Where Sherry Shriner Went Wrong: The Deception of the Ages

I am going to call a spade a spade, Shriner is a deceiving lowlife that needs to be exposed. Normally in my writings I am trying to be as gracious as possible, but this woman will not get any mercy from me in this article.

I am determined to write this for the sake of my Messianic Jewish brothers and sisters so that they may not be lead astray by this sorceress' wiles and false tales about Paul.

Sadly, there are people in many "Christian" circles who reject Paul and call him a corrupter of Christianity, as do many outside the church. Those who have followed my blog are aware of my material dealing with Yisroel Blumenthal's problems with Paul, but it is also worth dealing with those who are causing division as Shriner is.

Here are the articles that deal with Yisroel Blumenthal's points regarding Paul: 
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-on-acts.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_30.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_31.html

If you are interesting in the responses to Blumenthal generally, here are some more articles:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by_25.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by_27.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by_11.html

I don't believe in giving this woman a platform, so I will not link to the original article.

Let's begin our refutation.

"It was James who led the early Apostles and it was Peter upon whom the church would be built. Yet today you wouldn't know it or even think it. Walk into any assembly anywhere and the Pauline doctrines are dominant. Why does it matter? Because Peter and Paul are night and day. Peter was an apostle with a mantle from Yahweh to build His church, and he did, but the latter Pauline Christians rejected it and took over Christianity. Paul was a self-proclaimed apostle, whom the apostles rejected as an apostle, but accepted as a brother.

      There were blatant disagreements and arguments between Paul and the Apostles.  There were only 12 apostles, not 13. “And on the wall of the city had twelve foundations; and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” Rev.21:14. In the beginning there were 12, and at the end there are 12. There never have been 13.  And it was Paul who created the offices of leadership to vilify himself as an apostle.

     When does the light go off that Paul was a wolf? How much information does anyone need that this self-proclaimed apostle was a snake?  Yahweh has not appointed an apostle since the twelve. Period. Even in the codes you will not find anyone as an apostle. Just prophets and watchmen. The office of apostle has been closed.

     After 300 years of persecutions, most of the apostolic doctrines had been destroyed and lost. They were ultimately replaced with little resistance from the newer believers with a compromise of Mithraic paganism that had been introduced by Paul. It took 300 years for Satan to destroy the early church and persecute Yahweh’s believers so he could implement his own strategy to infiltrate and overpower the church with himself. And he did it as Mithra, and through Mithraism."

Firstly, Peter would be the foundation on which the first was built to let in the Gentiles in. He was the first cornerstone, but obviously he was not coronated as Pope, which is a Catholic myth but that is another issue.

Now first of all, WHERE did the Pauline Christians reject Peter being the foundation and take over the church? Also, Paul was accepted not only as a brother, but also an apostle. His name not being on the walls of the city is not an argument against Paul at all. The apostles believe that Paul was entitled to lead the church just as they did.

Next, How can she claim that the apostolic teachings were destroyed or lost. This contradicts what Jesus said to the apostles.
"John 16:12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”"

Paul even himself made it clear that if anyone taught contrary to what the apostles had laid down, even if it was an apostle, that person was to be accursed, which can be found in Galatians 1:8-9. Also, If the apostolic teachings were to disappear, then Matthew 16 is false, because Jesus would say that even the gates of hell would not overcome his church, the true church. If Shriner is right, Jesus is wrong. Also, she goes on a rant and tirade about Mithraism entering the church, which I will get into later. But again, How would Paul be able to overpower the church? HE COULD NOT DO SO.

"The first believers were called Judahites. At that time, there were two groups of Jews, the Judahites and the Edomites. The Edomites were hybrids and Cain's seed and had mixed with the Judahite Jews making up more notably the Pharisee branch.  Perverting and legalizing the Pentateuch i.e. Old Testament/Torah was of great importance to them and they kept its laws, keeping the sabbath and performing circumcision as a sign of the Covenant. Yet they tortured the legalisms of the law to benefit themselves in social status and wealth."

The subject of the serpent seed doctrine which this woman raises may be dealt with in an article in the future if the Lord Wills. The problem with her assertion is that the only Edomites found in the New Testament, the only Edomites to be found within it's pages were the family of Herod, who eventually died out, as prophesied by Obadiah. It is true that the Pharisees did exploit the Torah for their own ends, but not because they had intermarried with Edomites.

"This sect within the Judahites believed Jesus/Yahushua was the promised Messiah. He was not popular and incited much anger from the legalist Scribes and Pharisees because He had tried to make people aware of the real application and intent of the law of the Torah which had been watered down by the infiltrating alien hybrid and Edomite Jews and misapplied putting the people into bondage. The legalists had taken over and led the people into error and oppression while claiming it was the truths in the Torah law. They manipulated it and used it to benefit themselves, and Yahushua tried to lead the people back into the real intent and truths of the Torah provoking much wrath against Him for doing so.

     From the time Moses had received the laws from Yahweh, the entire Jewish social system had been laid down in the Torah. The Torah, among other things, states that all are equal and that no person may oppress or exploit another, that all have the right to be free and to be independent masters of their own fate. It was their Constitution and Bill of Rights.

     For instance, every person is entitled as a matter of right to social security.  This means that people are entitled to be supported by the community not only when they fall on hard times but also to maintain their independence as independent breadwinners for their families. For example, the community had to provide backup funds to those who needed them and they had to be provided as and when required. To prevent people being exploited through their need these funds had to be provided without charging interest and such loans were cancelled every seventh year if the borrower had been unable to repay them.

      The country's wealth and this applies particularly to productive capital, belongs to all equally and had to be shared among everyone. This equal and fair distribution of the community's wealth was to be updated at regular intervals.

       The role of those who were rich is seen to be that of administering their wealth and money on behalf of and for the community and not that of getting rich at the public’s expense.  

      The laws of the Torah (books of Moses) were to be followed and applied by the Judahites as a matter of law in their daily lives. However it was these laws the rich detested and had the intent of the laws changed to suit themselves thereby oppressing the people and getting rich off this oppression. Yahushua tried to reinstate the intent and purpose of the laws and have them applied correctly. This is why the rich and powerful rose up against Him and His teachings of the law.
 
      After Yahushua died and arose, His apostles continued in the example He had set, observing the feasts, the laws, and the Commandments. Nothing was to be changed. The sacrificial laws had been fulfilled with the ultimate sacrifice of the Son of the Most High, but the other laws of the Torah were to be observed. And this is where churchianity replaces and redefines the law with grace and begins outright disobedience to God's laws."

There is no doubt there were great benefits found within the Torah, No question about that and Jesus dealt swiftly with Pharisees misuse of the Torah and the addition of man made traditions that do not profit.

However, Shriner fails to mention the Acts 15 council actually allowed Paul to participate within the council and take a leading role.

"15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles."

James then makes point about what the Gentiles should be observing and what they don't have to observe within the context of the passage, let's read on:

"12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
    and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
    and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
    even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]—
18     things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”"

The letter was then sent to Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. But the letter's instructions would also be implemented in other Gentile congregations. Notice they not required by the apostles to keep certain feasts, dietary restrictions except the ones listed or even Sabbath in the contexts. So we see clearly that this is not merely a Pauline invention.

I would also direct you to this article here with respect to some of the observances, I cover certain aspects of Mosaic observance and I even cover Matthew 5:17-20 which is raised by one of her associates, mainly because of the abuse that stems from that text by many: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/observance-of-torah-demanded-of-gentiles.html.

It will also expose the inconsistency of some who demand Torah observance from Gentiles.

"    Most in the churches today believe that the Old Covenant, the Laws of the Torah and Moses were done away with after Yahushua arose from the dead. This isn't true.

       The New Covenant, the New Testament, transformed the Old Testament, it didn't abolish it. The two reconcile each other. The one doesn't replace the other. Some commands of the law were transformed by their fulfillment while others were superceded by the Words of Yahweh Himself. This was true in the Old Covenant also when Solomon’s Temple superceded the ancient tabernacle.  

   For instance, it was Yahushua's sacrifice that fulfilled the requirements of and for a sin offering. Other commands were re-prioritized instead of abolished. The Biblical Holy Days/Festivals (especially Passover) weren’t abolished but took on new meanings. If you wonder why we don’t stone people any more it’s because the penalties for our sins were executed already in Yahushua's death. So as you see, the New Covenant doesn’t abolish the Old Covenant, it upholds it! What still stands is clean and unclean foods, keeping the Sabbath, and other tenants of the laws that the churches have thrown out and ignored over time.  As believers it is our responsibility to let the Holy Spirit write the Old Covenant Laws on our hearts so that we know what to obey and how to obey it. He will guide and direct us.

     A lot of people feel a yearning today that they should be celebrating the feasts and moving away from abominable foods. This is by the Holy Spirit's guidance. Yahweh is trying to lead those who seek Him into the way they should go just as the New Covenant said would happen. We need to heed His Spirit and follow His guidance. It isn't a messianic vs. protestant vs. catholic thing, it's just being led by Him and following Him. Divisions and denominations aren't of Him when we are supposed to be unified as one. Leave the churches if they're not preaching and teaching His truths and follow Him yourself if you have to."

I have no problem with people observing the feasts if they feel they should, that's entirely up to them, I have made this point in my responses to Yisroel Blumenthal on these issues. What I have a problem with is those who demand it's observance from Gentiles. The apostles lead by the Holy Spirit, including Paul, said that the Gentiles didn't have to observe certain ordinances, but this doesn't mean that Jeremiah 31:31 is false at all.

Yes, the feasts took on new meanings and were fulfilled in Yeshua, but that doesn't mean Gentiles are to observe the feasts. I do agree that stoning is not carried out because of Yeshua's death and resurrection, I don't there will be disagreement on the death penalty fulfilled in the New Covenent.

Now, Luke was the one who wrote Acts as well as writing his Gospel, and I assume that Shriner accepts what Luke wrote, after all I know she doesn't like Paul.

But why does Luke have no problem with including Paul as a fellow believer and not an apostate. If Shriner is consistent, She would have to admit that Paul is a true believer and apostle, because if Acts is good enough to refute Paul, it's good enough to establish him.

Although the disciples accepted him as a fellow apostle and co-worker, Paul did not call himself the 13th Apostle, he never called himself that.

Also, 2 Peter establishes Paul as reliable, and If Shriner believes that Peter wrote it, she contradicts Peter by condemning Paul as a false prophet, especially in light of 2 Peter 3:14-16:

"14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

This is the same Peter who was rebuked by Paul, thus Shriner is actually going against the apostles for not recognising Paul as an apostle or even a fellow believer in Yeshua.

"· Yahushua's teaching at the Sermon on the Mount was not a new doctrine. It simply brought to light the true, deeper, spiritual meaning of the Old Covenant commands that He said are still valid.

·The entire Old Covenant Law teaches, as Yahushua did, that we are to love Yahweh by keeping His commandments.

· The Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Yahushua Ha Maschiyach.

·  Think of being "Not under Law" as not under legalistic observance of the Old Covenant with its Mosaic commands written in stone.

· Think of "under grace" as under the renewed covenant with the Mosaic commands written on our hearts by the Spirit who also provides us the strength (grace) we need to overcome the law of sin and death.

· The New Covenant still has the Old Covenant commands as its foundation. The difference is that now we have His Spirit to write those Laws on our hearts and empower us to obey.

· The festival commandments are important because in them we rehearse Yahweh’s plan of redemption. Since Yahweh’s plan of redemption isn’t complete there’s still much to learn from the feasts.

·  It was always Yahweh’s intent for us to have His Law (Torah) written on our hearts, thus providing empowerment and motivation from within.

· Men have always been saved by grace through faith. However, the error of the New Covenant believers at the beginning was in forcing the Gentiles to follow the letter of the Law to EARN salvation and justification apart from the work of FAITH. This matter was settled by the apostles in Jerusalem and as noted in Acts chapter one.

·  Note, when asked how to obtain eternal life, Yahushua didn’t say "Believe in me," he said obey the commandments [by implication, the Law of Moses]. Which goes beyond the 10 written in stone, there were originally over 600 of them covering social, dietary, financial, and everyday living.

· It was always Yahweh’s intent that Gentile believers remain ONE with their Jewish brothers. Satan entered and caused the division. The Spirit wants to bring unity. We must come back to HIM as ONE and stop the division and errors that has divided us over the centuries."

Again, WHERE did the disciples say that Gentiles were to observe the Torah, even implicitly. She cannot show from the apostles words. There are many things in the Torah that are good, as in the Nevim and Ketuvim, I even make this point in my writings to Yisroel Blumenthal. Though Jews and Gentiles are to be one in Christ, this doesn't mean we cannot differ over what foods we can eat, that is a given. Also, when you actually go to the case of what must one do to be saved, when Jesus was asked the same question by the rich ruler, The man claims to have kept all the commands, to which Jesus refutes because of his request to "sell all your possessions then come follow me". The man was exposed as an idolater because he loved his riches more than God.

Keeping the entire Mosaic Law is IMPOSSIBLE.

"Paul, then known as Saul, acting on behalf of the rich Jewish oppressors was a Jewish Edomite Pharisee who persecuted the Christians who were renewing their knowledge of the laws and the application of the laws in their daily lives.  Disrupting the status quo, the rich oppressors and legalists would have lost their foothold in making money off the poor if the laws were to change and be followed correctly.

     Paul said that he had had a `vision' and called himself a 
believer in Yahushua however he preached not for but against the social laws and against the social system of the Torah. He preached against material independence, against social security, against freedom from oppression and exploitation."

Where did Paul actually preach against "material independence, against social security, against freedom from oppression and exploitation"? SHE CANNOT SHOW IT, because it is NOT there.

Where did Paul condemn the social system? Paul exhorted the Gentile congregations to be holy and blameless before the Lord, but this again was not through the observance of Sabbath, Food Laws and not wearing two kinds of fabric. The funny thing is this witch fails to mention what happened AFTER Paul was called by Christ. Just read the very chapter of the vision she quoted. Take a look at what I have underlined and put in italics:

"9 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”

“Yes, Lord,” he answered.

11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”

13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength."

Notice it was NOT just Paul who claimed to be an apostle, ANANIAS is told BY Jesus to go to Paul and SEND HIM TO THE GENTILES.

Again, if Acts is good enough to refute Paul, it's good enough to establish him, Shriner cannot have it both ways, That sorceress cannot appeal to Acts to prove her case and reject it if it disagrees with her. If she doesn't agree that Paul is a true apostle and believer, she should reject Acts as an argument against Paul.

"    As Edomite Hillel had infiltrated and changed the Talmud to blindside the Jews to accept oppression, Paul infiltrated the sect of the believers and tried to undo what Yahushua and his followers had done, while using the name of Yahweh  to do it. Saul had been tutored by Gamaliel, Hillel's grandson. Both had managed to master the art of deception and lead the people of their time away from the truth of the laws and into oppression.

     Paul preached a political ideology to subvert the people and be able to exploit them without hindrance to the status quo. Under the true laws, exploitation was forbidden, but without the laws being applied, the rich could continue to get rich off of the exploitation of the poor. And that's what they did."

Paul acted in ignorance, he made this plain in his own letters. For that matter, Acts already establishes that JESUS SENT PAUL to the Gentile nations after the encounter on the Damascus road. Plus the Talmud didn't exist in the time of Jesus, it post dates him by centuries, the exact number escapes my mind. Where is she getting this idea that Paul is subverting the people and exploiting them?

" The Laws of the Torah gave the people freedom from oppression and exploitation. And every time they wandered away from the laws, they ended up oppressed and exploited, and back into slavery. Much of the same way we as Americans are today. Our government exploits and makes money off the people by unnecessary and inflated taxation, also through exploitive legislation where the rich can become richer, and the poor get poorer. These practices are outlawed in the social system laws of the Torah. Neither has the wealth of America ever been divided out and shared among its people. Our loans are loaded with interest, and there is never forgiveness from unpaid loans. There is freedom in the laws of God while there is slavery, exploitation and manipulation in the laws of man.

   It was Paul's teachings against the laws of Yahweh that brought him into conflict with the Judahite believers. The entire area of Asia rejected him. In Revelation the church of Ephesus was praised for recognizing false prophets, yet Paul wrote a letter to the Ephesians as if they were his followers. He could get no where with the Judahite  Jews, so he concentrated on gaining converts from gentiles (people who are not (Judahite or Israelite) and who presumably knew nothing or little about the laws of the Torah and who would thus be more likely to follow his teachings without arguing about its content or aware of his deceptions."

Christ's bride the church was not to be a state religion to begin with. In fact Christians in the days of the apostles never sought this, not even the apostles themselves did such. There were cases in history where the church tried to have a state religion, but this FAILED. It would be nice if she provided a reference regarding the rejection of Paul by Asia. Also, Jesus was not even warning the Ephesians about Paul, Paul was already established as a follower of Christ in Acts 9 not to mention at the time Revelation was penned, Paul was already dead, he died by execution.

" Paul's letters (epistles) are the oldest part of the New Testament.  It seems that Paul's letters were written about 50 AD and the gospels about 70-100 AD. Paul's letters were never accepted by the early church. The Apostles never mentioned him in their writings, only he includes some of them in his. Yet today our New Testament, configured by a pagan, is dominant with Paul's teachings.

   What stands out is that no one before Paul wrote such letters and 
taught such things as he did, and no one did so afterwards. His letters give his own point of view and personal ideology and he gives them an authority which they would not otherwise have had by means of a self-proclaimed vision."

What is funny is again, this conniver fails to mention that 2 Peter mentions Paul, that issue I have already covered. I would also like to know who in the early church rejected Paul. The Ebionites don't count because they are of the SECOND CENTURY and In an article, Keith Thompson has spoken on their untrustworthiness and lack of reliability. Scroll down to Section 2 on the subject of the Ebionites: http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/paul-historical.html

I thoroughly recommend this article for you guys to read. Though it is geared towards Islam, It will also be helpful in your study in dealing with Shriner's apostate teachings about Paul.

"The gospels as a whole relate to the life and death of Yahushua but Paul's letters seem to be more a vehicle for pronouncements directed against observance of laws ensuring freedom, independence and equality.

      It was the rejected Paul's teachings that were accepted and placed in dominance after 300 years of persecutions wiped out the early church. Even today the Gentile Christians' stories about the beginning of Christianity differ from those of the Judahite Christians. It is the versions of the Gentile Christians which were included in the Christian Canon and became official doctrine. The Torah, Feasts, and Commandments were replaced by the laws of laziness and lawlessness.
    
     There is much to be revealed about Paul and you can read more about how he infiltrated and deceived early believers at (I am not linking to her site)   But was there even a more hideous agenda to Paul than to subvert people away from the teachings of Yahushua and His apostles?"

Genuine Christianity may not observe certain things in the Torah, but it doesn't encourage laziness and lawlessness, I have already covered the subject of what we are able to observe. Let's see what Paul, whom this witch anathematizes, said with respect to holiness:

"Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good."

"Romans 6 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace."

"Ephesians 4:17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed.

20 That, however, is not the way of life you learned 21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26 “In your anger do not sin”[d]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold. 28 Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need.

29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

"Colossians 3 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your[a] life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.[b] 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8 But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11 Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all."

"2 Thessalonians 3:6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”"

I could go on, but I think one get's the picture. This is from the Christian Canon that that she-witch decries.

I shall continue if the Lord wills refuting the points in the article she has written.

Answering Judaism.

Response to Doctor Tauheed: Who truly bears man's sins?

Although this particular individual I am no longer harsh with, the same going for Shadid Lewis, Jonah94 and Muslim4life, and instead want to be civil to them rather than treat them harshly as I did in the past, I still need to respond their objections but with meekness and gentleness.

DoctorTauheed is a muslim apologist, who can be found in the Answering Christianity room.

Here is an assertion he made in an article with respect to two Christians he dialogued with:

"Bismillah.

Sinless Jesus

Christians say Jesus was the only sinless human being…ever. There was no sinless man before him and none after. They say because of this *sinlesseness* he was able to bear the sins/iniquities of others.

All Christian doctrine is based on this. If there was someone else who bore the sins of another this would place the Christian doctrine in the garbage.

This would mean that there was another sinless person because they bore the sins of one or more persons.

I asked two Christians in a chat room if I could prove from the Bible that someone else bore the sins of another; proving that Jesus was not the only sinless one, if they would become Muslim. After much huffing and hawing they agreed on the principle that since their doctrine was soundly based on Jesus being the only sinless person and the only one who could bear sins, that it was impossible that there was another who could hold *bearer of sins* position.  In essence to use an analogy, they were agreeing their religion was red, and anything else would make it blue, or, to use an animal analogy, they were saying that their religion was cow, and anything else would make it bull.

So they finally agreed to the offer, knowing that to not agree would mean that they doubted a fundamental part of their religion.

So Doctor Tauheed, believing the words of the *God fearing* only Christ sin bearing Christians ; happy that two people insha Allah were on the verge of entering the Tawheed of Islam proceeded to present them with the incontrovertible proof that someone else was a bearer of another’s sins hence being sinless himself.

Ezekiel  4: 4/5/6 :

NIV (1984) ez 4:4 “Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself. You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side.

NLT (2007)ez 4:5 I am requiring you to bear Israel’s sins for 390 days–one day for each year of their sin.

And as if this wasn’t enough he lay down on his right side and bore the sins of Judah .

Ezekiel 4:6 “After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.

There was an awkward silence for quite a while then one Christian made a rude comment and left the room, the other said nothing and silently exited the room . Haven’t heard from him since.

They are not interested in the truth. Pride and arrogance at its best.

Insha Allah may the Christians who see this come to the truth and may any *ex Muslim* turned Christian see this and hurry back to the truth and its propagation before it’s too late.

Allah guides and blesses who He wills. May Allah accept this work Ameen.

Doctor Tauheed"

Let's begin with the facts, Ezekiel was not functioning as an atonement in the context of Ezekiel 4. Let's read the whole chapter:

"4 “Now, son of man, take a block of clay, put it in front of you and draw the city of Jerusalem on it. 2 Then lay siege to it: Erect siege works against it, build a ramp up to it, set up camps against it and put battering rams around it. 3 Then take an iron pan, place it as an iron wall between you and the city and turn your face toward it. It will be under siege, and you shall besiege it. This will be a sign to the people of Israel.

4 “Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the people of Israel upon yourself.[a] You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. 5 I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the people of Israel.

6 “After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the people of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year. 7 Turn your face toward the siege of Jerusalem and with bared arm prophesy against her. 8 I will tie you up with ropes so that you cannot turn from one side to the other until you have finished the days of your siege.

9 “Take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them in a storage jar and use them to make bread for yourself. You are to eat it during the 390 days you lie on your side. 10 Weigh out twenty shekels[b] of food to eat each day and eat it at set times. 11 Also measure out a sixth of a hin[c] of water and drink it at set times. 12 Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” 13 The Lord said, “In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them.”

14 Then I said, “Not so, Sovereign Lord! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No impure meat has ever entered my mouth.”

15 “Very well,” he said, “I will let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human excrement.”

16 He then said to me: “Son of man, I am about to cut off the food supply in Jerusalem. The people will eat rationed food in anxiety and drink rationed water in despair, 17 for food and water will be scarce. They will be appalled at the sight of each other and will waste away because of[d] their sin."

Ezekiel did this as a symbolic demonstration of how the nation was corrupt and fallen and showing how long they had sinned for, by lying on his side. He also was to cook his food over dung to show this fact that the nation had defiled themselves by idolatry. He was not paying for the sins of the people of Israel. That is is a misuse of the context and sadly I wish those two Christians would actually take the time to read this. DoctorTauheed's point vanishes when you read the context.

Only Yeshua himself can actually atone for our sins, no other can.

Hopefully this addresses his point.

Answering Judaism.

Deuteronomy 6:4: Trinity VS Shema?

One text that is commonly quoted by Unitarians ad infinitum and ad nauseum is the creed of Judaism in the TANAKH, quoted by Jesus within the New Testament. Let's look at the texts:

Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."
Mark 12:29 ""The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one."

In Deuteronomy 6:4, the word used within the context of the passage is "echad", which depending on it's context can either refer to plural oneness or singular oneness. For example Adam and Eve become echad in Genesis 2:24 or one and the Tabernacle parts become echad in Exodus 26:6.

Now the Unitarian will assert that echad in the context of Deuteronomy 6:4, which they believe that disproves the Trinity. Their dilemma they create is if they can show that Deuteronomy 6:4 is singular and not plural, the Trinitarian position collapses.

Well the question is, Although I am willing to grant that echad is singular in the context of Deuteronomy 6:4 and I am inclined to think it is, what does it actually mean?

The answer is simple, It simply means that there is only ONE God, that's all it means. It is not a proof text for the Trinity, nor a proof text against it.

As I stated before in my response to Tovia Singer. The Trinity teaches that in the very being or essence of God, there exist Three Distinct persons, Not three beings in one being or three persons in one person. There are not three seperate Gods, but one Eternal God which the TANAKH and the NT make very clear.

In light of what Deuteronomy 6:4 ACTUALLY teaches, not what Unitarians want it to teach and even what Trinitarians assert, We can see the Trinity is neither proven by the Shema nor refuted, because both Trinitarians and Unitarians ARE BOTH MONOTHEISTS. The Shema is a creed of Monotheism, not of Unitarianism.

Anthony Buzzard and other Unitarians can quote this text AD INFINITUM AND AD NAUSEUM, it doesn't prove their point. Monotheism, doesn't prove Unitarianism, because Trinitarians like myself ARE MONOTHEISTS. Any claim we are not monotheists is based either on ignorance of the Trinity or a deliberate distortion of it.

Hope this article has been of help to you.

Answering Judaism.

Hosea 11:1 and Isaiah 7:14: Taken out of Context?

Within this article I wish to deal with two texts which are often raised against Christians by Rabbinic Jews, and occasionally Muslims and other groups to try and say that Christians are guilty of misusing the context of those passages. They are Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1. Let's look at them.

Isaiah 7:14
"7 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.

2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[a] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

3 Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub,[b] to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘It will not take place,
    it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
    and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
    Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
    and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
    you will not stand at all.’”
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

18 In that day the Lord will whistle for flies from the Nile delta in Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the Euphrates River—the king of Assyria—to shave your head and private parts, and to cut off your beard also. 21 In that day, a person will keep alive a young cow and two goats. 22 And because of the abundance of the milk they give, there will be curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. 23 In that day, in every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels,[g] there will be only briers and thorns. 24 Hunters will go there with bow and arrow, for the land will be covered with briers and thorns. 25 As for all the hills once cultivated by the hoe, you will no longer go there for fear of the briers and thorns; they will become places where cattle are turned loose and where sheep run.".

In the context, The child born would be a sign to King Ahaz that the Assyrians and the people of Ephraim, the Northern Kingdom, will not prevail over them, because God would be with them. The child was to indicate that God was on the side of the people of Judah and is set against the Assyrians and the Northern Kingdom and bringing destruction on them if they do not repent. The child himself gave Ahaz hope that Judah would survive and will not be trampled.

Matthew applies Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus as a double prophecy, because his birth would be a sign to the people that the Messiah had come and will deliver Israel from their enemies and that they will not be prevailed against. It was also a sign that God was with them and NOT with their enemies. When Jesus returns, he will come back and deal with those who do wrong against his people be they Jew or Gentile, Just as the Assyrians were dealt with in the TANAKH itself.

So just as the child born was light and hope to the people and Ahaz, so Jesus was light and hope to his people.

Hosea 11:1

Now we turn to the other passage in Hosea 11, Let's read.
"11 “When Israel was a child, I loved him,
    and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called,
    the more they went away from me.[a]
They sacrificed to the Baals
    and they burned incense to images.
3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
    taking them by the arms;
but they did not realize
    it was I who healed them.
4 I led them with cords of human kindness,
    with ties of love.
To them I was like one who lifts
    a little child to the cheek,
    and I bent down to feed them.
5 “Will they not return to Egypt
    and will not Assyria rule over them
    because they refuse to repent?
6 A sword will flash in their cities;
    it will devour their false prophets
    and put an end to their plans.
7 My people are determined to turn from me.
    Even though they call me God Most High,
    I will by no means exalt them."

In this passage, God speaks of the time he first called Israel out of the land for servitude to him and to be his son. Despite this, the people of Israel rebelled and turned to Baal, Asherah and whatever detestable deity they had decided to worship. Some even tried including Ha Shem in this pantheon, which of course he would not accept and rightly so he didn't.

The point is they were called to be his servant and proclaim his name among the Gentiles and bring the world to himself through them. In the same way, Jesus was called out of Egypt by his Father in heaven, to do his mission of redemption of bringing the Jews and the Gentiles into reconciliation by the vicarious death on the cross. This was the mission of Christ in the will of the Triune God from eternity. After being sent to Earth, Jesus was called for service by his Father to carry a mission and a function and to serve him.

Just as Israel was called to serve God, the Son himself was called for a mission.

That is what is being put across in these passages by Matthew in his Gospel.

Check my words with scripture and study the Word, Hope this article has been a blessing.

Answering Judaism.

Judge Not, Touch Not: What does it mean to touch God's anointed?

I want to address a few passages in their context to see what they actually say and what they do not say.
The first one is judge not, lest you be judged, which ironically condemns those who misuse this text.
Let's look:
"7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

A careful reading of the context suggests that we are to judge but not in a hypocritical manner. When you are about to condemn someone for lying for example, Make sure that you are not doing the same thing, then you can point out what the person is doing is wrong. Clean up your mess, then you can tell someone else to do the same.

With respect to the other verse, the phrase Touch not God's anointed is often abused quite regularly as well and the historical context is neglected. Let's read the passage in it's context. This is in 1 Samuel 24
"5 Afterward, David was conscience-stricken for having cut off a corner of his robe. 6 He said to his men, “The Lord forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, or lay my hand on him; for he is the anointed of the Lord.” 7 With these words David sharply rebuked his men and did not allow them to attack Saul. And Saul left the cave and went his way.
8 Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, “My lord the king!” When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. 9 He said to Saul, “Why do you listen when men say, ‘David is bent on harming you’? 10 This day you have seen with your own eyes how the Lord delivered you into my hands in the cave. Some urged me to kill you, but I spared you; I said, ‘I will not lay my hand on my lord, because he is the Lord’s anointed.’ 11 See, my father, look at this piece of your robe in my hand! I cut off the corner of your robe but did not kill you. See that there is nothing in my hand to indicate that I am guilty of wrongdoing or rebellion. I have not wronged you, but you are hunting me down to take my life. 12 May the Lord judge between you and me. And may the Lord avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you. 13 As the old saying goes, ‘From evildoers come evil deeds,’ so my hand will not touch you."

In context, David was not allowed to attack Saul because he was still in possession of the throne at the time and it was not David's right to remove Saul from power. Saul was still the anointed King of Israel and it wasn't time for David to take the throne at this point. In fact David even killed a man who brought news of Sauls demise. However, This text doesn't say even implicitly that you cannot expose a false prophet. People may have successful ministries and perform supposed signs and wonders, But that doesn't exonerate them from being judged according to scripture. We are to make rightous judgements, as found in Titus 2:15, 3:5 and many other passages. They MUST be called out as false prophets IF they are teaching abhorant doctrinal error, are known to have made false prophecies and have been involved in a false prophetic ministry and must be silenced for teaching and doing things they ought not to. Touch not God's anointed was a ONE TIME event within the context of the Bible, it is NOT a universal principle to all nations.

Also, Let us read Psalm 105:15 in context to see what it says, because it is often misused by many to silence people from correcting prophets. Let's look:

"12 When they were but few in number,
    few indeed, and strangers in it,
13 they wandered from nation to nation,
    from one kingdom to another.
14 He allowed no one to oppress them;
    for their sake he rebuked kings:
15 “Do not touch my anointed ones;
    do my prophets no harm.”
16 He called down famine on the land
    and destroyed all their supplies of food;
17 and he sent a man before them—
    Joseph, sold as a slave.
18 They bruised his feet with shackles,
    his neck was put in irons,
19 till what he foretold came to pass,
    till the word of the Lord proved him true.
20 The king sent and released him,
    the ruler of peoples set him free.
21 He made him master of his household,
    ruler over all he possessed,
22 to instruct his princes as he pleased
    and teach his elders wisdom."

In context, YHWH or HaShem is rebuking the Gentile Kings for trying to bring desolation and destruction on the people of Israel as they travel to the promised land. The people are referred to as God's anointed ones. The Hebrew in question used is naga (http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/5060.html). Here are the meanings:

1) to touch, reach, strike
    1a) (Qal)
        1a1) to touch
        1a2) to strike
        1a3) to reach, extend to
        1a4) to be stricken
             1a4a) stricken (participle)
    1b) (Niphal) to be stricken, be defeated
    1c) (Piel) to strike
    1d) (Pual) to be stricken (by disease)
    1e) (Hiphil) to cause to touch, reach, approach, arrive
        1e1) to cause to touch, apply
        1e2) to reach, extend, attain, arrive, come
        1e3) to approach (of time)
        1e4) to befall (of fate)

In particular, it means to harm in the context of Psalm 105. It is an exhortation NOT to hurt the Israelites. There is nothing the text at all to say that you cannot speak out against false prophets and expose them. Let's take a look at some examples.

"John 7:24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

"Titus 2:15 These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you."

"Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned."

"Romans 16:17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I rejoice because of you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil."

There is nothing wrong with judging a prophet who claims to be true as correct or incorrect based on scripture. In fact it is commanded. If ANYONE claims to be a prophet, they need to be checked out with the words of scripture. If anyone makes a false prophecy, even if it is a favourite teacher of yours, they are to be avoided and should not have their prophetic credentials defended, considering they have disqualified themselves from continuing in that ministry. False prophecy is not unforgivable, but it is nevertheless a very grave and serious matter that needs to be repented of. To say "Don't Touch God's anointed" inevitability leads us not to judge them.

While I don't deny there are true prophets out there, I do believe we need to be careful not to be lead astray, we are to test everything, hold onto what is good and let the bad go or avoid evil as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 states.

I hope and pray that you study these texts carefully and to not distort them out of context. Check my words with scripture and the truth shall set you free. If you find what I am saying in the scriptures, then I am glad I have helped.

God Bless and Take Care.

Answering Judaism.

Concerns about Toronto and Pensacola.

Most people are aware of the Toronto experience as well as the Brownsville/Pensacola revivials that have taken place years back. Most claim that these are authentic moves of God with many coming to "repentance" while others have criticised the movement for unbiblical manifestations. Let me tell you this, I repudiate Toronto and Brownsville. After listening to others about Toronto itself and of course looking for myself, I fail to see how it's an authentic move of God. What is interesting is in a conversation with Keith Thompson I had. We were speaking of Montanis in passing. He quoted from Eusebius to show that what Montanis did. And judging by the quotation, Montanis certainly was off his rocker to put it mildly. Here are some of what Eusebius said:

"They had many suspect views and practices including some of their members writing and distributing their own epistles where their alleged prophetic oracles were recorded (Eusebius, Church History, 5.18.5)." 
"According to the 2nd century bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, Apollinarius Claudius, their leader Montanus “became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning”" (Apollinarius of Hierapolis, quoted in Eusebius, Church History, 5.16.7). 
"It is also reported in early church writings that Montanus’ followers were demon possessed by a false spirit and mention is made of two women who talked wildly and unreasonably reviling the church and were even reproved in an exorcism fashion (Eusebius, Church History, 5.16.8-9)."

We can see that from these quotations how much of a mad-man Montanis really was. His practices were not from an apostolic tradition at all, in fact it was even CONTRARY to this. What makes these quotes interesting is this is the similiar kind of nonsense that you find in counterfeit revivals, such as howling like a wolf, uncontrollable laughter, being "drunk in the spirit" as some people call. How can this be fruit of the Holy Spirit at all?

I have seen video footage of the Toronto Blessing for myself as well as some footage of Rodney Howard Browne and I am just amazed on how anyone can accept this phenomena as being of God. I was even shocked by the quotations of Michael Brown on PFO.org's article dealing with the objections that Brown brought up. One of his quotes was:
"[Critics] will watch a video of a powerful meeting attended by thousands of people and go ballistic because one person at the altar suddenly falls to the floor, totally ignoring the fact that Jesus is being preached in clarity.".

If this is in context, Why is he defending this kind of behaviour? Its one thing to fall down in awe of God, but its another thing to collapse on the floor like what is seen at a Todd Bentley or Benny Hinn 'crusade'.

I am not attacking Brown personally, I harbour no hatred of the man. I can appreciate what he has said regarding bringing Jews to Jesus, but regarding his defence of Pensacola, how can he defend the falling down phenomenon? Moreover as others claim, how does one know that an altar call is even genuine? Someone may be converted through an altar call but I would not see an altar call as evidence of a changed life. I remember when I was confirmed by a bishop years back, but there was no repentance at that time. God did show me mercy much later in 2010, but years before, it was merely emotional feelings when I was confirmed.

There wasn't anything fancy at that confirmation but the same feeling you get at altar calls was there. Anyway, Having revivals like this doesn't prove anything, ANYONE can claim a "descision" to follow Christ yet that is not a sign of their regeneration, their FRUITS are a demonstration of this. I have watched a Benny Hinn crusade in London where he didn't call people to repentance, he called them to "receive the anointing". No fruits of repentance what so ever.

Although I have been looking at some objections Yisroel Blumenthal raised to Brown, I have expressed concerns about Brown in the past before with respect to certain ministries, such as those of Mike Bickle, Lou Engle and Cindy Jacobs, all renowned false prophets. Again, Just because a certain revival teaches repentance, we are not to automatically assume they are from the Lord, because repentance is not the only criteria of truth. It's Brown's attitude to these ministries that makes me hesitant support his ministry, if not compels me not to support him at all. As fivepointbaptist AKA. Chris Gatreau, one of the authors of Reformed Apologetics Ministries had stated when Michael Brown and Jerry Johnson discussed Charles Finney's false teachings, Gatreau noted that even Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons tell others to repent but that doesn't make them true. The context of Gatreau's words can be found in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cFkpCZe2i0

Although this strange phenomena may or may not have been seen in Brown's videos of the revival, I would need to look at it again, the fact is you did have strange phenomena at Brownsville and Toronto in other contexts.

People acting in laughing, drunken hysterics is not even a fruit of the Holy Spirit at all.  The fruit of the Holy Spirit is self-control, that's what it is, not acting in a crazy manner. Kundalini Yoga has similiar fruits where people are acting in this insane manner, it's just ridiculous to suggest that these are holy fruits.
James White has noted that Muslims like to take this sort of video as a tool to tell people "If this is the Holy Spirit, then keep away". Jacob Prasch, a moderate Pentacostal as called this "Charismania" and he is correct on this phenomena, it is certainly not biblical charismata.

It is just astounding how many Christians are being mislead by this and it does pain my heart that this even happens. Charismania is increasing at an alarming rate and sadly is taking root in many churches, even false groups like Vineyard Movements are bringing new age practices into the Church under the guise of Christianity. I am even disgusted with the infiltration of the Kansas City Prophets into the church, putting their listeners into fear, making them think they are attacking the anointed of God if they do speak out against their reprobate falsehoods. In other words the "Don't Touch God's Anointed" ploy allows these Kansas City Prophets to be unassailable and continue to perpetuate their falsehoods.

I hope this warning from me is taken to heart by you guys, but I can't make that choice for you at all. Thanks for reading.

Answering Judaism.

Addendum: PFO's article can be found here: http://www.pfo.org/ragriver.htm

AMEN: Talk is Cheap Indeed.

16th of September 2017 The initial link on James 2:24 Keith Thompson was removed ages ago so I have put my article in it's place.
I came across an response to a Christians' letter by Tsvi Jacobson, one of the writers of yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com, and I read his response to the letter itself. The article can be found here: http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/talk-is-cheap/

Tsvi Jacobson to the best of my knowledge is a former Messianic Jew and he provides a response in that link to the letter itself. The letter you can read in that link, but Jacobson's reply I will post here and comment on it.

This is what he said:

"My reply to this paper is that having spent many years in Christianity,  I rarely if ever saw the poor maimed and blind
invited to anyones home  except the soup kitchens where the alcoholics and drug addicts had to listen to a sermon
before being served something to eat.   Yet in most Orthodox synagogues you will hear the announcement every
Sabbath. ” If you do not have a place for Sabbath dinner let me know as we have many families that would be glad
to have you.”   The truth of the matter is that in many respects JEWS ALREADY DO  many things that Jesus himself taught, but
Christians just believe on him  
Tsvi Jacobson"

Now, It is a rare occurrence that the blind and maimed are invited to anyone's home, although I admit it would be nice if Christians as a whole would be willing to extend this compassion to any person, considering Jesus himself did which Jacobson rightly points out.

Now it is unfortunate that Mr Jacobson encountered Christians who did not have this attitude to those individuals he mentioned. Had he encountered Christians who did what they should of been doing, there is no doubt within my mind the picture would be different and I wouldn't even be writing this paper to begin with.

I think Christians such as myself can benefit greatly from this form of hospitality being applied in our lives, namely us extending this hospitality to many people. But to say "Christians just believe on him" isn't an accurate picture of genuine Christianity.

Yes there is an emphasis on belief, but this is not to the denigration of deeds, considering Ephesians 2:8-10 and of course James 2:17.

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

"14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."

Though one is justified by faith in Christ, this doesn't mean the faith is superficial and has no works. Salvation is by grace, but if one is truly in Christ the works shall be there. James 2 I address in this paper: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/james-2-does-it-refute-justification-by.html

There are works in a Christian's life, but this doesn't justify them before God, it's believing first, THEN Christians do the works that have been prepared for us, not to get saved, but as a demonstration of faith to the world.

Hope this article has been a blessing. May the Triune God YHWH give us the grace to carry out the great commission, Amen.

Answering Judaism.