Challenge to Itzhak Shapira

I had recently sent an email to Rabbi Itzhak Shapira with respect to the concerns I had, I sent him the following message to his website:
"Hello Mr Shapira

I am the writer and of Answering Judaism, a blog that seeks to respond to Rabbinic objections.

I have recently stumbled upon a video that you have done in response to Contra Brown author Yisroel Blumenthal on the subject of compound unity. The following statement made by you is of grave concern:

""The Zohar explains that God is truly a compound unity, ok, and to argue that this is not is arguing against Judaism. That is why when a man approached Yeshua and asked him what is the greatest commandment, Yeshua replied in Mark 12:29 Shema Yisrael Adonai Eleheinu Adonai Echad. Christianity on the other hand misunderstood it's compound unity and understood that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all three different personas, well that is not true either. That is not the point in my book and that's not what I believe. I believe that God is a compound God, he is ONE and he is absolute, without beginning and end, but at the same time he can manifest himself in anyway he chooses for"."

Judging by your statement, it appears you seem to be advocating the Oneness perspective or Modalist perspective, both of which are dangerous and quite frankly contrary to scriptures.

I myself hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, that there is one God in Three Persons, however, you flatly deny this on the program which I have provided the quote from.

My grave concern and I don't say this to be hateful or disrespectful but I am convinced you are teaching a very damnable error.

However, despite your quotation of numerous Trinitarian sources, including Michael L Brown of AskDrBrown, as I said before you flatly denied this teaching and said that it wasn't the point of your book and asked if God can manifest itself in different ways. Even Yisroel Blumenthal himself took note that you were not a Trinitarian after watching the program itself.

I exhort you to renounce this dangerous teaching that you are propagating and seriously reconsider your position.

Answering Judaism."

I have not received a response back from Shapira regarding this issue and so far he has not responded to what I have said. I ask Rabbi Shapira and tell me honestly, do you hold to the Doctrine of the Trinity? Yes or No? I want a simple yes or no.

I await your reply.

Answering Judaism.

Warning: The Modalist Heresy of Itzhak Shapira

Itzhak Shapira is a Messianic Rabbi who runs Ahavat Ammi Ministries and is the author of the book "The Kosher Pig", a book panned by the Orthodox Community in Judaism.

Recently the Answering-Islam Facebook page had issued a warning that Shapira does not teach the Trinity, but an ancient  heresy called Modalism.

Modalists deny the Trinity yet acknowledge Yeshua or Jesus as God. The problem is that the unity of the individual persons is taken to the extreme where Jesus is the same person as the Father or where they are merely different manifestations of God. On a side note although Oneness advocate Roger Perkins claimed he acknowledged that the Father and the Son as distinct persons, I am not sure what he means by that in light of his denial of the Trinity.

(However, I recently discovered that there are two types of Modalist, Synonymous and Successive. Successive means the Father, Son and Spirit exist at different points, whereas Synonymous means they exist at the same time but are not three distinct persons)

Back to Shapira, the "rabbi" had recently spent time in a video responding to Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal on objections he raised with respect to the Trinity.

Although Shapira spends the majority of the video trying to demonstrate that YHWH or Ha Shem is a compound unity by quoting the Zohar, a Kabbalistic text, and quoting from the TANAKH.

However, 13 minutes roughly in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu4EWiw9Os4), Shapira says the following:
"The Zohar explains that God is truly a compound unity, ok, and to argue that this is not is arguing against Judaism. That is why when a man approached Yeshua and asked him what is the greatest commandment, Yeshua replied in Mark 12:29 Shema Yisrael Adonai Eleheinu Adonai Echad. Christianity on the other hand misunderstood it's compound unity and understood that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all three different personas, well that is not true either. That is not the point in my book and that's not what I believe. I believe that God is a compound God, he is ONE and he is absolute, without beginning and end, but at the same time he can manifest himself in anyway he chooses for".

And it is ALL downhill from here.

As I have said before, 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 (like Ahmed Deedat falsely claimed). There are not three seperate Gods, but one Eternal God which the TANAKH and the NT make very clear. This is clearly something denied by Shapira.

I myself on a side note want to represent accurately what Rabbinic literature says properly. I have even occasionally spoken with orthodox Jews such as Funkdude and Sefard not Sefardi on some issues and ask for their perspectives and both have advised against using Shapira, which judging by what I have heard I am glad I didn't.

Yisroel Blumenthal has noted here the following:(http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/shapira-is-not-a-trinitarian/):
"Why did I assume that Shapira is a Trinitarian?

Simple; he claims to have been ordained by the IMACS which is a subsidiary of the MJAA. The statement of faith of the MJAA declares that the organization believes in the trinity. Furthermore; Shapira quotes extensively from Trinitarian books (such as “Can Three be One”) and from various Trinitarian Christians (such as Dr. Michael Brown). At no point does Shapira distance himself from the beliefs of those he quotes from."

Though I would disagree with Blumenthal that worship of Jesus is idolatry, that is not the topic of this article.

I find it a shame that Shapira is teaching the Modalist Heresy and I urge Shapira if he is reading what I write to abandon this heresy he is teaching, it is doing more harm to the Body of Christ than good.

Hope this article has been a help.

Answering Judaism.

Addendum, Here is the video about this subject and Michael L Brown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynqRrHryPYo

Addendum 2: Shapira is not a Modalist in the sense of Successive Modalist, he is actually a Synonymous Modalist, For more details, read here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/video-examination-of-itzhak-shapiras.html

Comments on statements by Dr Immanuel Schochet

Since I do not know the best way to introduce the late Dr Immanuel Schochet to those who don't know, I'll let chabad.org introduce him:

"Rabbi Dr. Jacob Immanuel Schochet, a Chabad scholar and academic, and a preeminent defender of traditional Jewish belief, passed away on Shabbat, the 20th of Av 5773, July 27, 2013, following a long illness. He was 77.

As a congregational rabbi, professor of philosophy, and world-renowned lecturer and personal advisor, Schochet combined erudition and wit to influence and inspire generations of scholars, university students, and young Jewish men, women, teenagers and families from all walks of life."

I want to spend this article commenting on some of the things that Dr Schochet said in his debate with Michael Brown back in 1995, Namely regarding Brown's response on the subject of why Christianity differs from other faiths.

Although Brown did provide a response himself to the comments by Dr Schochet, I want to respond to some of the points by the Dr himself.

Atonement

Firstly, Dr Schochet claimed that Muhammad and the Muslims have the same atonement as Jesus as the Christians and that if you don't accept Muhammad as the final prophet, of to the barbecue as the Muslims claim.

The problem is that Islam doesn't have a means of atonement for sin, whereas Judaism did once have atonement through the temple and Christians have Yeshua as their means of atonement to cleanse them. Islam doesn't have a means of atonement that can satisfy the wrath of God and deal with the problem of human sin and Muslims don't recognise the TANAKH or the NT as undefiled, but rather see it as corrupted. Sam Shamoun of Answering-Islam has proposed based on reading the Quran and the Hadith Sources such as Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud etc that the Quran actually confirms the Torah and the Gospel, which would consequently falsify the Quran because it contradicts the TANAKH and the NT documents.

Another comment made by Dr Schochet was basically that any religion that claims to be universal claims to offer atonement, however, there is ONE problem with Dr Schochet's assertion, Idolatry.

Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, New Age, Satanism etc do not follow the God of Israel nor submit to him, whereas Christianity, despite the misrepresentations, actually points people back to the God of Israel. In fact one of Jesus' exhortations was to "love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself" as found in Mark 12:28-30. Although Muslims claim to know the God of Israel, the fact that their Quran denies God having a son period and other issues which I won't go into now shows otherwise and that they are following a counterfeit. Mormons, despite their claims to know the God of Israel, are guilty of being polytheistic although they will give themselves a different name, so that would immediately disqualify them as being Christians, let alone worshippers of the One True God.

As for his comments on Islam being the fulfilment of the TANAKH and the NT, that has already been covered.

Conversion
For the life of me I have no idea why Muslims are constantly used as a means of arguing against Christianity, It's one argument I do get sick and tired of hearing from Rabbinic Jews. But anyway, As David Wood of Answering-Muslims has pointed out, the reason that you have Islam growing rapidly is because of high birth rates. Just because any religion is the fastest growing religion in the world, that doesn't make it the Way, the Truth and the Life. I don't even use that argument to prove Christianity as an argument for it's veracity, it's not even a good one.

Fruits
Dr Schochet then pointed to the fruits of those who become part of cults and that if you truly believe something then it will fix you up, whether it is idolatry or nonsense. Problem, When has idolatry ever brought healing? The hyperdulia found in Roman Catholicism has not brought that, neither has bowing to the black stone in Mecca, or whatever on earth the Hindus and Buddhists bow to doesn't help them. Even Witchcraft, Mysticism, New Age Sorcery and Gnosticism doesn't bring spiritual healing, quite to the contrary they have brought spiritual death to millions. Idolatry doesn't help anyone, we know this from the TANAKH and from the NT. None of those religions deal with the problem of human sin and change you from the inside out to be a new creation in right reconciliation with God. Even under the guise of Christianity, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have their fair share of idolatry that takes people to hell, namely the veneration of icons in the EO tradition and Mary Veneration in the RC tradition which I already mentioned. Denial of the Trinity also leads to idolatry, considering many such as Arians, JWs, Socians or groups that deny the deity of Christ expect Christians to pay homage to a mere creature and give him the honor that only God deserves. Their version of Jesus is not the Biblical Jesus and thus would fall into Avodah Zara or Alien Worship.

Conclusion
Christianity as it stands today offers a solution that the other religions Dr Schochet mentioned cannot offer, namely a new heart, a new nature and reconciliation with God.

Feel free to examine my points and think them over.

Answering Judaism.

Correcting Misconceptions of Protestantism: A response to Yisroel Blumenthal

Yisroel Blumenthal of yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com has taken the time to respond to one of my articles (and others) on the subject of Acts 21 and Paul. He quotes from his treatise Supplement to Contra Brown with respect to certain issues within Protestantism which I shall be responding to. This particular article won't be dealing with Paul and Acts 21 because they require another article to deal with.

I had stated the following in my first article to Mr Blumenthal with respect to contradictions:
"I think Mr Blumenthal and others will agree that the honest thing to do with any book is to read a passage within in it's context. To claim that the New Testament writers wrote contradictory messages shows that the person is unwilling to take the time to reconcile the contradictions, Besides, many more can be found in the Hebrew Bible, which can all be reconciled and the Talmud which I am sure the Rabbis have given superlative answers regarding the 63 tractates."

I raised this issue because often many will assert that Jesus taught a different doctrine to Paul or James taught a different doctrine to Paul and that this problem can be rectified by careful study and looking into these issues and the same being with the subject of the TANAKH and the Talmud. In this paper I wish to look at some of the points Blumenthal makes in his paper.

I had been meaning to do this for some time but I think now is the perfect time to do it. Let's begin.

"IV. 6. Objections 5:16 and 5:17 

Here Brown focuses on some of the misquotations and contradictions that are to be found in the Christian Scriptures. Brown’s responds by demonstrating that the Jewish Scriptures and the Jewish Rabbinic writings also contain discrepancies and seeming contradictions. Brown argues that whatever methods that the adherents of Judaism utilize to resolve the contradictions found in their sacred texts should be allowed for the resolution of the discrepancies found in the Christian texts. 

Brown has failed to grasp the vast difference between the respective faith structures of Judaism and Christianity. 

Judaism affirms that God established the basic foundations of Judaism in the hearts of the Jewish people. The Exodus and the Sinai revelation which were experienced by the nation as a collective unit, served to establish the basic truths of Judaism in the hearts and minds of the nation. The sacred books were presented to the nation in order that their message be assimilated by the people who will read these books in light of the foundational experiences. 

As it is with any written work, and especially one as lengthy as the Jewish Scriptures, there will be questions and confusion. Judaism maintains that the Divine intent was that the judges of the Jewish people arbitrate in all situations where the Scriptural guidance is not clear. The foundational concepts of Judaism will never be affected by the intricacies of the text because they are not dependant on the text. They were established in the hearts of the people independent of any text."

Brown I think was simply pointing out that there needs to be consistency when it comes to examining another religion and that uneven weights and unequal measures are not to be utilized.

In a discussion I had with Nakdimon and Gassen Duu last year, I asked for their comments on the point regarding the Sinai Revelation and other points.:

Nakdimon wrote: "Blumenthal writes: “Judaism affirms that God established the basic foundations of Judaism in the hearts of the Jewish people. The Exodus and the Sinai revelation which were experienced by the nation as a collective unit, served to establish the basic truths of Judaism in the hearts and minds of the nation. The sacred books were presented to the nation in order that their message be assimilated by the people who will read these books in light of the foundational experiences. 

As it is with any written work, and especially one as lengthy as the Jewish Scriptures, there will be questions and confusion. Judaism maintains that the Divine intent was that the judges of the Jewish people arbitrate in all situations where the Scriptural guidance is not clear. The foundational concepts of Judaism will never be affected by the intricacies of the text because they are not dependant on the text. They were established in the hearts of the people independent of any text.“

What Blumenthal is writing here is just not true! It sounds all nice and dandy but this is just another romanticized, wishful thinking description of the historical events and contrary to the testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures. The basic foundations are NOT in the hearts of the Jewish people, which is evident of the rebellion of the Jewish people for centuries as soon as Moses died and even when Moses lived! In fact, that rebellion is the exact reason why God sent prophets over and over again to attempt to set the Jewish people straight. The rebellion of the Jewish people resulted in two exiles, the second being more severe than the first. 

Also, the majority of the Jewish people nowadays are secular at worst, semi-religious at best and follow little to no Torah. It is the minority of the Jewish people that are religious and read the scriptures at all. But take away the Hebrew Scriptures and it is only by the grace of God that there will be any religious Jews left. So much for “the basic foundations of Judaism [being] in the hearts of the Jewish people“. Truth is that the supposed experience at Sinai died with the people in the desert, all that is left is the testimony of that experience, which we find in the Tanach. The foundational concepts of Judaism (if Judaism is to be measured by any Biblical standard) depend very much on the TEXT of the Hebrew Bible!"

Protestant Christianity, on the other hand prides itself that it does not rely upon humans for the foundation or for the transmission of their belief system. Protestants point to the texts of Scripture and declares that they only rely upon the word of God. 

Without getting into the question as to who decided that these texts are indeed the word of God and upon what authority is this decision based, there are serious problems with the Protestant position. If indeed these texts are to serve as the foundation of the religion, and these texts are not meant for any specific audience (as opposed to the texts of Judaism which are meant for a specific target audience) – then who is to arbitrate when confusion arises? These confusions are not limited to peripheral issues in the Christian faith. The texts are unclear about some of the most essential issues of Christianity. This problem is severe enough when we limit our focus to the Christian Scriptures alone. But the confusions are multiplied exponentially when we throw the Jewish Scriptures into the mix."

One of the 5 Solas of Protestantism that is well known in Christian circles but is also the most misunderstood is Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura teaches that the scriptures, The TANAKH and the NT, are are the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct. Protestants who know what Sola Scriptura teaches will not deny the usage of tradition. Quite to the contrary, Protestants do use tradition such as church councils, church fathers, creeds, catechisms etc, however, the tradition uttered needs to be in conformity with the scriptures themselves.

There is something called SOLO Scriptura, which does teach you can only use the Bible and no tradition period, however, this concept is foreign to the Reformers and even to those well versed in the Protestant faith. The fact that Protestant Churches have creeds in the first place means they don't deny the usage of tradition. Pastors ,Teachers, Tradition, General Revelation, the Holy Spirit and the transmission of scripture orally, arenot refuted by Sola Scriptura.

Sam Shamoun in an article on Sola Scriptura articulates what it teaches in three points:
"1. The Holy Scriptures are the sole, infallible rule of faith by virtue of it being breathed out or inspired by God. As such it is completely sufficient in and of itself to thoroughly equip Christians in all things necessary for salvation and sanctification.

2. The Bible is the only certain norm, since it is the only revelation that can be demonstrated to have come from inspired men of God. This cannot be said of oral traditions.

3. Finally, the central focus of the Scriptures is to reveal and make known the risen Lord and immortal Savior Jesus Christ, God’s eternally beloved Son, who alone grants eternal life to all who believe"

Keith Thompson has also done a comprehensive documentary refuting Catholicism and in a small snippet defines what Sola Scriptura is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t24AnKrp61o&list=UUf7UKslwT23nmUwsMMO48xw

My question to Mr Blumenthal, Didn't the Prophets call their people back to Moses? The Torah was the ultimate authority and is to the people of Israel. Also, in Rabbinic thought to the best of my knowledge the Torah stands on the highest plane of revelation so wouldn't the traditions of the Rabbis need to be tested in light of the Torah?

"The sacred texts of Christianity do not give clear direction on issues such as the alleged divinity of Jesus, on the position of the Law of Moses after the advent of Jesus, on the role of the Jewish people in the Messianic age and on many such issues that have divided the Protestant Church since its inception."

The Deity of Christ is quite clear, especially in the Book of Acts where people are praying to Jesus just as HaShem was called on by the righteous in the Genesis 4:26. I have written on this subject of the Trinity, specifically responding to Richard Merrel and Tovia Singer.

Protestants to the best of my knowledge will be in agreement that the Law of Moses as a whole doesn't apply to Gentiles and that only moral commands minus the death penalty will apply, which the NT makes very clear, especially in the letters of Paul, although Protestants are divided on the issue of the Sabbath whether it should be observed or not and the subject of tithing is also disputed.

I am aware that Seventh Day Adventists make a mountain out of a molehill about Sabbath observance but they do not take Romans 14 or Colossians 2 into consideration. But that is another issue I won't be getting into here.

"Since Protestant Christianity does not attribute any authority to a body of human judges, there is no way that these conflicts can be effectively resolved except on a person by person basis. Each reader could resolve the confusions as he or she sees fit. This leaves Christianity with the unhappy proposition of having as many Christianity’s as there are adherents."

Letting the common man resolve the confusions would not allow him to interpret as he sees fit, especially when it comes to moral prohibitions within the NT and the fact that the NT commands Christians not to focus on worldliness.

As for issues not directly addressed in scripture, The subject of playing sports, watching movies or going down the gym is up for debate.

As stated before, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of authority, what it actually does is holds the authority accountable to the Bible.

Like I said with respect to the TANAKH, the prophets called their people back to the Law of Moses by Ha Shem's command. Jesus and the apostles are the ones whom Christians are to be called back to obeying Christ and the Father on the basis of both TANAKH and NT, considering the fact the warnings of the TANAKH can make a Christian wise unto salvation. The point is the ones who wrote the scriptures are the ones we are called back to, but this doesn't mean you cannot have a second and lesser authority guiding you.

There are two other points also worth noting:
1. The "many" Christianities arise because of the FAILURE to practice Sola Scriptura, not because of using Sola Scriptura effectively.
2. Protestants are only to divide over issues that affect our salvation. Believing in the existence of a third temple, eschatology and stuff such as what food's we can eat and what day we should worship on are minor issues which don't affect a man's salvation.

"This is only where Christianity’s problems begin. When we consider the question of the trustworthiness or lack thereof of the sacred texts of Christianity the Protestant Christian can only point to the texts themselves. As opposed to Judaism where the testimony of the living nation augments the testimony of the texts and the testimony of the texts augments the testimony of the living people – Protestant Christianity only has a set of books upon which they could place their trust. How can we know if these texts were written by honest people? On what basis can we accept that the books of the Christian Scripture were authored by people who lived up to a high ethical and moral standard? Why should we judge the authors of the gospels in a favorable light if there is no outside evidence to support the thesis that these were honest and ethical people?"

I had to get clarification from Mr Blumenthal before I could answer this, he said to clarify his point:
"What I am trying to say is this: If you have a person that is reputed to be Godly, honest, kind and trustworthy and he writes something in a book that seems to be dishonest – it is appropriate to study his/her words and try to understand them in a light that would fit with everything else that we know about this person.
But if you have someone who has a reputation for the opposite – or even if he has no reputation – and such a person writes something that seems to be dishonest – why should we exert ourselves to understand his/her words in a favorable light?"

If they were dishonest, you would still test what they say, considering one is able to mix truth with error. If however they were honest people, then yes, you would try to understand what they are saying and read what they say. Aren't we supposed to judge all mans words and test them, even mine?

Gassen Duu also made the following observation: “As opposed to Judaism where the testimony of the living nation augments the testimony of the texts and the testimony of the texts augments the testimony of the living people – Protestant Christianity only has a set of books upon which they could place their trust. How can we know if these texts were written by honest people? On what basis can we accept that the books of the Christian Scripture were authored by people who lived up to a high ethical and moral standard? Why should we judge the authors of the gospels in a favorable light if there is no outside evidence to support the thesis that these were honest and ethical people?"

This is an understandable objection and for sure nothing new, at least as old as the challenge for the “testimonies of the living nation” recorded by a single person – Moses.

As Nakdimon pointed out in another conversation:” Moses was a person of high moral conduct. BUT WHERE IS THE OUTSIDE SOURCE THAT TESTIFIES TO THAT?”

The New Testament was penned by the first hand eye witnesses of Jesus and those who stayed close to the disciples of Jesus."

Let's carry on

"In the case of Judaism, we have the testimony of the nation concerning the moral and spiritual character of the Biblical authors. These men and women established their credentials in the hearts, minds, and memories of a nation appointed by God as His witnesses. If we find confusion in their writings, we have the testimony of the nation amongst whom these writers lived to reassure us that these authors were holy and trustworthy. The confirmation of a nation serves to counteract any questions that would arise from the body of the texts. 

In the case of Christianity, on the other hand, the exact opposite is true. The Jewish people amongst whom these authors lived remember them in a negative light. Why should we trust these people? What is the justification to exert ourselves to straighten out the confusion that abounds in their writings? Where is the witness that will stand to counterbalance the contradictions found in the gospels?"

The apostles do not remember in a negative light every single Jew who has ever lived, only those who denied the Messiahship of Yeshua, that's it. The apostles had used the TANAKH as their foundation to demonstrate how Yeshua or Jesus fulfils the OT prophecies pertaining to the Messiah.

Not to mention some of the NT books such as the book of Hebrews were specifically written to the Jewish Christians in Rome.

The TANAKH is the foundation for both Jews and Christians, hence that is where we should start and see where the truth actually lies. We are both not interested in the Quran, the Bhagvad Gita or the Book of Mormon as our foundation, we are strictly speaking of the Judeo-Christian texts and no other texts outside them.

Hope this article helps

Answering Judaism.

Does the Bible condemn homosexuality

This is an issue that needs to be addressed biblically and scripturally considering what is taking place in churches. Let us firstly turn to the TANAKH's attitude towards homsexuality.

We'll read Leviticus 18 to see what is says:

"18 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.

6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’”"

Within the confines of the chapter, verse 22 means that you cannot engage in homosexual activity nor a relationship of that kind. Now before you say "We are not under the law", Let me go even further with this and see what God established BEFORE the Mosaic Covenant came and AFTER it was fulfilled. 

Firstly Lets read from the book of Genesis to see what was established in the garden of Eden.

Genesis 2 says in verse 23

"23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones

    and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called ‘woman,’

    for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."

This was before any Mosaic ordinance was put into play. Also, Notice it says FATHER AND MOTHER, not father and father or mother and mother. You cannot get away with semantic word games of saying two men are husband and wife or likewise with women, That doesn't work because of the context of the passage.

Now you might be thinking, "Jesus never addressed homosexuality, he approved of it". However, such is shallow argumentation at best. One, Jesus didn't have to address homosexuality in Israel because it wasn't a problem in Israel. If he was in the Greco-Roman world, he would outright condemn it as reprehensible. 

Two, If you are going to say "Homosexuality is acceptable because Jesus never spoke out against it", well accept bestiality or pedophilia or witchcraft or even idolatry, because Jesus himself never addressed those issues either while he was on earth

Third, If you read Matthew 19 where Jesus speaks on the subject of divorce, he outlines what a biblical marriage is and whether or not a person should be divorced or not. Though he doesn't speak of homosexuality in the context, notice what Jesus quotes:

"19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”"

Jesus quotes from Genesis 2 and tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman and that divorce is out of the question. This text certainly doesn't indicate that Jesus approved of homosexuality, in fact it reinforces the point that he is against it.

Paul also makes it clear in the following passages that those who wilfully continue to practice homosexuality will be subject to condemnation:

Romans 1:18-32

"18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Now many will say "Wait a minute, that's only to do with worshipping pagan deities". Yeah... So what? Regardless of whether it is in the context of worshipping idols or the context of worshipping the true God YHWH, homosexuality is still To'evah or an abomination by the standards of the New Testament.

Read the following articles on this subject:

http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by.html

Scroll down to the section where it says "Brown claims that repentance is an essential message of Christianity" and read what I have said with respect to the moral commands.

Also, read the following on the subject of mosaic observance

http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/observance-of-torah-demanded-of-gentiles.html

This will tell you some of the laws that do and do not apply to Christians today. Though we are not under the Mosaic Law, we do need to know which laws apply to us and which don't.

Some will say "Well the word homosexual didn't exist until the 1900s".

Read this section in 1 Corinthians 6. This is from the NIV, a modern translation:

"9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

1599 Geneva Bible

"9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? [m]Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers,"

Finally, KJV:

"9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

I could go on, but I think that's enough with respect to translations.

Here are two videos which I think would be a good help to you with respect to these issues done by James White:

Rob Bell on Homosexuality on the Unbelievable Broadcast

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZLyZvmdVw8

The Meaning of "Pais" in Matthew 8 and Luke 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTwyMSrQAfA

The first video James in one section does address the measly defense by Rob Bell on the subject of people being gay, while the second addresses the word "pais" and it's abuse by the Huffiington Post.

Going back to the TANAKH, We go to the book of Genesis. Read the following translations here: http://biblehub.com/genesis/19-5.htm

The text says:

"19 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”"

Now many will try and say "Oh but they were simply being inhospitable". So?... OK fine they were inhospitable, but that doesn't answer WHY they asked Lot if they could have sex with the angels.

Some even try and appeal to the word "know" being used in certain translations but in that context it is a euphemism for having sex. Don't believe me? I thoroughly recommend this source for you to look at it: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=614

I hope you will study what I have to say and check it out with the scriptures for yourselves.

Thanks for reading.

Answering Judaism

Messiah being God fears God? Answering Tovia Singer

One assertion brought by Tovia Singer, the owner of Outreach Judaism as well as Gomerozdubar, a muslim on Paltalk, who is often seen engaging with Christians, is the question of, "How can the Messiah be God when he fears God?"

I had said I would answer this objection to Gomer, although instead of a video, I shall address the point he raised here.

Let us read Isaiah 11:1-3
"11 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
    from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
    the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
    the Spirit of counsel and of might,
    the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord—
3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord."

Firstly, it is important to define the doctrine of the Trinity before we start, It teaches that there is One Eternal God, YHWH or Ha Shem as Rabbinic Jews will call him. Ha Shem means "The Name". The Trinity states there is one God, absolute MONOTHEISM. It also teaches that this one God, exists as 3 distinct persons, Person in the sense of being able to think, reason, plan, interact and speak. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father. One Being in Three Persons. If you think being and person are the same thing, that means you and I are the same person, so I wouldn't go there if I were you.

Second, We need to define what it means to fear the LORD. What does a good God-fearing Jew do? He does what God tells him to do. In the same way, Jesus did what the Father requests of him, which can be found in John 5:19-30

"19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."

Again, one who fears the LORD, does what he says, in fact that is what Solomon in Ecclesiastes tells us:

"13 Now all has been heard;
    here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
    for this is the duty of all mankind.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
    including every hidden thing,
    whether it is good or evil."

The Messiah, himself deity, only does ONLY the what Father wills, hence not only his claim to deity is there, which no man can claim, he also claims to do what the Father says perfectly. Fearing the Lord leads one to keeping his commandments. We are not perfect, only Christ is and by his grace, not works, we can be redeemed.

Hope this answers the objection

Answering Judaism.

Where Sherry Shriner Went Wrong: The Deception of the Ages 4

This is another article taking a look Sherri Shriner's article. I won't be looking at the Illuminati or the Blue Beam project because I am not interested in them at this time.

"Most people who dig into the history of religions have it completely backwards. No surprise. But the truth is out there for those who seek it from the Lord. When Adam and Eve fell, the only hope mankind had was to be redeemed. And from the time of the fall, Yahweh knew what He would do to redeem it.

  
      Adam was told how mankind would be redeemed. That the Messiah was to be born of a virgin to become, the Lord of the Covenant, the ‘Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’, who was to die and be in the grave for three days and then be resurrected. Adam knew the attributes of God and His plan of salvation and was told all this by God Himself and it was his bounded duty to pass it on verbally to all his offspring, and they on to theirs, so that by the time of the Assyrians, all these gospel truths were well known. Abraham knew them all well!

  
      Hasn't it always stood true that God will do nothing lest He reveal it unto His servants the prophets’. . Amos 3:7?

     We know Satan heard Yahweh's plan of redemption for mankind as He revealed it to Adam. Because he set about to prepare the biggest counterfeits he could come up with to negate Yahweh's plans! Satan had plenty of time to prepare, and put into motion the best counterfeits he could come up with, so that when the real messiah did come, no one would recognize Him for the real Messiah that He was.

     It was the pagan cult of mystery that became a complete and blatant counterfeit piece of work that Satan had perfected in substituting the  ‘son of the sun-god’, Mithra, for our Lord and Savior the Lord Jesus Christ, the only true Lord of light and truth, the only true Mediator, and the only true God of the Holy Covenant. It was truly one great counterfeit job, and the results are still with us to this day."

I am still waiting for a source to show how Mithra replaced Jesus Christ, no such thing happened. Satan does counterfeit the real thing there is no question about that. Adam and Eve were told about the Messiah bruising Satan's head in Genesis 3:15, I don't think there is any disagreement there. However, Satan was not aware that Jesus would be a vicarious atonement for our sins, quite to the contrary he was ignorant of that mission until Jesus showed up on the scene. Adam and Eve may have been sub consciously aware, but certainly not Satan. It was after the death and resurrection that he realised he made a mistake and has since then tried to correct what he did. Well, we know that God's plan of redemption was and is and is going to be successful.

I don't doubt that there is elements of truth from YHWH that Gentiles are aware of, but later corrupted those truths with paganism, such as blood sacrifice, which was ordained by God as atonement and later used in pagan worship, even vampire religion. The Jews were given the truth as to why the blood was actually given, to make atonement for them.

Again, While you can claim Mithra copied from Christ, his story differs tremendously from Christ as already demonstrated here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/where-sherry-shriner-went-wrong_4.html

"Today there are many who claim Jesus Yahushua was a copy of Mithra when it is the other way around. It was Mithra who was created and set up through every pagan religion throughout the nations to mimmick what Yahweh would do.

      This mimmickry has traveled through the ages into even our churches of today. It never went anywhere, just disguised itself and assimilated as the Jesus of the Bible into our churches. Are they really worshipping Yahushua?

       What does the Bible call today's churches? MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT , THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. (Rev. 17:5). Babylon is America, harlots are the churches. They have prostituted the truth for lies.

     If you are worshiping the Jesus of the churches, you are worshipping another Savior. If you are celebrating the traditions and dogma of the churches today you are worshipping another gospel. How can I say this? Because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. And if you are not following the example both He and His Apostles set, then you are not following HIM. If you are not celebrating His feasts, keeping His Torah laws and observing His commandments you are not HIS but the clever counterfeit of the ages himself, deceptive Mithra i.e. Lucifer."

How is Mithra involved in every pagan nation and getting them to mimic what YHWH would do? You already misrepresented the Buddhists, not that I defend Buddhism, after it is a religion of idolatry. Again, there is NO NT command where GENTILES are told to observe the feasts of the Torah, You cannot find it in the NT ANYWHERE, even in Matthew 5:17-20 which is misused and misapplied by so many. Again the feast arguments are addressed in these articles:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/where-sherry-shriner-went-wrong_4.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/observance-of-torah-demanded-of-gentiles.html

Though America is not Babylon, it certainly is running itself into the ground with it's depravity.

"Most churches today justify Pauline teachings as to why they believe what they do. Paul was a false apostle. And when you realize that everything changes. You can get back into the truth of what faith in Yahweh really is instead of the lies you've been spoon fed from Paul. The law never ended, sure the cumbersome aspects of it were replaced and nullified, but there’s more to the law than most realize. They simple claim the law was replaced by grace and sweep it under the rug without realizing it’s Yahweh Himself they’re sweeping under the rug. Jesus fulfilled the law He didn’t cancel it or replace it with Pauline doctrines.

    There was no stop in God's plan for mankind. In the Book of Revelation it even says that in the New Jerusalem people will be celebrating the feasts. So why aren't you now? Why is the majority of churchianity following Mithra traditions and feasts rather than Yahweh's?"

The feasts and the traditions of YHWH will be observed in the Millennial reign, not while Christ has not come again yet. Though Revelation doesn't speak of the feasts themselves, the TANAKH certainly does, such as in Zechariah 14.
"16 Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. 17 If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, they will have no rain. 18 If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The Lord[b] will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. 19 This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.

20 On that day holy to the Lord will be inscribed on the bells of the horses, and the cooking pots in the Lord’s house will be like the sacred bowls in front of the altar. 21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the Lord Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a Canaanite[c] in the house of the Lord Almighty."

Some Rabbinic Jews, though deniers of Yeshua's Messiahship, affirm that Zechariah 14 is messianic in nature. In fact one Jewish fellow, Limitbreak9001, when I asked him, he said that it was and hasn't been fulfilled yet, and if it was, I would be celebrating Sukkot or the Feast of Tabernacles with him. I believe the feasts will be done in the Millennial reign, not while Christ hasn't returned. No problem here Shriner.

Jesus did fulfill the Law yes, but that doesn't mean that Paul came along to replace what he taught. The opposite is true, the apostles would be guided into all the truth and Paul was deemed reliable by the apostles. I recommend Shriner and everyone reading my responses to Yisroel Blumenthal on "Supplements to Contra Brown" where he raises issues against 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
Also Jesus taught grace, Paul never replaced anything with grace. Any claim that Jesus and Paul were teaching different things, is a ridiculous notion and fantasy.

"What's been lost is for people to question why they believe what they do. They follow church after church instead of just seeking Yahweh Himself. They blindly accept what their pastors and leaders tell them because it's just what they've done all their lives and to think otherwise goes against the brainwashing of the religious establishment. The fear of questioning is put into them instead of following the commands to be Berean and search the Scriptures for ourselves. You can't protect yourself from error if you don't seek Yahweh Himself for the truth. Man should never replace Him. To place your pastor as your teacher instead of Yahweh you are bordering on idolatry. Because we are to seek Him, not man.

      We have gone from generation to generation in Spiritual limbo because man has replaced Yahweh in every church. Doctrines, theologies and ideologies, have all replaced HIM."

What an insulting generalisation, I DON'T accept EVERYTHING my pastor says, In fact I don't take every point I hear to be straight fact. In fact, There are conclusions I think that some have come too I don't agree with, like Zelophehad's daughters. The common arguments used from Numbers 27 and 36 is that tribal lineage goes through the meal, which after listening to others, be they Rabbinic Jews or Christians and even a quotation from Eusebius with respect the the genealogies of Luke 3 and Matthew 1 where he says they are BOTH Joseph's geneology. This can be found in Chapter 7 Book 1 of Eusebius' Church History.

"10. Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: 'Jacob begat Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says: 'Who was the son, as was supposed' (for this he also adds), 'of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression 'he begat' he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture."

Even Robert Gundry makes the observation that both geneologies are Joseph's:
""As it was supposed" therefore calls attention Jesus' divine sonship via a virginal conception and birth. Nevertheless, Luke traces Jesus' genealogy through Joseph because of LEGAL RIGHTS, such as the right to David's throne, passed through the Father though he was only a foster father. (Page 237 Robert H. Gundry Commentary on the New Testament)"

"One the other hand, this passage explains how Jesus came to have the legal status of a descendant of David even though Joseph didn't father him: Joseph, himself a son [= a descendent] of David brought Jesus into David's line by taking Mary to wife prior to Jesus birth and by naming him at his birth(Page 3 Robert H. Gundry Commentary on the New Testament)".""

What is my point here?  I don't accept EVERY conclusion that comes along. There are many individuals who do that, but I don't like it when a group is painted with such a broad brush.

I am a Berean thank you very much Shriner, I believe in YHWH.

"No I am not messianic, or whatever title of religion there is out there. I hold no religious affiliation. My only affiliation is in Yahweh. The Messianics would do well to realize they don’t have to spend all their time trying to tell everyone “what Paul really meant” and just admit he was a false apostle. Then they wouldn’t have to waste so much of their time combating his contradictions.

      Mithraism never went anywhere. It is alive and well today. Most will embrace Mithra as the False Prophet when he arrives with the name of “Jesus and Maitreya.”  He will even look as the pictures of Jesus we’ve seen. He will mimmick and copy him so well it will be the deception of the ages to overcome. You’ve been forewarned. And the Beast Prophets in place today as pastors in our congregations and churches will embrace him and declare him as the son of God. And they will work in collusion with this False Prophet to deceive the world into worshipping the Antichrist as the Father, as God Himself.

       Most of the churches today are teaching false doctrines and being led by false shepherds.     
Get out of the deception. Get back into Yahweh."

I am still flabbergasted with some of the claims that Shriner makes, and the fact she doesn't provide a source for some of her claims makes me rather suspicious. Also, if I recall, Maitreya is some New Age concept. Anti-Christ might pretend to be that or the Madhi of Islam or what ever other religions are waiting for.

I wrote these articles responding to Shriner so that Messianics would not be deceived by her. The apostles approved of Paul's message as already demonstrated in my previous articles, If the church was deceived by Paul, then the apostles were also deceived by him and thus they are lost, hence the NT can't be trusted. That is the implication if we follow what this sorceress says about Paul.

Study what I have to say with the scriptures and I hope these articles have been a blessing to you guys.

Answering Judaism.

Addendum
Shriner cites Francis Legge, Homer Smith, Wolfgang Lederer, John Holland Smith, E.O. James and Salomon Reinach as her authorities. As to WHO they are, I need to check.