eve in Exile" is sure make to make housewives appreciate and have a higher view of their role as keepers of the home (Titus 2:5), especially the neglect from the church to teach it and also the foul stench that so plagues being a house wife thanks to feminism creeping into the church and the church doing nothing about it. This isn’t the whole quotation but this snippet should be of interest.<br />
<br />
"We twenty first century American women have been materially blessed beyond our wildest dreams of most women throught out all of history, we have been given the most talents and God has given us the most blessings in order that we may turn a profit on them. If we bury the talents and just float, we know what God says to us at the end of the day "You wicked and slothful servant!" We need to look around at what God has given us and then figure our how to turn a profit on it. If we can do that, we can look forward to a "Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I'll set you over much. Enter the joy of your master." So why should we run when we don't have to? Because that's what God made us to do. A Eric Liddel so eloquently says in Chariots of Fire, "God made me run fast. And when I run I feel his pleasure."" Eve in Exile, Rebekah Merkle, pg 149.<br />
<br />
There is appreciation of little tasks, no matter how difficult it may be, they are much greater than we realise. Even the smallest gesture of service to other people can be an acceptable sacrifice, paying them a visit in person just for a chat, especially when they have had an off day or in a state of misery, even just a simple hello is a good place to start.<br />
<br />
The point is, Christian service is still to be given, we have hard work to do, including that of witnessing to others where we are. It's one thing to have a hobby at the end of the day or watching the television for the glory of Christ, but it's quite another to let those things run your whole life. The man with one talent squandered what he had and lost out on the chance of remaining in his master's house.<br />
<br />
Answering JudaismAnswering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-59715029907647152462018-11-10T13:00:00.001-08:002018-11-10T13:00:59.344-08:00Venom: Has God abandoned us?Venom is Sony’s most recent comic book movie release not under the MCU banner of movies and while has generally negative reviews from critics, the audience response has been mixed to positive and as earned more than $500 million world wide, so far a modest hit. The movie has its fair share of issues but is not an insulting or insufferable experience but entertaining on all three occasions I saw it.<br />
<br />
But I am not talking about what I think of it as a whole nor the Eminem song at the end of the film but a specific line uttered by the film’s villain, Carlton Drake, leader of the Life Foundation who is experimenting on individuals by binding them to Symbiotes as a means of fighting poverty and other issues. The problem is his tests beforehand and during such tests are controversial as his experiments result in individuals dying and bonding people to symbiotes is not an exception as some of the people bonded to them where either incompatible or suffered bodily degradation due to the symbiotes feeding on vital organs.<br />
<br />
Before Isaac, one of his volunteers is killed due to incompatibility with the symbiote, Drake relays the story of Abraham and Isaac to him. He claims the story about Abraham and Isaac is not about Abraham’s sacrifice but Isaac’s and not knowing what sort of God would ask that of anyone. Drake also goes on about war and poverty being present and the world on the brink of collapse, claiming that God has abandoned humanity and he won’t abandon it, saying that it’s up to him and others including Isaac to set things right.<br />
<br />
When ever scripture is used in cinema, no matter the intent or context, I can understand why some quotations are used but do take issue with how quotes are used.<br />
<br />
Firstly, and putting aside for a moment original sin which I believe in, God doesn’t abandon anyone unless they continually reject him. If someone refuses to repent, God will turn his back on them until they die, after which they face judgement or if the person in question repents, to which he will return to them in mercy and grace.<br />
<br />
The reason Saul didn’t receive any messages from God was not God refusing to forgive after repentance, it was the fact Saul didn’t repent and grew gradually worse. If Saul repented, he wouldn’t have the kingdom to rule but he would have been loved by God and God would have listened but Saul didn’t repent and in desperation sought out a medium which was the final move in his destruction. David however in Pslam 51 begged YHWH not to take his Holy Spirit away and sought God for forgiveness, he had a repentant heart that was ashamed of sinning against his creator.<br />
<br />
Our planet is rotting because of our sins, the sin of Adam bringing “war and poverty” with it. If Carlton Drake was real, he would be very wrong in saying that God has abandoned him partially. I say partially because God would listen if Drake would humble himself. It is not God who stops caring about us, it’s the other way around. We refuse to listen and he has no time for us but if we turn to him, he will hear us. Did God not say to Jeremiah “If you repent, I will restore you so that you may serve me”?<br />
<br />
God can intervene with the affairs of men and he has the right to but does allow men to go their own way and thus reap the consequences. In a way, we can sort out the mess in any way we can but we will never be successful in eliminating the problem completely. Only by trust and obedience to God can we get out of our ruts. We are not promised our best life now but we would be better off obeying him and being happier due to holiness rather than engaging in sin, leading to many problems which are numerous to list, including poverty which can either be due someone’s greed robbing others of their hard earned money or laziness bringing poverty upon them not to mention there maybe sickness that’s either their fault or not, a criminal conviction that’s either their fault or not. If one were to follow God’s instructions, we would have none of these problems.<br />
<br />
Second, The type of God that would ask someone to sacrifice their son is the type of God that demands utmost obedience and praise, giving up the things we cherish the most if that’s what it takes to be loyal to him. Not an easy task but can be accomplished by God’s grace, “for with God, nothing is impossible”.<br />
<br />
Jesus consistent with his Father, told the rich young ruler to part with what he cherished the most then follow him, a hard saying that the rich ruler couldn’t accept. Jesus may give different requests to people, he isn’t saying all are to do what the rich ruler did to his riches, again, the principle is the willingness to part with something if that is a barrier between you and God, serving him above all else. It may be temporary or permanent, it varies from person to person and not necessarily money or possessions but can be the case.<br />
<br />
Third, the story is not so much about Isaac himself but Abraham, it was a test from God as mentioned previously above, a proof of his faith by his deeds, thus preventing it from being a faith without works that is dead. It’s not Isaac’s sacrifice but Abraham’s although Isaac willingly allowed it, being a 30 year old or so at the time, he would be strong enough to resist but didn’t. God stayed Abraham’s hand as a result of his loyalty, after Abraham showed his willingness to obey without exception.<br />
<br />
I am not saying Venom was a bad movie, it wasn’t, but I tend to hold films more accountable when they use the Bible in one fashion or another.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-37762521854982849192018-11-03T12:00:00.000-07:002018-11-03T12:00:15.483-07:00A look into "The Time is fulfilled, How prepared are you?"A few weeks ago, I was handed a leaflet in Kingsmead by a missionary from the group known as HOREMOW or Holiness Revival Movement Worldwide. It would be better to take a look at what it says now in this article now rather than not looking at it at all. Let us examine it. <br />
<br />
"<i>The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ draws near every minute and hour that passes by. It is very important for everyone who has hope of eternity to take heed now. We advancements and inventions of different types and shapes of computers and micro-chips, the unifying of financial systems, the scaricity of money denominations in place now, is indicating the antichrist preparedness to take over the world and the world bodies, the economic meltdown and down turn problems of life even in our individual lives must be a very big eye opening to all believers. These are signals indicating to humans that this age is coming to an end, that the Bible prophecies that say "<b>The day is approaching</b>" is at hand.</i><br />
<br />
<i>But the unfortunate thing is that many believers even the very elect are not watchful. A call for watchfulness in church of Christ whom our Lord Jesus Christ bought with His previous blood-the groom of the Lord-the heavenly minded believers should be very, very alert in the spirit now more than ever, waiting earnestly for the raputre. Now the question is "<b>How prepared are you</b>"? This advices us not to sleep as do others but let us watch and be sober, for they that sleep, sleep in the night 1 Thesa 5vs6-8.</i>"<br />
<br />
Is the leaflet here appearing to be promoting a pre tribulation rapture or that the day of Jesus' return is immiment? We'll get to that later. The scripture in question however does not say we are to be waiting earnestly for the rapture. We should be waiting for the return of Jesus. I shall give a brief explaination of the thief in the night text later on.<br />
<br />
"<i>As believers, we are instructed not to indulge in spiritual sleep but be watchful, putting on the breastplate of faith and love. In the midst of these happening, we should make sure that our Christian experiences are intact, living a holy and righteous life with sincerity of heart and in searching purity inside and outside our lives, homes, work, compound we live, in our businesses, run the church of God and everywhere we find ourselves also preaching urgently this sweet salvation message to others so that we can snatch their souls from destruction in hell.</i>"<br />
<br />
There isn't anything here that is theologically bad here in this section. Seems alright. There is an emphasis on holy living that is sorely missing from many Christian congregations, namely applying holiness to every aspect of our lives rather than just to the "religious" part. For the most part, this section is fine.<br />
<br />
"<i>Always have the mind of Jesus, self control and unceasing prayer life Mt. 28vs19-20, Phil 2v5, Ps. 119vs33-37, Rm12v2, 1 Corinth. 9vs24-27. Do not live your Christians life base on your past experiences and achievements, rather always have "Self Check" if you are still in the faith.</i>"<br />
<br />
Many Christians who have read scripture indeed know that it is important to self examine ourselves because it is easy for us to be lead astray. Not too much to say here. What I will say is we need to be cautious on what they may believe about grace. Paul indeed tells us to self check ourselves and not be conformed to the evil of the world either in thought, word and deed. in along with Psalm 119 being a holy poem, beseeching God to help them to be more obedient to his word and the declaration of the love of his law.<br />
<br />
"<i>The idea of once saved is forever saved will lead many believers to everlasting regret because that is not what the scripture says but satan's ideas to destroy human souls in hell. Are you living a careless life of backsliding, pride yourself on your past Christian achievements and experiences? Please ask yourself "<b>Are You In The Number Of The Rapturable Saints?</b></i>""<br />
<br />
Despite not believing in once saved always saved myself, I think it's still important to realise there are two distinct views as sometimes the term "once saved always saved" is used for both. One view Perserverance of the Saints states that those who are truly saved will persevere in holiness to the end. The other view however states that you pray a prayer and you are in and no matter what you do or say or think, you are saved. The latter view that many hold to will agree that believing in the former is morally reprehensible.<br />
<br />
"<i>The scripture cautioned believers to constantly run this heavenly race with diligent and carefulness so that we will not run in vain 1 Corinth 9vs24-27 Only Jesus that strengthens us and He alone with His glorious power qualifies us for inheritance in heaven Phil 4.13, Col. 1vs11-12</i><br />
<br />
<i>Our daily self-check is very important these days to know if we are still qualified as the Lord's day is fast approaching. Try every day to restore, reconcile, amend and restitute your life even your marriage and be in good condition with God, people and be commited to God more in word and in work because the day of your watchman and your punishment comes-now is the hour of our repentance and preparedness. <b>How Prepared Are You?</b></i>"<br />
<br />
This section on the surface looks fine. It points to Jesus being the one who strengthens us and does encourage true repentance among the Christian ranks. The only time where reconciling your marriage would not be possible is if you remarry and the second (and subsequent other) person you married dies and you cannot remarry your previous spouse (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). The previous spouse is off limits in light of adultery being committed. The thing to be wary of is any group can claim grace but what matters is their practice. Even Rome and the Mormons speak of grace yet that's different. Maybe I could be wrong about HOREMOW but it's worth examining their teaching according to the scriptures. That's not to say Lordship Salvation is heretical (It's not) but it's worth being on the look out for someone who maybe teaching an unrighteous doctrine of works salvation.<br />
<br />
"<i>We should be prepared by:-</i><br />
<i>1. Always have our hearts circumcised and purified.</i><br />
<i>2. We must be consecrated and re-dedicated to God on daily basis. Always cross-checking our living and in our daily communication with God to see if their is any where we have erred wrongly and need for quick repentance and ask God for mercy.</i><br />
<i>3. Live as if there is no tomorrow for you, that now is the only time you have before rapture.</i><br />
<i>4. Always have good relationship with people. Don't keep malice or bitterness.</i><br />
<i>5. Always have eternity in view</i><br />
<i>6. Always live an upright life and be focused for eternity.</i><br />
<i>7 Always have a passion for lost souls for this is the purpose of our calling Mt 28 vs 19-20, Lk. 2 v 49, John 9 v 1</i>4<br />
<br />
<i>The rat-race of wealth and riches in their present age will soon pass away, considering the ungodly practices in this age, the corruption in hight places, in everywhere and the negative effects of advancement in technology, the rate of evil, hardship encounter all over the world, a true believer must try to live a transparent and holy life before all- both in secret and in the open Mt. 5v16</i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Let use be wise in our daily preparation for rapture so that, that day will not meet us unaware. Beware of the Lord's wrath Isaiah 13v9. THe time is about to clock 12 midnight-The fulfillment of the hour. Run fast for Jesus is already at the door. How prepared are you?</b></i>"<br />
<br />
The 7 points above are not terrible points and the point on living a holy and transparent life are certainly to be commended but again I advise caution as the group could be seen as works salvationists. As for the rapture, it is not going to catch true believers unaware or generally speaking the return of Jesus to earth.<br />
<br />
See my article on the rapture here: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-rapture-when-it-will-occur.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-rapture-when-it-will-occur.html</a><br />
<br />
The rapture itself is not an event that is imminent, it's soon. As for the thief in the night text, Jesus only will catch individuals unaware if they are not awake and following Christ. Those committed to Jesus will not be caught out, for they are watching sober and alert. We should expect Jesus return in our lifetime but we should never interpret that as he can come any minute because the apostle Paul never said such and Jesus himself never made that claim either. The tribulation as I mention in the article above MUST occur before the rapture has taken place.<br />
<br />
As David Pawson once said "<b>It is the delay that tests if you're ready, not if you think he is coming next Tuesday.</b>" What we do in the time before his return is what matters, whether we are serving him continually or not.<br />
<br />
The leaflet is a mixed bag and clarification on what it believes in the book as well or instead a link that redirects us to their creeds and confessions. Some confusion in the small leaflet would lead to misunderstanding. What they believe does need clarification. It may not be the intent of the leaflet to mislead and misdirect but with false teachers running around, we must remain vigilant.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism. Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-57371081778196037452018-10-28T11:21:00.000-07:002018-10-28T11:23:11.468-07:00Three Texts: What do they mean? Response to Sophiee SaguyThere were three texts brought to me by Sophiee Saguy in a brief conversation had on Rabbi Eli Cohen's Facebook page. I want to take a look at the texts and see what they say. Are they statements of evil excused by Christians or something else?<br />
<br />
Matthew 23:33 You snakes, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell?<br /><br />
Jesus' words were a condemnation of the Pharisees. It was their responsiblity to lead the people of Israel in the right direction to worship God, but they not doing so. In fact, their efforts (not all Pharisees to clarify) were in vain and they were not leading the people properly. There is more to say about the context of Matthew 23 which can be found here: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-pharisees-look-at-woes-matthew-23.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-pharisees-look-at-woes-matthew-23.html </a><br />
<br />
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I have come to send peace to the world. I come not to send peace, but the sword.<br />
<br />
Here is what Jesus said for the full context said:<br />"<b>34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn<br /><br />“‘a man against his father,<br /> a daughter against her mother,<br />a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—<br />36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]<br /><br />37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.</b>"<br /><br />In the actual context of Matthew 10:34-39 and (same applies to Luke 12:49-53), Jesus is speaking about a metaphorical sword of division within families that will occur if someone chooses to follow him. He is saying in essence if you don't love me more than your family, don't follow me because by doing so you will have opposition from your family and your friends.<br />
<br />
Even your co-workers in work or those who claim Jesus' name but don't obey him will also come after an individual should they continue their faith in Jesus.<br />
<br />John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life. But he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life, but shall suffer the everlasting wrath of God.<br />
<br />
Let us take a look:<br />
"<b>John 3:31 The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33 Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[i] gives the Spirit without limit. 35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.</b>" <br />
The statement itself isn't evil, but a warning. That those who refuse the follow Jesus and believe in his testimony, whether they be Jew or Gentile, will not have eternal life. <br />
<br />
None of the statements of the New Testament above are evil, nor excused as such.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism. Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-12480613010056144962018-10-05T12:07:00.000-07:002018-10-05T12:07:39.778-07:00Was Judas saved?I had said the following in an article a few years ago:<br />
<br />
"<b>The subject of Judas may need another paper. I would need to think on this topic. But I'll gladly comment on the verses below regarding him.</b>" <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2015/01/comments-on-romans-8-and-other-texts.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2015/01/comments-on-romans-8-and-other-texts.html</a><br />
<br />
The context was to look at certain texts that had been brought to me by Sam Shamoun. There was no malice involved from either party, just a look the texts presented. I gave my comments in the paper above but the point of Judas isn't a point I have dwelt on that much.<br />
<br />
It's one elephant in the room that shouldn't really be ignored, was Judas saved? Was a born again believer that fell away or was he someone who merely gave intellectual assent to? Was Judas falling a way a failure on Jesus or the Father's part? (Obviously not on that particular point).<br />
<br />
Obviously and admittedly, he wasn't born again.<br />
<br />
Let's first look at John 12:1-8<br />
"<b>12:1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.<br /><br />4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.<br /><br />7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”</b>"<br />
<br />
We see here that Judas claimed that the money could have been given to the poor. What we have here is what we would call in the modern age a virtue signaller, saying something but not really having a proper conviction. Judas had no actual concern for the poor, this was merely a cover for the fact that Judas helped himself to the money. Jesus knew that Judas would do this, he knew what was in the hearts of men (John 2:24). John writing this as a historian and the fact he is listed on several occasions at "the disciple whom Jesus loved". The apostles didn't know one of them was going to betray Jesus, even wondering who it was going to be, the reveal taking place at The Lord's Supper. <br />
<br />
Even before that, there is a clear indication that the devil prompted Judas to betray Jesus. We obviously know this happened as again, John is writing this as history, telling us what happened. <br />
<br />
Could any one of the apostles betrayed Jesus, it is a possiblity.
Obviously we are on the other side of the New Testament so we know who
was going to betray Jesus but only he and the betrayer knew what was
going to happen, the other disciples did not. They didn't know who would betray them in their midst, because anyone can talk the talk and not walk the walk.<br />
<br />
As said in the article posted above, You can technically argue that those who left never believed to begin with but how do you deal with someone who has been in Christ for years, regenerated and born again and falls away? To say there is no possibility of falling away renders the warnings vacuous and pointless.<br />
<br />
The case of Judas doesn't set a precedent that every single person who falls away was never saved to begin with. I am also aware you can have someone who is rich in theology but dead in works, they say the right things but never live it out. They could be pharisees covering their evil or even trying to live the best lives they can without even giving God honour, thanks or even love.<br />
<br />
Again this would ignore the basic warnings of scripture telling us to stay firm and hold to Christ and if we choose to abandon him, we will be cut off, even if we say all the right things and do what is right.<br />
<br />
Judas is one case of "Oh he was never saved to begin with" but that doesn't answer or address the warnings in the Bible directed to Christians, not unbelievers but Christians.<br />
<br />
Paul knew the warnings he gave would apply to the congregations he addressed, like the Corinthians for instance:<br />
"<b>1 Corinthians 10:1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.<br /><br />6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” 8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9 We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.<br /><br />11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. 12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 13 No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.</b>"<br />
<br />
Vigilance is something to always hold onto, taking care not to do the same evil things that the Israelites did in the Old Testament and sadly the church itself has repeated the same mistakes as Israel albeit in different ways to how we think.<br />
<br />
Granted others can point out if you are truly saved, you'll persevere to the end (At least that perspective preaches holy living) but it is interesting to wonder how they would reconcile that with the warnings of scripture as mentioned above.<br />
<br />
So was Judas saved? Short answer, no.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-61546524692140420402018-08-28T12:09:00.000-07:002018-08-28T12:09:02.655-07:00The Pharisees: A look at the woes Matthew 23The article shall be taking a look at the woes that Jesus calls upon the Pharisees and comment on them. Let us look. Matthew 23:1-12 shall not be looked at here extensively right now but will be quoted. Matthew 23:29-36 Lord Willing I need to look into those before making comments.<br />
<br />
"<b>23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi[b] by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.[c] 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.</b>"<br />
<br />
<br />
This sets the stage for what Jesus will say next as he tells his disciples to listen to the Pharisees, evening obeying them despite their actions speaking to the contrary.<br /><br />"<b>13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.[d] 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell[e] as yourselves.</b>"<br />
<br />
A serious charge. The Pharisees themselves had a form of godliness but denied it's power, even (without realising) that they were shutting people off from the true God despite their introduction to them, even making them just as bad if not worse as they, legalistic and dead with no true relationship with YHWH cultivated.<br />
<br />
<br />"<b>16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.</b>"<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
You may remember from Matthew 5 what Jesus said about vows.<br />
"<b>33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]</b>"<br />
<br />
Jesus isn't prohibiting vows period, if he did, Paul would stand condemned for his Nazarite vows. What Jesus condemned was a lack of truthfulness. When he said "Let your yes be yes and your no be no", he was in effect saying to quote the words of David Pawson "Always mean what you say." Jesus is emphasising truthness period rather than using a vow to validate your words (which includes saying "Honestly" as well). The Pharisees claimed that certain vows were not binding depending on circumstances (only true if it's a father nulling the vow of his daughter when he hears of it on the same day as found in Numbers 30:5.) Jesus is saying regarding the vows "It's inconsequential what you swear by and regardless of it's location, every vow you make God expects you to be bound to it".<br />
<br />
Every vow made in the sight of God is to be sacred, kept to the letter. See my article on vows and oaths for more information: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2015/04/vows-thoughts-and-reflections.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2015/04/vows-thoughts-and-reflections.html</a><br />
<br />
"<b>23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!</b>"<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Putting aside whether or not Gentiles are to tithe (Spoilers, they don't: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/10/are-christians-required-to-tithe.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/10/are-christians-required-to-tithe.html</a>), Jesus himself wasn't against the practice of tithing, if anything that was commendable that the Pharisees were diligent in that. This wasn't the problem, neglecting the more important pressing matters was the problem, namely not dispensing proper justice to the wicked, not granting mercy to the lowest people or even faithfulness, whether it be God, their spouse or the people. Yes of course their tithing was important but it was inconsequential when the needs of the many are neglected. It is easy to focus on the small details in our lives (What movies can we watch? What drinks can we drink? What clothes can we wear etc.) to the point where the large concerns are neglected (public school education, covetousess, abominations of the political far left and far right etc.). A proper balance is needed.<br />
<br />"<b>25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.</b>" <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />"<b>27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.</b>"<br />
<br />
These two go hand in hand as they address the same issue, namely being unclean on the inside. Again, like tithing, commendable to keep oneself clean on the outside, but what good is that if you are unclean, full of evil and wickedness of all kinds. Jesus had earlier in Matthew 15 condemned the Pharisees for binding the people to the traditions of man as God given commands (Traditions that were either harmless or contradictory to God's word).<br />
<br />
"<b>Matthew 15:10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”<br /><br />12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”<br /><br />13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[d] If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”<br /><br />15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”<br /><br />16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”</b>"<br />
<br />
The emphasis that the Pharisees placed both in Matthew 15 and in Matthew 23 was on the outward and external aspects of righteousness, neglecting the sanctification of the inward man, thoughts of purity was well as righteous actions and words. The whole man had to be involved with the worship of YHWH, complete inward submission to his word which was be reflected outwardly. Start and inward change first was the principle, then the outside of yourself will follow. Like the previous section, priority is the key. Keith Thompson (though he doesn't mention the Pharisees explicitly) made an interesting comment in his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRI8nLuwn-A">documentary on Paul</a> that "it is a human tendency to want to appear moral good in religious settings". see position 13:46-15:18 for the context. His comment highlights a very important point, Paul recognised his need for grace to strive for holiness despite his exhortations, revealing a very different attitude to what the Pharisees had in comparison.<br />
<br />
Are these inditements are an unfair assessment of the Pharisees? No, The New Testament does recognise that there were Pharisees who did have a love for God and earnestly sought to please him. Indeed, the first followers who were Jews did have Pharisees among them, as they played a part in the Acts 15 council in Jerusalem.<br />
<br />
I have responded to an article on 1000 Verses pertaining to the Pharisees so there is more information on that: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/01/comments-on-pharisees.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/01/comments-on-pharisees.html</a><br />
<br />
It is easy to get carried away with the idea that ALL the Pharisees were condemned whereas a matter of fact, there were some who repented, possibly Nicodemus and certainly Joseph of Arimathea.<br />
<br />
Hope this article has been a blessing, thanks for reading.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-33856689490687665012018-07-17T14:11:00.005-07:002018-07-17T14:12:25.596-07:00God's Divine Judgement: Children slain.I came across a Facebook post by a Muslim trying to condemn the Bible for the killing of children and say the Quran is more noble book because it condemns the killing of children and essentially condemning the Bible for child killing. Well, let's see what the Bible says.<br />
<br />
Revelation 2:23 was quoted but let us see what the context is:<br />
"<b>18 “To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:<br /><br />These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.<br /><br />20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.<br /><br />24 Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets, ‘I will not impose any other burden on you, 25 except to hold on to what you have until I come.’<br /><br />26 To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations— 27 that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’[b]—just as I have received authority from my Father. 28 I will also give that one the morning star. 29 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.</b>"<br />
<br />
Whether this is a person called Jezebel or someone who carries the character of Jezebel is debatable. Regardless, the punishment is perfectly just here. What better way to punish a wicked woman than robbing her of her children? Especially when the deceiving of the church and bringing them into sexual immorality is something that Jesus finds this detestable.<br />
<br />
"<b>31 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”<br /><br />"3 So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.” 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.<br /><br />7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.<br /><br />13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.<br /><br />15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.</b>"<br />
<br />
The Midianite women thanks to Balaam had enticed the Israelites into sin and wickedness but not all women were involved in the sexual enticement. As a result, when the Israelites attacked the Midianites, YHWH dispensed his grace to the Midianite women who did not entice the Israelites by sparing their lives.<br />
<br />
"<b>15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”</b>"<br />
<br />
This is just venegance on the Amalekites for their ruthless attack on the Israelites. A fair and just punishment on a wicked nation, deserved and right. Where's the problem?<br />
<br />
"<b>Ezekiel 9:5 As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.</b>"<br />
<br />
Reading the entire context and even going back to chapter 8, what you have are IDOLATERS who are rightly being slain, including children who won't have the incentive to repent of their sins because they will grow up learning the wickedness of their parents. God doesn't show an unrepentant sinner mercy and that would not exclude children who are unrepentant themselves.<br />
<br />
"<b>Genesis 19:24-25<br /><br />New International Version<br />Then
the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the
LORD out of the heavens.; Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire
plain, destroying all those living in the cities--and also the
vegetation in the land.</b>"" <br />
<br />
The same applies here to Sodom and Gomorrah, the people of those towns had no intention of repenting and the children, like in Exekiel 9, would have continued in the wickedness of their parents. <br />
<br />
"<b>Lamentations 2:21 <br />“Young and old lie together<br /> in the dust of the streets;<br />my young men and young women<br /> have fallen by the sword.<br />You have slain them in the day of your anger;<br /> you have slaughtered them without pity.</b>" <br />
<br />
Once again a passage of judgement. It is describing what God has done to Israel in light of the fact that the people have not repented and returned to him. It's a horrific sight but God has done to the people exaclty what they deserve? Again, Where is the problem with God bringing his wrath upon here? The children are suffering and dying because of the idolatry and immorality of Israel. Doesn't God have the right to bring judgement upong those who deserve it?<br />
<br />
The same applies to the passages below, Hosea speaks about the Northern Kingdom of Israel, also known as Ephraim, specifically mentioning Samaria while Nahum is referring to the Assyrians.<br />
"<b>Hosea 13:16<br />King James Bible<br />Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Nahum 3:5, 3:10</b><br />
<b>New International Version<br />5 "I am against you," declares the LORD Almighty. "I will lift your skirts over your face. I will show the nations your nakedness and the kingdoms your shame.<br />10 Yet she was taken captive and went into exile. Her infants were dashed to pieces at every street corner. Lots were cast for her nobles, and all her great men were put in chains.</b>"<br />
<br />
Again I ask, Doesn't God have the right to bring judgement upong those who deserve it?<br />
<br />
"<b>Ezekiel 5:9-10<br /><br />New International Version<br />Because of all your detestable idols, I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again. Therefore in your midst parents will eat their children, and children will eat their parents. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds.</b>"<br />
<br />
An example in the Bible of God handing over individuals to wickedness and evil because of their unrepenant hearts. Cannabalism is one of the evils commited by individuals that have been given over to a reprobate mind. It is also desperation as the people are low on food and about to starve but rather than seek God and repent, they eat their children to survive. Horrid yes, but this is what happened.<br />
<br />
"<b>Genesis 19:24-25<br /><br />New International Version<br />Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens.; Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land.</b>"<br />
<br />
A just act, the people were evil and immoral as explained before. God knew these people would repent so he destroyed them.<br />
<br />
"<b>Deuteronomy 32:25 <br /> New International Version<br /> In the street the
sword will make them childless; in their homes terror will reign. The
young men and young women will perish, the infants and those with gray
hair.</b>"<br />
<br />
This is part of the song of Moses. Can you explain one explain what the problem is with the passage here? I am not seeing anything that is close to God murdering children (even though God has the right to take the life of the creation he has made.) Let's take a look back in the previous chapter to see why this song, including verse 25 is present:<br />
<br />
"<b>Deuteronomy 31:15 Then the Lord appeared at the tent in a pillar of
cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the tent. 16 And the
Lord said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and
these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the
land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I
made with them. 17 And in that day I will become angry with them and
forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed.
Many disasters and calamities will come on them, and in that day they
will ask, ‘Have not these disasters come on us because our God is not
with us?’ 18 And I will certainly hide my face in that day because of
all their wickedness in turning to other gods.<br /><br />19 “Now write down
this song and teach it to the Israelites and have them sing it, so that
it may be a witness for me against them. 20 When I have brought them
into the land flowing with milk and honey, the land I promised on oath
to their ancestors, and when they eat their fill and thrive, they will
turn to other gods and worship them, rejecting me and breaking my
covenant. 21 And when many disasters and calamities come on them, this
song will testify against them, because it will not be forgotten by
their descendants. I know what they are disposed to do, even before I
bring them into the land I promised them on oath.” 22 So Moses wrote
down this song that day and taught it to the Israelites.</b>"<br />
<br />
In Chapter 31 of Deuteronomy, Moses is commanded to write the song as a witness against Israel, because God knows that when Israel settle in the land and get comfortable, they shall rebel, thus bringing disaster upon themselves. The Israelites will have no excuse in their rebellion.<br />
<br />
"<b>Joshua 10:32-35<br />New International Version<br />The LORD gave Lachish into Israel's hands, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.</b>"<br />
<br />
<br />
Putting aside the debate as to whether or not they are civilian towns or military strongholds, the judgement on children and their parents are perfectly justified, in light of what I had mentioned previously about Sodom and Gomorrah.<br />
<br />
If they were military strongholds, any point of the Israelites killing all, young and old, women and children are merely points denoting a decisive war victory. It was common rhetoric used by Israel and pagans alike. The exact words may not be here the principle applies if these were military strongholds.<br />
<br />
If however they were regular villages, it still doesn't condemn God for wiping out the children. <br />
<br />
Joshua by God's mighty hand was eliminating five towns in particular and their kings. Just judgement being brought upon a wicked and rebellious people. Individuals namely who had forfeited their right to live the land.<br />
<br />
"<b>Deuteronomy 13:13-19</b><br />
<b>Kill the entire town (including women, infants and children) if one person worships another god</b>"<br />
<br />
The destruction of that town is perfectly justified, especially if the town allows the wickedness to flourish and the Israelites do nothing about it. If any person, including a relative leads people astray, the town is to be destroyed as the town itself has been corrupted by Israelites that have turned away from YHWH, telling people to follow the false gods of that nations.<br />
<br />
Hope this article has been a help to you.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism. Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-52870946422172735112018-07-08T11:24:00.002-07:002018-07-08T11:24:10.525-07:00Brainwashed Children 2: Drag Queens Kids?I have commented on how vile brainwashing children into normalising sexual deviancy is so firstly read the comments I have made on the picture itself (Which no longer exists): <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2016/03/brainwashed-children-what-does-is-it.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2016/03/brainwashed-children-what-does-is-it.html</a><br />
<br />
James Allsup, a YouTube commentator watched a video the SJW YouTube channel known as Mic and commented on how vile the video itself was, namely a young boy being allowed to dress as a drag queen and was in a video in 2015 dancing in the street.... Yes that happened. What Allsup had to say about the morally repugnant degenracy the child was allowed to engage in was very important and highlights why parents should not pander to their children to do what ever they want. Check his response here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmbbneeD5Hw&t=1s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmbbneeD5Hw&t=1s</a><br />
<br />
It's actually cruel and manipulative that Mic would consider interviewing the child and using him as a liscence to say what he is doing is ok. It's a common tactic by the left to use children as a means of immunising themselves from criticism. Remember David Hogg, I remember Ben Shapiro pointing the survivors of the shooting, David Hogg included for the following:<br />
<br />
"The MSNBC panel says that Laura Ingram is losing advertisers over her casual cruelty, right? MSNBC is jumping on this because MSNBC is a Fox News competitor. This is all political, to pretend this is not political is to ignore reality obviously. What the media have done and they have been doing this since the shooting and I object to it, what they've done is taken these kids who really don't know necessarily anything about gun control, they haven't evidenced tremendous knowledge about the issue and they are using them as stand ins for for their opinion and then if those kids opinions are attacked the media jumps out in front and says Hey, how dare you attack these kids." The video can be found here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k7IKnzZeK0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k7IKnzZeK0</a><br />
<br />
Not only this but Gavin Mcinnes commented on a video where a group of young Native Americans being interviewed. One of the things that they were commenting on was whether or not the term redskin was racist or not as one example (Mcinnes gives evidence that redskin is not racist). He even tells the liberals "Stop poisoning these children and trying to make them into your liberal pets." The video you can find here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVT3oe9sXjY&t=791s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVT3oe9sXjY&t=791s</a><br />
<br />
To use a child as a means of forwarding a political or ideological agenda in order to immunise yourself against criticism is flat out disingeniuous and despicable.<br />
<br />
This is what you have with the child in the video Allsup responded to, a child who has clearly been manipulated by his mother into thinking that somehow being a drag queen is the right and good thing to do. It should upset you when a child is treated this way and it's better for the parents of the kid to have a milestone tied around their neck rather than go to hell for what they have done. Imprisonment is definitely an option for the parents who do something so vile like this, we should not be normalising sin for a child and parents must ensure that children to not behave this way.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism. Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-88182737849138024432018-04-10T15:37:00.003-07:002018-05-04T23:35:23.116-07:00Black Panther: An SJW Nightmare?Black Panther is a Marvel comic character created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in July of 1966, first appearing in Fantastic Four #52. Much like other Marvel films, Black Panther has been in development for quite some time and had been released in February 2018. A month has passed since it's release and it has grossed $1 billion worldwide and is in the number 5 spot of highest domestic opening weekend.<br />
<br />
With Avengers: Infinity War just over the horizon, Black Panther is coming close to the end of it's run theatrically.<br />
<br />
There have been politics surrounding the movie, however unlike Sony Pictures with Ghostbusters, neither Marvel Studios, nor Ryan Coogler even issued a political statement slamming detractors of the movie as far to my knowledge (If however I am wrong, I will correct that Lord Willing in this paper as an additional note).<br />
<br />
I won't give my thoughts on the movie entirely here but I will say while not as good as Captain America: Civil War and Doctor Strange, Black Panther certainly is in the top three best Phase 3 moves of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.<br />
<br />
This article is more of a look at the identity politics surrounding it as well as the themes and points the movie actually makes.<br />
<br />
<u>No Whites Allowed Identity Politics</u><br />
If you were to replace Whites with Blacks, people would be demanding that the person in question would be removed from their job and prosecuted, dragging their name through the dirt but for some reason, no outrage when racist individuals, tell white people to let people of colour see the movie first and then whites can see the movie afterwards.<br />
<br />
This is obscene. The melanin (the stuff that determines your skin colour) in your skin doesn't have a deciding factor in whether or not to see the movie first. There are even white people who said that we should wait for people of colour to see it first. Can you imagine the backlash if people for Captain America: The First Avenger said No Blacks Allowed, there would be outraged protests but when people start saying the same thing regarding Black Panther, silence. Total hypocrisy and shows us the irony of leftists (not all) that they are the most racist and bigoted people of all.<br />
<br />
I saw the movie on the 13th of Febuary 2018, which was the earliest screening for the UK, before the United States even saw a release. The fact Marvel Studios, specifically Kevin Feige, the architect of the MCU and head of Marvel Studios, and Ryan Coogler, the director and co-writer of Black Panther, have never issued a statement regarding the movie's detractors speaks volumes. I don't know their political stance but they seem quite tolerant, inclusive and the things the left go on about.<br />
<br />
<u>Sabotage of Rotten Tomatoes</u><br />
For Christians not in the know, Rotten Tomatoes is a website that gathers reviews from critics and using those reviews, calculates a numerical rating, it goes up if a positive review is posted and goes down if a negative review is posted.<br />
<br />
Individuals were deliberately trashing the movie to tamper with the Rotten Tomatoes rating days before the movie has been released and an individual had given rules for white people to sit in the theatre at the back, not to see it in the opening weekend letting people of colour see it first and post a positive review on Rotten Tomatoes before seeing the movie? (All said by a white man by the way).<br />
What a cancerous atmosphere identity politics have created.<br />
<br />
Kevin Feige's political stance I am not sure, it could be centre left but at least he isn't engaging in this silliness and attacking people for not praising his movies.<br />
<br />
Ryan Coogler (himself black) doesn't seem to be criticising people for disliking or liking the movie.<br />
Just watch Black Panther, regardless of ethnicity, it doesn't define what time you may go to the cinema for any movie, it's open to everyone and the same would also apply to home media.<br />
<br />
<u>Identifying with a particular character based on race</u><br />
I understand the issues in Hollywood in the past, some have complained about blackface and yellowface which is understable, but it annoys me when individuals say they identify or are pleased when a child can identify with a character and not have to dress up as an Asian or Black version of that character (I honestly don't care as a youth leader I knew years ago dressed up as Rey 2 or 3 years ago and didn't make a statement about her being an Asian Rey, she just dressed up as Rey and that was it).<br />
<br />
If you are talking about films in a time where there was anti-Asian sentiments, the points would hold weight, but that has passed.<br />
<br />
Should a child identify with a character because of gender and race? Or should they identify with a character because of the struggles the individual goes through. I could understand the struggles of T'Challa, the Black Panther in the film and how he ticks and I don't have as high of a melanin count as he does. It's so superficial and it reminds me of people of the comments about Meghan Markle, that some people now have someone to identify with in the modern age (i.e, someone who is black). Maybe what one should be doing is focusing on her character and even her achievement. Who is she as an individual is what counts.<br />
<br />
God is not interested in the melanin count of someone's skin, unlike us, he is not predjudiced and will judge man accordingly. Jesus is not going to say to an individual that due to their skin colour on Judgement Day that they shall be sent to hell or allowed to enter heaven, That isn't how he judges someone. Did Jesus condemn the Phonecian because she was not a Jew, or did he commend her for her faith? Did Philip say that black people were not entitled to the Gospel or did he like Jesus commanded, start making disciples of all nations, including the blacks? <br />
The melanin count of a human is inconsequential to the merit of a human being in the sight of God, what matters is whether he is in Christ or not.<br />
<u><br />Is Black Panther an expose on the left?</u><br />
Interpretation of a film is subjective, so I'd advise people to see Black Panther for themselves and come to their own conclusion on the matter. But the thing I believe I have noticed. I have seen Black Panther twice and I do think that there is a case you can make is that this movie actually destroys the left's false narratives. One point of theirs is a bit of a grey area but we'll get to that.<br />
<br />
Firstly, T'Challa becomes the king of his native Wakanda, a nation that is highly advanced, with amazing technology through the usage of an metal from space called, vibranium (which is also what Captain America's shield is made of, but I digress). Vibranium has multiple usages, for medical purposes, fuel, electricity etc.<br />
<br />
The film has an interesting contrast between blacks raised in Africa, specifically Wakanda and that of African Americans in the West.<br />
<br />
Admittedly I still think Black Panther is a good movie but the politics surrounding it (no fault of Ryan Coogler or Marvel Studios) is cancer.<br />
<br />
Just seeing a headlines title is enough to turn me off reading like "white people are the side kick in Black Panther and should shut up." It's ridiculous.<br />
<br />
Here's the thing, The Wakandans have have been isolated in the film for years and it's a big deal when Everett Ross is brought into Wakanda and wonder if it is a good idea. W'Kabi even states if they let refugees in, they bring their problems with them.<br />
<br />
They have a right to be concerned about their borders. How disastrous would it be if murderers, sex offenders, benefit scroungers etc were let into Wakanda potentially? Granted a place like Wakanda is unrealistic, it still raises a concern protecting one's borders, even if Wakanda is extreme in that regard. Still, even they seem to recognise open borders and letting any immigrant into the country can only lead to disaster.<br />
<br />
Could it be a subtle condemnation of closing the border and we should be open? Possibly. Watch the film for yourself and make a judgement regarding the ending of the film.<br />
Ross saves Nakia (T'Challa's ex-lover) from being killed by a grenade but gets hurt badly and has to be brought to Wakanda to be saved. Ross took a piece of shrapnel for Nakia... So much for the narrative all white people are racist.<br />
<br />
In return, Shuri, T'Challa's sister fixes Ross's back and even allows him later on to use a Wakandan simulator to pilot a ship to stop the vibranium from being shipped out of the country.<br />
No predjudice from either Ross nor the Wakandans is present toward each other. What does that tell you about them?<br />
<br />
Then you have Erik Killmonger, himself a Wakandan raised in America believing himself to be oppressed. Even his final line of dialogue reflects this. He is a man who refuses to move past the trauma in his life and remain a victim.<br />
<br />
He also sought to use the vibranium to conquer the earth and free who he sees as the oppressed, making Wakanda an empire to rule over others.<br />
<br />
Killmonger hates T'Challa's bloodline because T'Chaka killed N'Jobu, who himself witnessed the drugs and crime in black neighborhoods believing that if they had weapons from Wakanda they could defend themselves against their oppressors, or so he claims. Judge the film for yourself.<br />
<br />
And yet the SJW parasites say Stan Lee's cameo is racist? Ignoring the fact either due to ignorance or deception Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were themselves the creators of the Black Panther character.<br />
I still like the movie despite the identity politics of the cancerous racist scum who seek to politise a movie that can be judged simply on the merits of Ryan Coogler's direction, his and Joe Robert Cole's writing and the cast's performances in the film, rather than making a political statement of leftist ideology that seeks to destroy and disunify people rather than build them up and bring them together.<br />
<br />
The mere fact that Voddie Baucham exists as he does now, ie a great minister of Christ refutes the idea that black people cannot overcome problems because of systematic oppression of black people from whites, even though institutionalised racism and slavery were abolished years ago at two varying points in history. Despite his background, Jesus Christ in his mercy came to Voddie Baucham and used him mightly, even to this day.<br />
<br />
<u>Diversity</u><br />
When this word is used by the left, it doesn't mean diversity of thought, but diversity based on something irrelevant as race or sex.<br />
<br />
Anyone who uses diversity as a code word or buzz word to mean anti-white which is not the most common definition these days, they are engaging in racism and bigotry. There is also the usage of the phrase "check your privilege" which is designed to shut down any meaningful conversation and it is not an argument and doesn't valid anyone's position more than mine.<br />
<br />
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and Black Panther are films that have a predominantly Asian and Black casts, why? Because they are either the majority or entire population of their settings. So of course in most Hollywood films the cast are mostly white.<br />
<br />
Yet Black Panther is called a win for diversity because 90% are black? How? I like the cast yes, they all do a great job but their skin colour has nothing to do with it. Same with Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Civil War.<br />
<br />
It is also worth noting that James Earl Jones, known as the voice of Darth Vader and Mufasa respectively was not chosen because of his skin colour, a fact he made clear when he said Lucasfilm wanted a darker voice in terms of timbre, not ethnicity.<br />
<br />
Avery Brooks of Deep Space Nine fame who was the character Captain Benjamin Sisko, has said that he didn't wake up to play a brown captain, just a captain and yet Star Trek Discovery highlights that their main character is a black woman named Michael (No I am not kidding and I prefer to call her Mikaela or Michelle.)<br />
<br />
Not picking on any race just saying. There are talented actors like Idris Elba, Michael B Jordan, Daniel Kaluuya, Lupita Nyong'o, Zoe Saldana and many more I could list but I don't judge them good or bad actors or actresses based on race.<br />
<br />
People just can't let a franchise be can they? There must always be an objection against a program because "RACIST!!!" Or "WHITEWASHING!!!" And praising something because there are no white males (except for gay white males because diversity).<br />
<br />
All this talk of diversity is just a cover for subtle racism, sexism and bigotry with the most intelligence insulting double standards and disgusting comments.<br />
Ironic how the ones who are against racism and sexism are the ones projecting their bigotry onto others.<br />
<br />
<u>Conclusion</u><br />
My advice for any Christian, watch Black Panther for yourself , make your own judgement and see if what I say holds merit.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-15674457944949201432018-02-04T08:23:00.001-08:002018-02-04T08:23:47.855-08:00Potiphar's Wife and False rape allegationsI have written a paper previously on the subject of false witnessing and what it is so check that article out first before you continue reading this one, as other passages have been covered and retroactively, the points also apply to what I am going to write here: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/false-witnessing-what-is-it.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/false-witnessing-what-is-it.html</a><br />
<br />
Sexual Abuse Allegations have been around for many years, it even existed in holy scripture, Joseph himself was subject to a false rape claim, namely by Potiphar's Wife in Genesis 39, to which we need the context:<br />
<br />
"<b>39 Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, had bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there. 2 The Lord was with Joseph, and he became a successful man, and he was in the house of his Egyptian master. 3 His master saw that the Lord was with him and that the Lord caused all that he did to succeed in his hands. 4 So Joseph found favor in his sight and attended him, and he made him overseer of his house and put him in charge of all that he had. 5 From the time that he made him overseer in his house and over all that he had, the Lord blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; the blessing of the Lord was on all that he had, in house and field. 6 So he left all that he had in Joseph's charge, and because of him he had no concern about anything but the food he ate.</b>"<br />
<br />
Very clear here, Joseph through his hard work by the grace of God was so trustworthy and reliable that Potiphar put him in charge of his own household. This definitely speaks to Christians regarding work ethic but that's another issue.<br />
<br />
Then we move on to Potiphar's wife herself.<br />
<br />
"<b>Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. 7 And after a time his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, “Lie with me.” 8 But he refused and said to his master's wife, “Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. 9 He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” 10 And as she spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not listen to her, to lie beside her or to be with her.<br /><br />11 But one day, when he went into the house to do his work and none of the men of the house was there in the house, 12 she caught him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me.” But he left his garment in her hand and fled and got out of the house. 13 And as soon as she saw that he had left his garment in her hand and had fled out of the house, 14 she called to the men of her household and said to them, “See, he has brought among us a Hebrew to laugh at us. He came in to me to lie with me, and I cried out with a loud voice. 15 And as soon as he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried out, he left his garment beside me and fled and got out of the house.” 16 Then she laid up his garment by her until his master came home, 17 and she told him the same story, saying, “The Hebrew servant, whom you have brought among us, came in to me to laugh at me. 18 But as soon as I lifted up my voice and cried, he left his garment beside me and fled out of the house.”</b>"<br />
<br />
There is no denying she did fall in love (If you want to use that term), but that doesn't make it right. She advances on Joseph to which rightly he says "We are not married, your loyalty should be to your husband, I cannot do this, it's a sin against God and your master has trusted me with his household to run it, I cannot betray his trust like that". Of course she doesn't take that too well and tries to grab him, Joseph flees away and of course, she falsely accuses him of sexual assault, telling the story to the men of the household and her husband the same story.<br />
<br />
"<b>19 As soon as his master heard the words that his wife spoke to him, “This is the way your servant treated me,” his anger was kindled. 20 And Joseph's master took him and put him into the prison, the place where the king's prisoners were confined, and he was there in prison. 21 But the Lord was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love and gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison. 22 And the keeper of the prison put Joseph in charge of all the prisoners who were in the prison. Whatever was done there, he was the one who did it. 23 The keeper of the prison paid no attention to anything that was in Joseph's charge, because the Lord was with him. And whatever he did, the Lord made it succeed.</b>"<br />
<br />
The end result was Joseph was placed in prison. What God did to compell the keeper to put Joseph in charge of the prison, we don't know, but nevertheless we still get an insight into Joseph as a man of God.<br />
<br />
Now let me be very clear, a sexual abuse allegation is a very serious charge. It is not to be made lightly and it's not be made out of spite. Accusing an innocent man (or even an innocent woman) of rape or sexual assualt or vile practice toward you or anyone else will ruin that person's life, whether it be through business termination, being placed on the sex offenders registry or in prison (both can happen), it is a wicked and vile thing to do.<br />
<br />
Not only does it ruin the life of an innocent person, it also destroys true victims of sexual assault confidence that their testimony will be believed. How many are now afraid to speak out because of this? Countless.<br />
<br />
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 cases where the innocent have been cleared and their accuser is the one imprisoned instead.<br />
<br />
What makes this wicked and evil these false allegations is that as I have said before, 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". I am not kidding, there are people who think this way.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. Putting aside homosexuality being an abomination to God, even in those kinds of relationships, a false allegation is still bad.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Now, having said all of this, there are genuine allegations out there. Harvey Weinstein of the Weinsten Company himself had allegations brought against him, we all know what happened after that and it was terrible what he did and other allegations were brought to light, some true and some false.<br />
<br />
It is right to punish wicked individuals guilty of this kind of deviancy but that doesn't change the fact that if a person is innocent, They should tested before punishment and if there is evidence (not false evidence but true evidence) rather than a "he said, she said" account, proving them innocent of charges, they should go free (as long as they are actually not guilty of course), but if they are guilty after a thorough investigation, punishment may be enacted.<br />
<br />
Everyone does have the right to a fair trial and believing the victim or supposed victim right away without considering the evidence is not how to conduct justice. We have to have Equal Weights and Even Measures, punishing the guilty and upholding the innocent.<br />
<br />
<u>Why didn't you say anything?</u><br />
Lastly, I am sensitive to the fact that if an individual was subject to sexual assualt as a child or sensistive to the fear that even an adult has if they are going to speak out. We musn't underestimate a predator's power over an individual (or criminals power in general over the public).<br />
<br />
That being said, some cases people come out 20-40 years later to bring their allegation. Why? Why wait that long?<br />
<br />
Yes, celebrities or people in positions of power can be very powerful and abuse their status to ruin you or your life, but the police are there for protection. That is why they exist and why their ancient equivalents exist.<br />
<br />
"First Romans 13:1-5.<br />
"<b>Romans 13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.<br /><br />6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.</b>"<br />
<br />
And 1 Peter 2:13-17<br />
"<b>13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.</b>"<br />
<br />
Both these apostles, in accordance with Jesus' teaching exhorted obedience to governments, however the only time they should be disobeyed, which can be in the TANAKH, is if they tell you to do something against God's commands. Such an example is in Daniel 2 when Daniel's friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are thrown into the fiery furnace after refusing to bow to an idol created by Nebuchanezzar and of course the story of Daniel in the lion's den that needs no introduction."<br />
<br />
But we also see that the police, governors and authorities were created by God principally to punish evildoers. That doesn't mean the government gets it right, or the police are 100% reliable or should be trusted 100% or the time, but what it does mean is if you are suffering injustice, you can go to the authorities to help you out and they will listen to your case.<br />
<br />
In cases on television, namely the news, the victim's faces can be obscured as well as their voices if being interviewed. The police can provide protection from your attacker or someone else's attacker, they were designed to punish evil.<br />
<br />
It's understandable if you were very young, but you should tell your parents or guardians to help you sort the issue out and get the abuser arrested. If you are a young adult, you should tell the authorities immidiately if someone is making unwanted sexual advances. Don't wait years later and say it then, you aren't doing yourself any favours, you won't get the proper justice you want and you will live a life of victimhood.<br />
<br />
Yes, it's not easy to speak against someone doing evil to you, but your testimony early on will prevent more people suffering at the hands of that individual.<br />
<br />
Sadly Hollywood to use one example of where a certain hypocrisy exists (of course immorality has existed in Hollywood for years, we shouldn't be surprised) where the female actresses wore black dresses because of the allegations (Harvey Weinstein and others) and yet some of these celebrities have defended people who themselves are also guilty of such allegations (Roman Polanski).<br />
<br />
To Hollywood I say, Call out all the celebrities who have engaged in this evil I say, stop following your idolatry of Oscars, Baftas and your career and do something to stop it.<br />
<br />
The point is, the fear of losing your job or any threat should not stop you (if you are telling the truth that is) from speaking out against the abuser. The main girl Casey in the film Split who was abused in the film and spoilers for the film is asked by a police officer whether she would like to return to her uncle, the one who did the deed to her.<br />
<br />
<br />
Tell the police quickly, don't leave it too late and you can save others from being subject to the abuse you suffered.<br />
<br />
False rape allegations themselves destroy actual cases of rape and using the excuse for the case of men "It makes people aware of rape issues in the culture" is nothing more than malicious and spiteful misandry, as well as destroying the credibility of those who actually are subject to rape or sexual assault or sexual abuse or have escaped from it.<br />
<br />
Liam Allan, a law student, was cleared of allegations against him and it traumatised him when he was two years on bail. This is what a false sexual accusation or allegation does to a man. Even if he is cleared of all charges, will he trust another woman again? Hardly. That is destructive and selfish what was done to him and others like him. He could have been 12 years in prison and on the sex offenders registry for life. Can you imagine an innocent person going through that trauma? It's tragic.<br />
<br />
May God expose falsehood and bring truth to light so more innocent people may be vindicated and the Potiphar's Wives of the world, be incarcerated, for the evil they have commited.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-43836266536489185592018-01-28T05:13:00.003-08:002018-05-18T13:55:07.650-07:00Zacchaeus: What can we learn? Let us take a look at Luke 19:1-10<br />
"<b>19 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.<br /><br />5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.<br /><br />7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”<br /><br />8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”<br /><br />9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”</b>"<br />
<br />
There are things we can draw from this part of the chapter.<br />
<br />
<u>Repentance</u><br />
There is something here to take from the story of Zacchaeus, himself a tax collector, that restitution has to be made, whether it's criminal, civil or other ways, some compensation or a lot has to be made, even if it's being punished for a crime accordingly or restoring a relationship. Sometimes however, it may not be possible to restore a broken relationship between two people or several, it may be too late, but it's worth giving a try.<br />
<br />
This does vary from sin to sin, whether it be something "small" as lying or "big" as murder or sexual misconduct, so the conditions of repentance may be different, what needs doing to put the situation right? In Zacchaeus case, he extorted people, hence he was wealthy. Is it possible he may have miscalculated? Maybe. The point is whether it was carelessness, negligence or actual delibrate fraud, Zacchaeus sought to repair the damage that had been done by his endeavours.<br />
<br />
<u>Don't judge by apperances</u><br />
Luke describes Zacchaeus to
use first and foremost as rich and also short. Why highlight such a
thing? Why would Luke bring this to the readers attention, as well as
mention he is a tax collector?I already mentioned his repentance above but the people in the context were quick to judge him and yet Zacchaeus offered not only to pay back all the people he defrauded, he also would be happy to give half of his possessions to the poor. It's possible the crowd themselves were not willing to give even a small amount of their possessions to the poor, yet this short tax collector went out of his way to pay his debt and also give to the poor simultaneously, how tremendous is that?<br />
<br />
Despite this man's background, he came to Jesus and let him enter the house for a meal.<br />
<br />
<u>Worship of God and not money</u><br />
Whether Zacchaeus was like the rich young ruler or not is disputable, we simply don't know his motive. Maybe he had a similiar attitude to the rich young ruler at a given point. Idolatry leads to immorality as David Pawson has stated so it could be (though not necesarily) that Zacchaeus' god was money and the way to aquire more money was to cheat others out of it.<br />
<br />
Yet unlike the rich young ruler, Zacchaeus must have felt a conviction in his soul and when Jesus arrived, wanted to see who he was. See the article I wrote on the rich young ruler: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/the-rich-young-ruler-follow-jesus-to-end.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/the-rich-young-ruler-follow-jesus-to-end.html</a><br />
<br />
Perhaps after meeting Jesus, Zacchaeus turned from his idol, recognising his sins and giving money back to the poor and making restitution as mentioned above. Now he could have money but it was no longer his God anymore, God has now given Zacchaeus the means to restrain himself and not be greedy.<br />
<br />
<u>The Lordship of Christ</u><br />
Jesus response not only highlights that Zacchaeus did what was right in his sight but also what our generosity and the fact our money, like everything else is owned by God and he has given it to us not to abuse but use for his glory. Having a hobby itself or going abroad is not wicked in and of itself, but really we should be asking "Do we need to go abroad?" or "Can't I save this hobby for later?". Money is not something given to us to spend on what we want all the time, we are stewards of that money and God will give us an account of what to do with that money. There's nothing wrong with vacation or a hobby but as stated before, they are not the highest calling. It's giving our time in the service to others and helping others less fortunate than we are. There is a talk by Matthew Swires-Hennessey which I recommend others listening to which you can find here: <a href="https://www.stpetersfarnborough.org.uk/Media/Player.aspx?media_id=198874&file_id=211750">https://www.stpetersfarnborough.org.uk/Media/Player.aspx?media_id=198874&file_id=211750</a><br />
<br />
<u><br /></u>
<u>Conclusion</u><br />
How should we be doing in our lives, even if we are not in Zacchaeus' position. Are we willing to put God first, casting idols to the side and turning to him? Does something in your life merely need to be put into it's proper place or gotten rid of depending on what it is in question? How will we be empowered today to be a Son or Daughter of Abraham, the former which Jesus referred to Zacchaeus as? Let's look at our lives and see what needs to change.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>If there is anymore to add Lord Willing, I shall do so at a later date.</i>Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-22801103203868000152018-01-14T13:45:00.000-08:002018-01-14T13:46:02.116-08:00MTV: Racists and Sexists in disguiseThere was a video from 2016 which was mauled by many on the political spectrum that was posted by MTV, removed, then posted and finally removed but much like Josh Trank's tweet about Fant4stic, the internet has a way to preseve incriminating things people say.<br />
<br />
Numerous people have responded to the video which essentially had a bunch of pretentious, self entitled, pharisaical, busybodies lecturing white males one what they can do in 2017 as new years resolutions.<br />
<br />
Putting aside whether America is great or has been great or not in principle or practice, non-whites have enjoyed many oppotunities in the modern world and thus have not been oppressed. Racism exists on both sides but lefists don't want to admit this as this would destory their narratives that non-whites, blacks especially are oppressed and cannot arise out of their oppression (Despite the fact in Christianity Voddie Baucham has championed Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood with one of the early leaders of the church being a black man and possibly St Augustine and Tertullian being influential church fathers and in the case of the entertainment industry you have individuals such as James Earl Jones, Samuel L Jackson, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Idris Elba, John Boyega, Michael B Jordan, Zoe Saldana, Rosario Dawson, Kimberly Brooks, Kree Summer, Kevin Michael Richardson and others who have carved out for themselves good careers).<br />
<br />
Saying All lives matter is not saying Black Lives don't matter. All in this context doesn't exclude black people, it includes them and yes it a serious problem when cops are blamed for being racist towards black people despite the fact that the black people who were proclaimed as innocent were by in large, actually criminals themselves (Which includes Michael Brown by the way) and many ignore the fact Black Lives Matter are a terrorist organisation.<br />
<br />
Woke is also a weird term, not a bad term itself, just odd. Why tell others to stop saying woke? I would use woke is someone just woke from their sleep or if I woke up but to refer to someone being red pilled to certain issues? Ok? If you want to use the word, fine but I am not going to use it in that way.<br />
<br />
We also have mansplaining (<i>(of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.</i>), a term simply used to dismiss what a man has to say. It's basically a satanic buzzword designed by the devil to prevent a woman from being rebuked by a man even when she is in the wrong.I am not saying condescending to anyone is right (there are exceptions) but why not accept the advice of a man? Advice from a man or a woman can be invaluable for a wide variety of reasons, as long as it is good advice and not bad.<br />
<br />
There is of course one of the most famous statements in the video "Just because you have black friends, doesn't mean you are a racist, you can be racist with black friends". Let that sink for a moment, can you imagine a white person saying something similiar? Just replace the above statement with white as opposed to black, that person would be arrested, have their name dragged through the mud and be out of a job, yet the man in the cat t-shirt on MTV can get away with what he said.<br />
<br />
Why are MTV allowed to put out racism like this and yet white males become an easy target when they don't intend to be racist. It is bile like the stuff MTV puts out as well as other liberal material that enabled Donald Trump to win and if he won the Presidential campaign of 2020, I wouldn't be surprised.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.<br />
<br />
<i>Here are some videos responding to MTV's video: </i><br />
<i>Ben Shapiro: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkLWr2xuqbY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkLWr2xuqbY</a></i><br />
<i>Paul Joseph Watson: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIaWTSaoZ0M">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIaWTSaoZ0M</a></i><br />
<i>TJ Kirk: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXMNDpqhvA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXMNDpqhvA</a> (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)</i><br />
<i>Arch Warhammer: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7tTjOF8E2o">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7tTjOF8E2o</a></i><br />
<i>Dave Cullen: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR23bQ0uod0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR23bQ0uod0</a></i><br />
<i>Drunken Uncle: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o98FiibPaAk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o98FiibPaAk</a> (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)</i><br />
<i>Scrunch Point: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrJY5Tjh9tU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrJY5Tjh9tU</a></i><br />
<i>Undoomed: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn-_tfaz_ZM">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn-_tfaz_ZM</a> (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)</i><br />
<i>Jim the Ape: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvrZMea-0lA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvrZMea-0lA</a> (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)</i><br />
<i>Gavin McInnes: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCg9ztkQWf0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCg9ztkQWf0</a> (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)</i>Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-51845647884487654472017-12-31T05:55:00.000-08:002017-12-31T05:55:02.080-08:00Beautiful Idolatry?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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
However, it is quite another issue to worship a false god or appreciate a pagan custom. To quote the words of Voddie Baucham "<b>Worship God without rivals, you have an idol in your home, you destory it and get rid of it</b>". Have nothing to do idols.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
"<b>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</b>"<br />
<br />
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.<br /><br />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.<br />
<br />
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.<br /><br />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.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-62258840101052389592017-12-10T12:05:00.001-08:002017-12-10T12:05:11.872-08:00Voddie Baucham and The Proud FamilyOnce 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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".<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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)?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
A point that I didn't understand years ago, is something I finally know now. <br />
<br />Answering Judaism.Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-10744755477071908312017-11-30T08:41:00.000-08:002017-11-30T08:44:40.512-08:00Donald Trump and Britain First: My thoughts on the situationRecently 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.<br />
<br />
I direct you to a paper which does point out problems with Britain First as an organisation: <a href="http://costaconnected.com/what-it-really-means-when-you-like-or-share-content-from-britain-first/">http://costaconnected.com/what-it-really-means-when-you-like-or-share-content-from-britain-first/</a><br />
<br />
Theresa May disagreed with Donald Trump on posting the tweets from Britain First. But will Trump be banned from entering the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
Here's what I have to say on the matter.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
See Dave Cullen's video on 8 lies about Donald Trump: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J13UBjmoPfs&t=203s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J13UBjmoPfs&t=203s</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-88956576672259055442017-11-06T13:43:00.000-08:002017-11-07T12:17:38.537-08:00Theory 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.<br />
<br />
<u>Background and Context</u><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
The reboot trilogy took cues from Conquest and Battle but made their own stories with similiar messages while new ones.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Nova later finds Caesar in the facility giving him food, water and a rag doll that Maurice gave to her.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<u>Myth of Reverse Racism?</u><br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
"<b>10 Unequal[a] weights and unequal measures<br /> are both alike an abomination to the Lord.</b>"<br />
<br />
Being consistent is key, either you condemn ALL racism, including against white people, or you condemn NONE of it.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Racism is a two way street, stop being inconsistent.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/social-justice-warriors-destruction-of.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/social-justice-warriors-destruction-of.html</a><br />
<br />
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:<br />
"<b>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.”</b>" <br />
<br />
Paul stated in Galatians 3:27-29 the following with respect to salvation:<br />
"<b>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.</b>"<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
"<b>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?<br /><br />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.</b>"<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-14869390117985188462017-11-05T14:26:00.001-08:002017-11-14T12:00:10.540-08:00Social Justice Warriors: The destruction of the nationThere are first some links I want to share here before I begin with this paper.<br />
<br />
Voddie Baucham: Biblical Manhood:<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx86u7o1k-Q">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx86u7o1k-Q</a><br />
<br />
Voddie Baucham: Biblical Womanhood:<br />
Part 1: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fduvf-DsJaA&t=5s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fduvf-DsJaA&t=5s</a><br />
Part 2: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugISx5nBRFY&t=5s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugISx5nBRFY&t=5s</a><br />
Part 3: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I97s3izqG4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I97s3izqG4</a><br />
<br />
Paul Washer: Biblical Manhood:<br />
Part 1: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U-JmgBnFHk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U-JmgBnFHk</a><br />
Part 2: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXXm49qg0I">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXXm49qg0I</a><br />
Part 3: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJqE9qchGpo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJqE9qchGpo</a><br />
<br />
Paul Washer: Biblical Womanhood:<br />
<a href="https://illbehonest.com/recovering-biblical-womanhood-paul-washer">https://illbehonest.com/recovering-biblical-womanhood-paul-washer</a><br />
<br />
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:<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGBf4o1M2uo">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGBf4o1M2uo</a><br />
<br />
Cullen's work on feminism and social justice warriors can be found on his main YouTube channel, Computing Forever: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/LACK78">https://www.youtube.com/user/LACK78</a><br />
<br />
See also Keith Thompson's video on the leftists immoral views: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oETivbBtlAE">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oETivbBtlAE</a><br />
<br />
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: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/roles-of-women-in-church-what-can-they.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/roles-of-women-in-church-what-can-they.html</a><br />
<br />
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".<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOSbF1xz86Y">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOSbF1xz86Y</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
See my article on false witnessing: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/false-witnessing-what-is-it.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/false-witnessing-what-is-it.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?!!<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
David Pawson once said: "<b>God didn't intend chauvinism but he did intend chivalry.</b>"<br />
<br />
You want to see true oppression? Live under shariah law or go to a country that also devalues women.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Of course there is also the following which have one thing in common in fiction and they are all called misogynistic:<br />
<ul>
<li>A woman who doesn't fight.</li>
<li>A woman who is captured.</li>
<li>A woman who is rescued by a man (but can be rescued by another woman and rescue a man).</li>
<li>A woman who settles down with a man.</li>
</ul>
There is also a test that Dave Cullen mentioned in his Star Trek Discovery review (a series I have yet to watch) that the opening is designed to fulfill what is called the Bechdel Test which basically asks if a movie fulfills the following criteria.<br />
"<br />
<div style="font-family: serif; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0; width: 500px;">
<div style="left: 0; position: relative;">
<b>1.</b> It has to have at least two [named] women in it</div>
<div style="left: 25px; position: relative;">
<b>2.</b> Who talk to each other</div>
<div style="left: 50px; position: relative;">
<b>3.</b> About something besides a man</div>
</div>
" <a href="https://bechdeltest.com/">https://bechdeltest.com/</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
An issue can be highlighted but not at an age where someone doesn't have the means to process properly how immoral it is.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In the curses uttered in Deuteronomy 27, verse 19 says the following:<br />
"<b>19 “‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.</b>"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Not only has this cancer of feminism destroyed men for many reasons given in this video again by Cullen: (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY7NoryHAX0&">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY7NoryHAX0&</a>) 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
To quote the words of James White: "The emasculation of men and the masculation of women is evil".<br />
<br />
See my article response to Dr Mona West: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/does-bible-condone-homosexuality.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/does-bible-condone-homosexuality.html</a><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
I am also aware there are those who left leaning who while they disagree, do allow opposing opinions to challenge them, which is commendable. <br />
<br />
We should have both dialogues, not monologues and if SJWs continue to dominate the playing field, conservatives will lose. The field should be leveled. <br />
<br />
Answering Judaism. Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-61078318660632771662017-10-27T13:26:00.000-07:002017-10-28T09:51:50.101-07:00More Muslim objections to address: Response to ibn_salehibn_saleh of Paltalk raised these objections to me a few days ago. Let's address the points<br />
<br />
<u>Which Bible? 73 or 66?</u><br />
66, The Apocrypha isn't canon. This article will not dive into that but there are articles that I recommend that do:<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_1957075212">http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/appendix-addressing-some-arguments-in.html</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_1957075212">http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/is-jewish-apocrypha-inspired-scripture_23.html</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_1957075212">http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/is-jewish-apocrypha-inspired-scripture_1537.html</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_1957075212">http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/is-jewish-apocrypha-inspired-scripture_2120.html</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_1957075212"><br /></a>
<a href="http://www.jiminger.com/apocrypha/index.html">http://www.jiminger.com/apocrypha/index.html</a><br />
<u><br /></u>
<u>When Jesus paid our sin debt, who was it paid to? </u><u>Who paid the price? Was the Son paying himself?</u><br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Read the following article on who Satan is: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/tackling-rabbinic-objections-2.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/tackling-rabbinic-objections-2.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<u>Is Atonement a Biblical idea or a Greek idea?</u><br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"<b>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.”</b>"<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_2017307798"><br /></a>
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_2017307798">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_2017307798">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-asher-meza-blood.html</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_2017307798">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/hezekiah-and-manasseh-blood-atonement.html</a><br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_2017307798">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-jono-vandor-and-jason.html</a><br />
<a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-jono-vandor-and-jason_13.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-jono-vandor-and-jason_13.html</a><br />
<br />
Hope this answers your questions.<br />
<br />
There will be an article that talks on the subject of sin debt to whom linked here in the future.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.<br />
<br />
28th of October 2017. Here is the article in question: <a href="http://internetbiblecollege.net/Lessons/Was%20The%20Ransom%20Paid%20To%20Satan%20Or%20To%20God.htm">http://internetbiblecollege.net/Lessons/Was%20The%20Ransom%20Paid%20To%20Satan%20Or%20To%20God.htm</a>Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-20153482932338385712017-10-18T12:50:00.001-07:002017-10-18T12:50:42.035-07:00Exodus 22:28: A response to Virtual Yeshiva 3Now we are going to respond to Arikm7.messiahtruth on his points.<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">I apologize in advance for what appears to be a "tirade"...</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span>"<br />
<br />
Jesus didn't damn every one in the nation, never forget his followers were Jews themselves. This I need not go over again:<br />
<a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/exodus-2228-response-to-virtual-yeshiva_17.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/exodus-2228-response-to-virtual-yeshiva_17.html</a>.<br />
<br />
Not sure why the fortune telling thing was even brought up though.<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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?</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;"> </span>"<br />
<br />
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: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/luke-2444-48-forgery.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/luke-2444-48-forgery.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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)".</span>"<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Galilee and Samaria weren't perfect, there is in John 4 the story of the Samaritan Woman who was involved in many adulterous marriages.<br />
<br />
"<b>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.”</b>"<br />
<br />
Jesus also further points out the errors that the woman makes:<br />
<br />"<b>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.” <u>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.”</u> 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.”</b>"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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?"</span>"<br />
<br />
I have written an article on Pontius Pilate here: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/pontius-pilate-righteous-man.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/pontius-pilate-righteous-man.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
When the Messianic Drew was still around as a Messianic Jew said this to me:<br />
<br />
"<b>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.</b>"<br />
<br />
Tony Griffin also mentioned the following:<br />
<br />
"<b>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 .</b>"<br />
<br />
The New Testament doesn't paint all is well in Galilee. Here is the context for the tower that was mentioned:<br />
"<b>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.”</b>"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span>"<br />
<br />
As Jesus mentioned, it doesn't make a difference how wicked someone is, Jew and Gentile alike must repent of their evil ways.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">Jesus and his followers are to Judaism and Jewish History as crude oil to pure water.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span>"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
I point out again that Jesus was perfectly justified in what he did and did not violate Exodus 22:28.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-65487571018934692912017-10-17T13:20:00.001-07:002017-10-17T13:20:28.172-07:00Exodus 22:28: A response to Virtual Yeshiva 2Moving on the next point:<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">Things have taken a very ugly turn here, and I'm not going to pursue that question any farther.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">You asked it, and you can pursue it if you like.</span>" Proteus<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">I completely agree with everything that Sophie said.</span>" Hebrew wander<br />
<br />
Let's take a look at the next point:<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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"? </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;"> </span>" Arikm7.messiahtruth<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
ProfBenTziyyon then said:<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "TIMES NEW ROMAN"; font-size: 22.88px;">It’s called Ostrichianism, Arik.</span>"<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">Professor:</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">Apparently, so. And the sand of those holes must be very deep!</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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". </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span>"<br />
<br />
Jesus' existence is testified not only in the New Testament as historical documents (Which is where most seek their information about Jesus).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
If you take out the interpolations, you are left with the following:<br />
"<b>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.</b>"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Nakdimon has done an excellent series of videos responding to Gomerozdubar on what historical document aside from the New Testament mentions the crucifixion: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uKFFI7Sctg&list=PLCE63E5B6421B2A6B">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uKFFI7Sctg&list=PLCE63E5B6421B2A6B</a><br />
<br />
Finally:<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">I have been participating here for ... since 2005.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">In all that time, there is a particular tactic that I've called the </span><strong style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;"><span style="color: red;">sukah punch</span></strong><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">, that one and only one Moderator uses.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">It consists of accusing the Christian of exactly that misconduct in which the accuser is about to engage.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">In the present instance, this person accused me of deflection, which I had not done; and then deflected.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">Do any of the prophets ever criticize a </span><strong style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;"><em><span style="text-decoration-line: underline;">judge or leader</span></em></strong><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">? That was the question.</span>" Proteus.<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span>" Proteus.<br />
<br />
To which Sophiee1 said the following:<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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! </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span>"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
A Jew who accepts Jesus doesn't cease being a Jew, especially when you consider Paul's words in Galatians 3:28:<br />
"<b>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.</b><br />
<b>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.</b>".<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.)<br />
<br />
Now one final comment for this article and for the next one, I'll look at Arikm7.messiahtruth's comment another time.<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "TIMES NEW ROMAN"; font-size: 22.88px;">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 </span><strong style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "TIMES NEW ROMAN"; font-size: 22.88px;">not</strong><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "TIMES NEW ROMAN"; font-size: 22.88px;"> a prophet and there is no record of him ever presenting proof that he was (as happened in </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "TIMES NEW ROMAN"; font-size: 22.88px;">M'lachim Alĕf</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "TIMES NEW ROMAN"; font-size: 22.88px;"> 13:3, for example). Anyone can </span><strong style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "TIMES NEW ROMAN"; font-size: 22.88px;">claim</strong><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "TIMES NEW ROMAN"; font-size: 22.88px;"> “I am a prophet from God”, which is why every </span><strong style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "TIMES NEW ROMAN"; font-size: 22.88px;">genuine</strong><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "TIMES NEW ROMAN"; font-size: 22.88px;"> prophet has to prove that he is what he claims (this is implied by </span><em style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "TIMES NEW ROMAN"; font-size: 22.88px;">D'varim</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "TIMES NEW ROMAN"; font-size: 22.88px;">18:21-22).</span>"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Before you cry foul and claim Deuteronomy 13 refutes my point, I have already written on the subject in previous papers:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication.html</a><br />
<a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication-2.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication-2.html</a><br />
<a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/spiritual-experiences-what-can-they.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/spiritual-experiences-what-can-they.html</a><br />
<br />
See also an earlier paper on Anointed Ones and Strange Gods as well: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/anointed-ones-and-strange-gods.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/anointed-ones-and-strange-gods.html</a><br />
<br />
Jesus' criticisms thus by this criteria were perfectly appropriate and deserved, just not in the way they have been interpreted by the forum.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.<br />
<br />
<i>More updates if the Lord Wills may be added.</i>Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-35945032805201718972017-10-16T11:20:00.001-07:002017-10-17T12:46:56.679-07:00Exodus 22:28: A response to Virtual YeshivaA website formerly known as Messiah Truth has a link discussing this text:<br />
<a href="https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/messiahtruth/exodus-22-28-don-t-curse-a-leader-t4935.html#.UsdPT_RDulo">https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/messiahtruth/exodus-22-28-don-t-curse-a-leader-t4935.html#.UsdPT_RDulo</a><br />
<br />
Uri Yosef had posted this to me on my website a while ago on one of my papers:<br />
<a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_30.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_30.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<u>Sound familiar?</u><br />
Uri Yosef posted the following on the site:<br />
<br />
"<br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 11.44px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="color: #cccccc;">3. Not Honoring a Torah Sage</span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: yellow; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11.44px;">"Honor the face of an elder [zaken] " (Leviticus 19:32).</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11.44px;"> 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). </span><span style="background-color: white; color: cyan; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11.44px;">If Jesus did not violate this by calling them "vipers," no one ever did (Matthew 23:13-33).</span>"<br />
<br />
Low and behold, this is almost exactly word for word what Barry Umansky posted: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/interesting-objections-from-rabbinic.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/interesting-objections-from-rabbinic.html</a><br />
<br />
"<b>3.Not Honoring a Torah Sage</b><br />
<b>"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).</b>"<br />
<br />
My response is this.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Is this true?<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23">https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23</a><br />
<br />
Bottom line, calling out a religious leader on disobeying scripture (In this case, The TANAKH) is perfectly justified.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<u>Spewing of Hate from Jesus and the New Testament writers?</u><br />
What is the truth? Let's look at the points:<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span>" Hebrew wander<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">Good point</span>" Proteus<br />
<br />
Now the objection in question from Arikm7.messiahtruth:<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">HW:</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">They don't know their own NT, how could they (erroneously and mistakingly) use the personalities of the Tanach as a reference? </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span>"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<a href="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.html</a><br />
<a href="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_27.html</a><br />
<a href="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_8351.html</a><br />
<a href="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_6026.html</a><br />
<a href="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_28.html</a><br />
<a href="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_4202.html</a><br />
<a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_30.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_30.html</a><br />
<a href="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.html</a><br />
<a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_3.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/anti-semitism-in-nt-examining-claims-of_3.html</a><br />
<br />
The articles specifically address the texts he mentions in his paper called "The Anti-Jewish New Testament": <a href="http://thejewishhome.org/counter/AntiJewishNT.pdf">http://thejewishhome.org/counter/AntiJewishNT.pdf</a><br />
<br />
Read also my response to Yisroel Blumenthal on whether or not Jesus labeled all Pharisees and Jews as evil: <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/did-jesus-label-all-pharisees-and-jews.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/did-jesus-label-all-pharisees-and-jews.html</a><br />
<br />
I recommend reading also another response I made to Yisroel Blumenthal to his article "Judge Not": <a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/critique-of-judge-not-response-to.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/critique-of-judge-not-response-to.html</a><br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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".</span>"<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
I recommend all to read this article by Keith Thompson on this issue:<br />
<a href="http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2012/02/who-wrote-gospels-internal-and-external.html">http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2012/02/who-wrote-gospels-internal-and-external.html</a><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;"> </span>"<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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:<br />
"<b>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.</b>"<br />
<br />
Some translations say Jews but the meaning is the same, his fellow race of people, his kinsmen:<br />
<a href="http://biblehub.com/greek/sungeneis_4773.htm">http://biblehub.com/greek/sungeneis_4773.htm</a><br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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?</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span>"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Let's go to the next points:<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">No one claims that Moses or any of the prophets were without sin -- or were more than human.</span>" Sophiee1.<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">But when prophets railed against leaders, how does that differ from what J. supposedly did?</span>" Proteus<br />
<br />
To which we now respond to Sophiee<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span>"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">Moses and the prophets never did such outrageous things.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">When the prophets did castigate the Jews it was for turning away from G-d -- not for being observant!</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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 (</span><a class="postlink" href="http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=2&CHAPTER=32" style="background-color: white; border-color: rgb(140, 85, 78); color: #8c554e; direction: ltr; display: inline-block; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px; padding-bottom: 0px; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: break-all;">link</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">). Moses gets angry, but he punishes only the evil doers -- never does he condemn everyone for the acts of a few.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">Unlike Jesus.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: yellow; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 14.3px; line-height: normal;"></span></span></span><br />
<blockquote class="uncited" style="background: none 6px 8px no-repeat rgb(248, 248, 248); border-bottom-color: rgb(140, 85, 78); border-left: 5px solid rgb(140, 85, 78); border-right-color: rgb(140, 85, 78); border-top-color: rgb(140, 85, 78); color: #676767; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 20px 1px 30px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 25px 16px 16px;">
<span style="color: yellow;"><span style="font-size: 10.4px; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: "arial";">"The wicked should forsake his ways, and the evil person should forsake his plans, and return to HaShem, Who will have mercy on him, for He forgives abundantly." (Isaiah 55:7).</span></span></span></blockquote>
" 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?<br />
<br />
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: <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/repentance-bible-verses/">http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/repentance-bible-verses/</a><br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">Jesus' lack of forgiveness seems to be eternal: one weeps. One gnashes one’s teeth. One burns in eternal torment. ETERNAL. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;"> </span><br />
<blockquote class="uncited" style="background: none 6px 8px no-repeat rgb(248, 248, 248); border-bottom-color: rgb(140, 85, 78); border-left: 5px solid rgb(140, 85, 78); border-right-color: rgb(140, 85, 78); border-top-color: rgb(140, 85, 78); color: #676767; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 20px 1px 30px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 25px 16px 16px;">
<div>
<span style="color: #66ff00;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"> <span style="line-height: normal;">“Anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Matthew 5:22) </span></span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">The message of Jesus is that if you don't believe in him you are damned eternally.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #66ff00; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 14.3px; line-height: normal;"></span></span></span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<blockquote class="uncited" style="background: none 6px 8px no-repeat rgb(248, 248, 248); border-bottom-color: rgb(140, 85, 78); border-left: 5px solid rgb(140, 85, 78); border-right-color: rgb(140, 85, 78); border-top-color: rgb(140, 85, 78); color: #676767; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 20px 1px 30px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 25px 16px 16px;">
<span style="color: #66ff00;">"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” (Matthew 12:30-32)</span></blockquote>
"<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.*<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.3px;">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.</span>"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
Lord Willing more objections maybe addressed in another paper.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.<br />
<br />
*<i>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.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
17th of October 2017 *<i>2 Rubbing the corn isn't what is bad, but the prohibition is not a capital offense.</i>Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-16660429312294371922017-10-15T10:07:00.000-07:002017-10-15T10:07:12.000-07:00Shoehorning the Roman Doctrines into Scripture: Revelation 1:4This article is going back to look at Revelation 1:4, which wasn't addressed or looked at in an article in response to QuinQue Viae.<br />
<br />
Look at the other articles before looking at this paper:<br />
<a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/shoehorning-roman-doctrines-into.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/shoehorning-roman-doctrines-into.html</a><br />
<a href="http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/shoehorning-roman-doctrines-into.html">http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/shoehorning-roman-doctrines-into.html</a><br />
<br />
Specifically I want to look at Revelation 1 and see what it says but first let's get a recap on what QuinQue Viae said:<br />
<br />
"<b>But what of the Sacred Scripture? We also have an abundance of evidence from therein. Jeremiah and Onias pray to God on behalf of Israel. (2 Macc 15) Tobit chapter 12 tells of the 7 great Angels who pray to Yahweh on behalf of the Men on earth. Those same 7 Angels give grace and intercede on our behalf according to Revelation 1:4. Revelation 5 speaks of the elders delivering the prayers of the saints up to God himself. In Jeremiah 15:1 God speaks of the possibility of Moses and Samuel standing before him and interceding on Israel's behalf, but God himself even says this is not good enough, presupposing a precedent already set (as proven via Scriptures & Tradition) of saintly intercession. There is simply no escaping the evidence for Bobo and he grasps at desperate arguments to justify his unbiblical presuppositions. For I go off of the greatest Protestant scholars when I affirm the following:</b>"<br />
<br />
Take a look at article 2 specifically to get up to speed on my response to his points and to repost one particular, namely a video by Rabbi Tovia Singer on why Jews go to the grave of their forefathers or great saintly men. This video by him should clarify some misunderstandings on the issue:<br />
<br />
Rabbi Tovia Singer discusses the Jewish tradition of praying at a gravesite: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUEuj0p6eUI">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUEuj0p6eUI</a><br />
<br />
Here's Revelation 1:<br />
"<b>Prologue</b><br />
<b>1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants[a] the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Greeting to the Seven Churches</b><br />
<b><u>4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia:</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u>Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne,</u> 5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail[b] on account of him. Even so. Amen.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”</b>"<br />
<br />
I don't really have much to say and I am not sure where the intercession is present in the text itself. The angels interceding for us isn't much of a problem. It doesn't have to do with interceding for the dead though, either those who are with Christ already in Heaven or with those in Sheol who died in unbelief.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3335270607657867160.post-33510122193149702132017-10-12T11:27:00.000-07:002017-10-12T11:28:47.410-07:00Who did God send where? A look at the book of Acts and other textsSome few days ago, Shadid Lewis was pointing out certain contradictions in the scripture so let's take a look at them.<br />
<br />
<u>If Jesus had been sent to the Gentiles, why are they upset if all of them could preach to the Gentiles in Acts 11. Why didn't Peter just mention the Great Commission? (I think that was his objection).</u><br />
<br />
The Pharisees that Peter was going to did not need to know the exact words of the Great Commission.<br />
<br />
Peter doesn't mention The Great Commission because he is being asked a specific question.<br />
"<b>11 Now the apostles and the brothers[a] who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party[b] criticized him, saying, </b><b>3 <u>“You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.”</u></b><b> 4 But Peter began and explained it to them in order: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. 6 Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9 But the voice answered a second time from heaven, <u>‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’</u> 10 This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. 11 And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea.<u> 12 And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction.</u> These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man's house. 13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?” 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, <u>“Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”</u></b><u>"</u><br />
<br />
The problem was not going to the Gentiles, the actual problem was that the circumcised party were upset that the Gentiles had not been circumcised and received everything that with it as necessary to becoming Christians (Information that Anthony Rogers brought to my attention when I posed the question on my personal Facebook).<br />
<br />
To add to this, The Gentiles through faith in the Messiah now have equal access to God without having to become Jews and that they are not lesser than Jews.<br />
<br />
<u>Is the phrase by my mouth limiting it by Peter's mouth only and that no one else can speak it?</u><br />
No. Let's read:<br />
"<b>Acts 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”</b>"<br />
<br />
The phrase "By my mouth" isn't limiting Peter to being the only one who can proclaim to the Gentiles and absolutely no one else, that is a gross abuse of the text and is refuted by the following later in Luke's letter:<br />
<br />
"<b>12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders <u>God had done through them among the Gentiles.</u> 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>16 “‘After this I will return,</b><br />
<b>and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;</b><br />
<b>I will rebuild its ruins,</b><br />
<b> and I will restore it,</b><br />
<b>17 that the remnant[b] of mankind may seek the Lord,</b><br />
<b> and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,</b><br />
<b> says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’</b><br />
<b>19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”</b>"<br />
<br />
Not only were signs and wonders were done by Barnabas and Paul but the Gentiles would have also listened to them and by no means does Peter raise any objections and say "By my mouth Paul the Gentiles here the message of the Gospel, not yours". The Acts 15 Council are deciding which laws Gentiles are bound to keep as more of them were being admitted into the growing church. Peter cannot be possibly saying that he alone is the one to speak to the Gentiles, All the disciples had that right in light of the Great Commission. Jesus said to his disciples ""<br />
<br />
<u>Paul claims he was sent to the Gentiles and Peter was to the Jews and Peter says he was to go to the Gentiles. </u><u>Was there a conflict between Peter and Paul on who went to go to the Gentiles?</u><br />
<div>
<u><br /></u></div>
Depending on the circumstances, Both were sent to the Jews and the Gentiles. I was admittedly too rigid in what I said in saying that Paul went to the Gentiles and Peter went to the Jews, I was wrong about that. A careful reading shows that the apostles as directed by the Holy Spirit would either direct their attention to Jews or Gentiles based on the context.<br />
<br />
Peter in his own letters is speaking to Jewish believers whereas Paul spoke to mixed to Gentile congregations but as was his habit, he would go to the synagogue first and then to the Gentiles afterwards, although some of the synagogues would contain Gentile hearers as well, namely ones similar to Cornelius who believed in the God of Israel but had not converted to Judaism yet. Acts 17 shows us this particular custom of Paul's evangelism and life: <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17">https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17</a><br />
<br />
There was also a case in Acts 18 where Paul washed his hands of a group of Jews because of the way he was treated:<br />
"<b>18 After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, 3 and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. 4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>5 When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. 6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>7 Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.</b>"<br />
<br />
This is consistent with what Jesus said about wiping the dust of your feet when they refuse to receive the Gospel:<br />
<br />
"<b>Matthew 10:1 Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a] drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>9 “Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts— 10 no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. 11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. <u>14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.</u> 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.</b>"<br />
<br />
While this was before the Great Commission, where Jesus would send his disciples out among the Gentiles, there is an important point here. If someone consistently refuses you or will not listen to the words of the Gospel, you leave, wipe the dust of your feet and go elsewhere to someone who will listen.<br />
<br />
Back to the letters of the New Testament, we see who the writers are addressing at the very start of their letters.<br />
<br />
Here are the two openings to Peter's letters:<br />
"<b>1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>May grace and peace be multiplied to you.</b>"<br />
<br />
"<b>1 Simeon[a] Peter, a servant[b] and apostle of Jesus Christ,</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.</b>"<br />
<u><br /></u>
See James' first line in his letter<br />
<br />
"<b>1 James, a servant[a] of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Greetings.</b>"<br />
<u><br /></u>
John in his letters, 2 and 3 John addresses different individuals too.<br />
<br />
2 John: "<b>1 The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth, 2 because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father's Son, in truth and love.</b>"<br />
<br />
3 John "<b>1 The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>2 Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul. 3 For I rejoiced greatly when the brothers[a] came and testified to your truth, as indeed you are walking in the truth. 4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.</b>"<br />
<br />
Paul in his letters would either address an individual (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy and Philemon) or address various churches (Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans and some debate Hebrews).<br />
<br />
It is also worth noting in Galatians 2 that at one stage, Paul was sent to the Gentiles, whereas Peter was to go the Jews.<br />
<br />
"<b>2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw <u>that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised</u> 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, <u>that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. </u>10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.</b>"<br />
<br />
The context doesn't mean they couldn't address the opposite groups as we observe that Paul often went to the Jews first then to the Gentiles. But here we have a period of time where Paul would speak to mostly Gentiles, leaving the Jews to the Apostles. Does this mean that Paul, Peter, James and John never addressed others outside of a specific group? No, they can and could address anyone if the Lord led them to do it.<br />
<br />
Answering Judaism.<br />
<br />
<i>More maybe added later if the Lord Wills.</i>Answering Judaismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08118361261862962380noreply@blogger.com0