Wednesday 30 July 2014

Refutations of Roman Catholicism

In light of KeithTruth's documentary being finished, these links shall help you deal with the argumentation of many Roman Catholics, not only refuting them but also giving the Gospel to them. Check these following resources out.

Popes are NOT Infallible - Myth of Papal Infallibility

God Made the Reformation After Cutting Rome off

Justification is NOT by works, Catholics!

Catholicism turns Mary into a God

Sola Fide - Faith Alone in Luke 18:9-14 (Pharisee & Tax Collector)

James 2 DOESN'T Refute Faith Alone

Sola Scriptura Proven Biblically

Justification's a Legal Verdict, NOT being "made righteous," Catholics

Matthew 16 does NOT teach Peter was Pope

Mary is NOT the Woman of Revelation 12
(I myself don't call the Church the New Israel) (The video is unavailable).

The Catholic "33,000 Protestant Denominations" Falsehood

Bad Popes of History

Here are some other resources from him to check out.

Keith Thompson (KeithTruth)
Theory on Origins of Modern Papal Infallibility Mechanics:

Debates and Conversations
Papal Primacy Debate - Keith Thompson vs. "CBD94":
The Catholic is also known as "Sebedee Nineyfour"

Walid Shoebat’s Son Supports Catholic Massacre of Cathar Children & Women:

Debate with a Catholic on the Papacy:

Catholic Apologist Can't Historically Prove Peter was Roman Bishop & More:

Discussion on Interpreting Scripture with Two Roman Catholics:

Other papers by Keith Thompson

Responding to’s “Some Tough Questions for Protestants”:

James White
Ignatius of Antioch: Who reads him in context?
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:

Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter: Not Altogether Accurate?:

Christian vs Roman Catholic debate on Mary (Dr. James White vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi):

Messianic Drew
A Messianic Look At Roman Catholic Claims: (This link is now defunct)

More links to sources refuting Catholicism may be provided if the Lord Wills

Answering Judaism.

Monday 28 July 2014

The Trinity: A response to Barry Umansky

Barry Umansky has responded to one of my comments with respect to the Trinity.

"Your beliefs do not constitute proof. Just to take one example,due to rather divergent views among Trinitarian
Christians, it is difficult to obtain a coherent and uniform explanation of the
Trinity. At one end of the spectrum is the description of the three components as
being three separate "persons". At the other end of the spectrum is the
admission that the Trinity eludes explanations and is a mystery. In between
these two extremes rests the description that the Trinity is a "compound unity" –
a single entity that has three different personalities or manifestations. The
common thread in this spectrum is that all Trinitarians hold the Trinity to be
consistent with monotheism, yet, according to the New Testament, each of the
three entities that comprise the Trinity has different knowledge, different powers,
and different wills, which is a common characteristic of polytheistic religions."

First of all, Trinitarianism, while acknowledging God as compound does not teach that the three persons are manifestations of the one God, Modalism actually teaches this." Trinitarianism by contrast teaches that there is One God who exists as three persons. Any claim that the Trinity is remotely similar to pagan polytheism, is just as absurd as saying the flood of Noah came from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Each member of the Trinity carry out a different function, namely the Father sends the Son, The Son dies on the cross for sins and imputes his righteousness to us and both the Father and the Son send the Spirit to live inside Christians, enabling Christians to live holy lives. Having these distinct functions is no way parallel to the concept of ANY polytheistic religion.

"On the other hand, the God of the Hebrew Bible is an indivisible unity. The Shema uses the word echad (one) as an adjective describing the Eternal as ONE- not as a compound unity."

Moot point, because I never argued in my papers that the Shema taught about Gods unity or trinity. It only teaches how many Gods there are and nothing else.

The concept of
God as an indivisible unity can also be understood from the following passage:
Isaiah 44:6 – So said the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer the Lord of Hosts,
"I am first and I am last, and beside Me there is no God.”
The declaration by God, "I am the first", indicates that He has no father. When He
said, "I am the last", it means that He has no begotten son. Finally, when God
proclaimed, "beside me there is no God", it shows that He does not share His role
with any other god or entity – He has no "partners"."

The text simply acknowledges that there is only one God as again, a Trinitarian will accept. The context doesn't refute the Trinity in light of this.

The first and the last does refer to God being eternal with no beginning and no ending, but the objection presented by you doesn't take into consideration that the three persons existed eternally, Christ being the unique Son and the Father being a father to him.

Christians will accept that Ha Shem or YHWH is the only God and no other exists but he, which is all the text in Isaiah 44:6 is acknowledging and nothing else.

Finally, James White regarding the subject of personal singular pronouns has said:
Every single time, that the context does not demand that we see a particular indiviudual operating differently than the others, would be a referrence to the Triune God. So anytime where God's general activities, God's general attributes or in referrence, can be refered to the entire Godhead acting in unity

Now carrying on.

"Your belief in a triune deity can never be reconciled with the true monotheism which is at the core of Jewish belief. Thousands of Jews were murdered over the 
centuries because they refused to accept the trinity and forced conversions by Christians who held that very belief to which you subscribe."

The concept of a triune deity is monotheism, any claim otherwise is a strawman. The Trinity maintains monotheism and is consistent with such a belief. Unitarianism is just simply another form of monotheism. Both Judaism and Christianity are monotheistic religions and proving monotheism doesn't equal unitarianism, they are not synonymous terms.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday 27 July 2014

Clearing the air: Comments on Shapira's comments to me and Sam Shamoun's position on Christ

These two articles deal with the subject of a controversy some time ago which I intend to address.

Itzhak Shapira
Most are aware of my response to Itzhak Shapira AKA Ahavat Ammi Ministries on the subject of the Trinity and my concerns expressed regarding what his Christology is and thanks to Sam Shamoun and Edward Dalcour it has been confirmed that Shapira teaches a false Christology, namely his teaching of Synonmous Modalism and yes I am aware that Shapira doesn't hold to successive Modalism, but that doesn't let him off the hook just because he denies a form a Modalism, rather than Modalism as a whole.

Shapira 4 months ago actually took the time to respond and though he posted his lectures to me, others have placed them under spam. I say this because I don't want the accusation that I reported the comments myself, which I rarely did.

Anyway, here are Shapira's comments to me:

If you pray to somebody "in his name" you pray by his merit/authority, it is not the same as praying to. I just finished your 5 videos. I am shocked at the number of errors that you have made. Unfortunately since you have very little knowledge of Judaism and Hebrew it is hard for us to have a good fruitful discussion. In addition you clearly do not understand the Sfirot or what the Rabbis believed. I doubt that you ever read the book. If you did, you would have NEVER made most of the statements in the videos with so little knowledge and regard.
Hide replies

I haven't taken a look at the book myself. Anyway, with respect to the Sephirot, There isn't a correlation with them and the Trinity Mr Shapira, that's one of the problems in your video itself. While I am not an expert in Hebrew, I don't use the Echad argument to demonstrate compound unity, there are others who don't either. If you like, I can take a look at the Return of the Kosher Pig for myself.

I found it flat out irresponsible that you have not read the book yourself as you write slanderous comments. Do you honestly expect me to take it seriously. Why don't you follow R' Shaul principle of "Testing everything and holding on to what is good" instead of cutting down those who you don't know. It is truly sad to see Christians acting in this manner. 

+Ahavat Ammi Slander? Seriously? I listened to the videos carefully and what had to say. I have tried to represent accurately what you have said. For that matter, Edward Dalcour, whom I have quoted, examined the comments of the second video and has also expressed concerns.

I try NOT to misrepresent the position of those who I respond to.
Show less
Let me deal with a few issues here, Me not being able to understand or read Hebrew is NOT a relevant point to the videos I posted in question. My contention throughout the entire videos was whether or not Shapira held to biblically orthodox beliefs.

I did bring up in my videos the subject of the Jewish sources and I would need to read those sources as well as read what the counter-missionaries have said about them. My whole point regarding them was even if I grant the sources saying what Shapira is trying to make them say, this doesn't change the fact that Shapira is holding to a form of Modalistic teaching and despite him quoting a source telling us what Modalism is, he doesn't inform his audience that he is rejecting ONE form of Modalism rather than all. Eduard Dalcour made this observation on Shapira's videos and I have his quotations here in this article, courtesy of Sam Shamoun posting them on his Facebook:

One quotation by Dalcour proves the point in this article:
"In 18:27, he asks the question: “Am I a Modalist?” Then he reads a definition of early Modalism. However, he equivocates. The Modalism that he says he rejects is Successive Modalism (where the manifestations are successive, i.e., first, God was Father in creation, the, Son in redemption, then, Holy Spirit in regeneration). While most Oneness today (e.g., UPCI, T. D. Jakes) oppose this early form of Modalism and embrace what is known as Synonymous (static) Modalism, where the so-called modes (or manifestations) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist synonymously.

This seems to be to what Mr. Shapira believes in which rejects early Successive Modalism. But to this, I say, “So what.” The point is, he says nothing about (Synonymous) Oneness-Modalism today and in all of his statements, he affirms a Oneness, not a Trinitarian, notion of God (viz. three S’efirot/“manifestations”).

In conclusion, although Mr. Shapira says that the Messiah existed before time, he nowhere indicates as to in which sense the Messiah existed before time. Oneness advocates say the same in that they point out that the Messiah existed before time only as a thought or plan in the Father’s mind, thus, not as a distinct person eternally existing. In 23:25, Mr. Shapira summarized his Oneness view: “Before time was created, God Himself chose to manifest Himself in different ways, yet it [sic] represents the same entity.”

And in 22:40, we see his clear rejection of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity: “I for one don’t believe in the term three persona [persons]."

I may have displayed some ignorance in the past of Shapira's position and others have TRIED assuring me that Shapira is biblically orthodox, however, in light of the fact that Shamoun and Dalcour caught onto something I didn't, it only concludes that they are right and Shapira was wrong. In light of this information, no one can come to me and accuse me of being ignorant in light of the information I have picked up.

To those who are wondering, No I haven't picked up "The Return of the Kosher Pig" and I have said I am willing to look at the book to Shapira in the comments, but the thing is, Yisroel Blumenthal has already written a paper looking at the book and I'd much rather look at the sources for myself.

Perhaps there are points Shapira makes I am ignorant of but does not reading the ROTKP detract from what Shamoun and Dalcour have said? NO!

To be fair there hasn't been a response to my videos by Shapira and he still hasn't retracted his statement in his video Objection 3 In the Line of Fire:

"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"

To those who keep insisting that Shapira is a Trinitarian, WHY, does he say this in his video.

Sam Shamoun
A lie that has been propagated about Shamoun is that he holds to a Nestorian heresy, or rather a caricature of what the Nestorians believed.

The caricature essentially is that Christ is two persons with two natures, thus there is a divine Jesus and a human Jesus. Shamoun doesn't hold to such a caricature and I have had the pleasure last year to have Shamoun explain his position as well as dealing with the subject of what death means in a Christian context.

The videos below will explain his position on the person of Christ and the two natures of Christ united in one person:
DoctorTauheed's painful exposure by Sam Shamoun

This dispels the notion of the idea that Sam Shamoun holds to an aberrant Christology.

Also, Read the following post by Sam Shamoun in response to an individual who claims that Shamoun holds to some weird aberrant belief about Christ. The response also clears up some misunderstandings on what the Nestorians ACTUALLY taught:

I know this is late but I need to deal with these points once and for all and dispel the confusion. Hope this helps.

Answering Judaism.

Saturday 26 July 2014

Resolutions of Contradictions

"In the Old Testament the New is concealed, in the New the Old is revealed"

The famous words uttered by the church father Augustine.

One of my endeavours when ever I am writing an article is when responding to Rabbinic objections is reconciliation of the TANAKH and the NT documents and resolve any supposed contradictions that are found in the scriptures.

Some of the many arguments would include the subject of blood atonement, the understanding of typologies in the NT (which is not circular reasoning), the repudiation of idolatrous practises which both Testaments condemn, especially since the traditions that claim to be biblical Christianity endorse such evil.
See the following on these issues:

See my article response to Walid Shoebat on the issue of icons for worship (Not icons as decoration):

Keith Thompson of Reformed Apologetics Ministries, along with interviews with Richard Bennett and Robert Zins, have exposed Roman Catholicism as the fraudulent church it is, namely it's mariolatry, idolatry, works salvation, transubstantiation, necromancy, and it's denial of justification by faith alone in Christ alone, in a documentary which can be found here:

I seek to resolve in my papers the problems that Rabbinic Jews raise to the best of my ability.

Both the TANAKH and the NT are a sandwich and fit together. No other set of books are needed, neither the traditions of the RCs and EOs, the Quran, the Talmud, the Book of Mormon or any other book is required. We have what we need in the TANAKH and the NT.

Answering Judaism.

Tuesday 22 July 2014

Movie and Video Game Piracy and Copyright theft: What should the Christian's attitude be?

Anyone who was a kid growing up in the 90s or an older generation living through the 90s are aware of when VHS tapes were still in usage. But also some individuals among these groups should probably remember some of the piracy commercials at the beginning of Disney Videos.

John Sachs or another announcer would speak and tell us to look for the holographic sticker on a video cassette or the spine of the video cover if you want to be sure you have an authentic Disney video for your viewing pleasure. People who were kids in the 90s or older will remember these commercials and some of these VHS commercial openings end up on YouTube (A lot of things end up on YouTube these days).

What is my point in raising this? To put it simply, Movie Piracy is stealing, which is not only against the law of the land, it is ultimately a sin against God. See Romans 13:1-5 and 2 Peter 2:13-17 with respect to obeying the government.

Movie Piracy, be it a poor quality VHS Tape, DVD or Blu-Ray disc or even downloaded off an unlicensed torrent, is just as bad as robbing a bank or stealing from anywhere.

Even Video Games are subject to piracy as well, namely with games either being downloaded, or the questionable usage of emulators, programs that function as a copy of a particular game, be it old or new. The subject of emulators are indeed a controversial one.

Downloading a video game of a pirated website is and will always be illegal. The only time a game should be downloaded is if they are found on the Playstation Network, Nintendo Wii Shop Channel, Xbox Live or any reputable network such as these.

What Movie and Game piracy can and will lead to if continued is the end of those industries, as getting an illegal copy or filming a movie on your camera phone or camcorder can jeopardise future productions of these games and movies.

The budget on a video game and a movie is very expensive for the most part, not to mention the man hours it takes for the CGI to be implemented and properly rendered, shaded etc, as well as set pieces, storyboards, costumes, screenplays, actors etc.

Movie and Game piracy is effectively stealing from the companies hard work to create entertainment for families across the globe.

Copyright Violation is also a very serious crime too, namely since it ties into the issue of causing money to not be paid to the original industry who created a particular franchise. If you want the game or the movie, go pay for it, don't download it illegally or watch it where it shouldn't be posted.

See these articles on the subject of Usage of others work and Fair Use in the UK:

Take a look at this page on the myths and realities of UK Copyright Law:

Thanks for reading.

Answering Judaism

Monday 21 July 2014

Christian work ethics: How to behave in the work place

A scene that opens up Spiderman 2 goes like this.

Peter Parker, our friendly neighbourhood Spiderman, is late countless times to arrive at his job at a pizza shop and has to make a delivery within 7 minutes
He is told if he fails again, he is fired, which ultimately happens.

The film does give a context why he is late and that is due to juggling commitments in his life, but why am I using him as an example you may ask?

Simple, because Christians are to be a light to the nations, our work is to be just as sanctified before God as certain activities in church.

Every aspect of a Christian's life is to be subject to Christ, even leisure pursuits such as going to the cinema, gardening etc.

The Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 and Leviticus 19:18 tells us to love God with everything and love our neighbour as ourselves. How can this be implemented in the work place?

To love God would be to do the best job you possibly can for your employer, while loving your neighbour is providing good customer service by action and words.

If one is consistently late to his job, doing a shoddy job and making mistakes without seeking to correct them, that isn't glorifying God in the slightest or even loving your neighbour, which would include your employer and doing what pleases them.

Paul when speaking to slaves said the following:
"Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free."

"Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism."

While slaves are not found often in church circles, the principle here can be applied to the workplace, namely doing your job well regardless of whether or not your employer has their eyes on you. You work for your employer and serve them as you were serving the Lord.

If you make any mistakes, do your best not to make those same errors over and over again and make an effort to try harder next time.

A lack of love for your neighbour would also include failing to deal good customer service via being rude, deliberately unhelpful, or providing service that puts the customer off from ever returning to the organisation you work for. Loving your neighbour would be a reference to them being provided with the best service you can possibly give to them.

Another point to make is one is not to be lazy at work, for that is stealing from the work valuable time you could be using for the purpose of God's glory and doing your employer the service they hired you for. Working hard is definitely the Christian way and this ethic towards work is found within Jewish circles. Work is something to be revelled in, not in the sense of turning it into an idol or indulgence, but something that should be a delight to you every morning.

Perhaps maybe the thing to do is to ask God for the strength to do the work well and for his glory.

David Pawson once said regarding God that "he would rather have a conscientious taxi driver than a careless missionary" and that I believe is a true statement.

God would much rather have someone in a regular job doing it well, than being in the missionary position and do a shoddy job. This isn't to diminish the importance of missionary work, but it is important to realise that God is interested in how you do your job.

The only jobs that are evil in God's sight are jobs that are immoral and illegal, namely selling cocaine, being a pole dancer, porn star, crime boss, pirate (not just sea but video/DVD/Blu-Ray pirate).

Legitimate, honest workplaces are absolutely fine, it could be a butcher, baker, undertaker, computer programmer etc, the list is long, so long as it doesn't violate the Law of God and the Law of the Land, you'll be fine.

First Romans 13:1-5.
"Romans 13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

And 1 Peter 2:13-17
"13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor."

Both these apostles, in accordance with Jesus' teaching exhorted obedience to governments, however the only time they should be disobeyed, which can be in the TANAKH, is if they tell you to do something against God's commands. Such an example is in Daniel 2 when Daniel's friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are thrown into the fiery furnace after refusing to bow to an idol created by Nebuchanezzar and of course the story of Daniel in the lion's den that needs no introduction.

Get out there and make a difference at work. Even there, you are on the mission field.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday 20 July 2014

Bias of Media against Israel: My comments

If there is one thing that angers me, it is the bias that the media has against the nation of Israel. They have no problem being silent on Palestinians attacking Israel but if Israel is trying to defend itself: "WHA!!! Look at what Israel is doing to these poor Palestinians"

I am not advocating that these nations should kill each, war if possible should be avoided, but I am sick of the bias that exists against Israel itself. Furthermore, an ethnic Palestinian doesn't even exist, the Palestinians today came from Jordan, NOT the West Bank.

Am I saying kill Palestinians or Israelis, ABSOLUTELY NOT!! God forbid if I suggest the two should massacre each other.

Israel, be it secular or not, has a right to exist and the Jews have the deed to the land. Their living there is conditioned on their obedience, but the ownership of their land, doesn't change.

"Leviticus 26:40 “‘But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness and their hostility toward me, 41 which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies—then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, 42 I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. 44 Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God. 45 But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the Lord.’”

46 These are the decrees, the laws and the regulations that the Lord established at Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses.".

The Jews should they repent and turn to God will be allowed to live in the land, but this is not a licence to kick Jews OUT if they disobey, that is NOT anyone's job at all.

The Jews have a right to live in the land and Israel has a right to exist as a nation.

See the following videos by Jacob Prasch:
Palestine? Palestinian?:
The Israeli Occupation Myth:

See also Jacob Prasch's debate with Alex Awad, starting here:

TRUTH about the ISRAEL & HAMAS Conflict by Keith Thompson (KeithTruth):

I would also encourage people to read this as well:

Answering Judaism.

God's Sovereignty and Man's Free Will: Do they go hand in hand?

There are two things to remember with respect to the scriptures, God's Sovereignty and Man's Free Will, both which are BOTH vital to hold onto for a balanced view of the Scriptures.

God's Sovereignty
Many a man cringes at the sovereignty that God has over his creation, namely complete and total control of everything he has made. He can control the weather of the earth, set the stars in motion etc. He is also higher than man and all the hosts of heaven, having authority over man, not only individually, but also nations as a whole as Romans 9 points out:
"Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?…"

See also my video on Romans 9 for more information on who Romans 9 refers to:

The Psalms also tell us about how God's sovereignty works and what it entails, specifically Psalms 103
"Psalm 103:19 The Lord has established his throne in heaven,
    and his kingdom rules over all.
20 Praise the Lord, you his angels,
    you mighty ones who do his bidding,
    who obey his word.
21 Praise the Lord, all his heavenly hosts,
    you his servants who do his will.
22 Praise the Lord, all his works
    everywhere in his dominion.
Praise the Lord, my soul."

Numerous places throughout scripture makes clear that man is to submit to Jesus as Lord, just as a slave is to submit to his master. Christians are slaves of Christ and are called to be his obedient servants and to do only what pleases him, regardless of the cost.

"Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,

To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons[a]:

2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

"1 Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."

If one is a slave of Christ, he is under Christ's dominion and sovereignty. Man is under God's sovereignty and it is something that man seeks to be free from. The atheist, be he passive or aggressive, will not acknowledge God, because that would dethrone him from his pedestal and he doesn't want to put God on his throne.

Man's Free Will
Due to the fall of man and being tainted by original sin, Man's free will has been affectively lost and only can be regained if man has been quickened. Once man has been quickened, he then has the choice to either go back into his sin, or allow the Holy Spirit to cleanse him and bring him out of original sin that has destroyed him. Man doesn't have a choice and cannot exercise free will until the quickening.

Such an example can be found in the case of Felix in the book of Acts:
"Acts 24:24 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, “That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.” 26 At the same time he was hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe, so he sent for him frequently and talked with him.

27 When two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, but because Felix wanted to grant a favor to the Jews, he left Paul in prison."

Felix came under a conviction, but he was not regenerated by the Holy Spirit and resisted the prompting of the Spirit. Does this mean that God is not in total control? No, It just simply means that he doesn't force a man or woman to believe. If God wanted to, he could and would change Felix's heart just like that and force him to submit to him, but he did not, and ALLOWED Felix to rebel, considering Felix, despite a quickening, would not respond to the power of the Spirit and thus was left in his sin as punishment.

God doesn't force man to believe, he allows man to make a choice, but again, the choice cannot be made by man unless he has been quickened.

This is not God's plan being thwarted as some individuals claim and is certainly not a case of God's grace being insufficient. See my article response to KeithTruth's Facebook comments to me:

Now we turn our attention to Lydia briefly:
"13 On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us."

God did have his way in opening Lydia's heart to Paul's message, but in the context, NOWHERE does the silence on Lydia's compliance with God suggest that God simply forced her to believe. God certainly opened the door via quickening and Lydia reciprocated. Lydia could make the choice to reject the Spirit's prompting but didn't and using this text as a proof text to refute free will is at best, an argument from silence.

Arminianism affirms both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man are valid.

Roger Olson states in his book "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities":
"CLASSICAL Arminianism goes far beyond belief in general providence to include affirmation of God’s intimate and direct involvement in every event of nature and history.  The only thing the Arminian view of God’s sovereignty necessarily excludes is God’s authorship of sin and evil.  Faithful followers of Arminius have always believed that God governs the entire universe and all of history.  Nothing at all can happen without God’s permission, and many things are specifically and directly controlled and caused by God.  Even sin and evil do not escape God’s providential governance in classical Arminian theology.  God permits and limits them without willing or causing them."

This book I would recommend if you want to know what Arminianism teaches, but also reading Arminius himself would be beneficial.

I am aware of certain issues regarding Olson raised to me by KeithTruth, but this would not impact the point he has made and if you have any concerns about Olson, don't hesitate to express them.

I would recommend also this article here:

God DOES have sovereignty over all in Arminianism and anyone who claims otherwise is attacking a strawman.

If anyone says "if God was completely sovereign, I would never worship him.", then I would have a problem with that statement. But since I acknowledge that God is sovereign, so be it if he is completely sovereign.

Hope this brings deals with certain issues.

Answering Judaism.

Friday 18 July 2014

Missing the Mark: A response to NITEMARES DEN

There was a video back in July of 2013 highlighting the pros and cons of Messianic Judaism which can be found here:

Here are NITEMARES DEN'S comments:

However what this deceitful person does not tell you is that millions of Jews have said that his dead god is false. Lets look at the hypocrisy if I were to tell this lying xtian that christians do not believe in the trinity he will tell me those are only a few and the vast majority do believe in the trinity. Yet when it comes to their dead god we should  follow a handful of drunks.
Hide replies

Err... The opinion of millions of Jews wasn't relevant to this video. I am talking about pros and cons about Messianic Jews. I am not talking about whether the majority believe or don't believe in something, that is not my point in the video. So what you have said is false.

My argument is NOT we shouldn't believe the minority or majority. You missed the entire point of my video.
Show less

 Err... The opinion of millions of Jews wasn't relevant to this video. I am talking about pros and cons about Messianic Jews. I am not talking about whether the majority believe or don't believe in something, that is not my point in the video. So what you have said is false.

My argument is NOT we shouldn't believe the minority or majority. You missed the entire point of my video.

My response
Listen to your opening statement it says getting the xtian god back to the Jewish roots is commendable. Also further on it says the Jewishnes of the xtian god and its roots. Nothing Jewish about him or his followers I was commenting on that there is no Jewish roots in Christianity.

If as your book claims that the Pharisees accused him of making himself to be a god and wanted him stoned how can the xtian god or his followers who worshiped him as a god be of any Jewish root.
Show less

+NITEMARES DEN "Listen to your opening statement it says getting the xtian god back to the Jewish roots is commendable. Also further on it says the Jewishnes of the xtian god and its roots. Nothing Jewish about him or his followers I was commenting on that there is no Jewish roots in Christianity.

If as your book claims that the Pharisees accused him of making himself to be a god and wanted him stoned how can the xtian god or his followers who worshiped him as a god be of any Jewish root."

Getting Christianity back to Jewish roots doesn't mean getting back to Rabbinic Judaism.
Show less

+NITEMARES DEN Furthermore, there are studies that have been conducted and debates as to whether or not the NT has Jewish roots. I would need to look into more if the Lord wills.
NITEMARES DEN missed the points that I was making in my video, my point was NOT following the Majority in anything or talking about x number of Jews say this let's listen to them.

I NEVER use the argument that "the majority say this" or "the majority say that", That never was my point.

My whole point was to point out the flaws in Messianic Judaism, but also point out the good fruits in it, namely the biblically solid teachers who have had a positive influence, NOT the false teachers who encourage poisonous error.

Returning to the Jewish roots doesn't mean returning to Rabbinic Judaism of today, that is not what I was saying, hence I am not deceiving my audience with what I was saying.

For those unaware, NITEMARES DEN is a Jewish fellow who has made responses to Nakdimon and Michael Brown. He has engaged in a recorded dialogue with me which only he and DACON9 possess a copy of and I need to get a hold of it.

That's all for now in this paper.

Answering Judaism.

Passover and Jesus Christ: A response to Tovia Singer

Here is a response I am going to provide to counter-missionary Tovia Singer and I hope to respond to the arguments that he lays out in his article to the best of my ability.

You can find Singer's original article here:

"Evangelical Christians often draw a comparison between the Paschal Lamb and Jesus, insisting that the former foreshadows the latter. This idea is advanced in the New Testament, particularly in the fourth Gospel, where John portrayed Jesus as the fulfillment of the Passover lamb. Yet how valid a point is this? What is the meaning of this holiday sacrifice? Is there a relationship between this festival offering and atonement for sin?

The Bible relates in Exodus 12:3-13 that as the Jewish people were preparing themselves for the momentous Exodus from Egypt, God commanded them to slaughter a year-old sheep or goat on the 14th day of the first month (Nissan). They were to place its blood on the outside doorposts of their homes. Because Christians insist that the blood of the Paschal lamb foreshadowed the atonement of the blood of Jesus at Calvary, it behooves us to question the soundness of this claim.

The Passover lamb did not atone for sin and accordingly, this idea is nowhere to be found in the Jewish Scriptures. It goes without saying that the notion that the Paschal Lamb is a representation of a crucified savior or an atonement is alien to the teachings of the Torah and is not even mentioned by the first three Gospels."

Just because the first three Gospels don't mention the subject of Jesus being the Passover Lamb, this wouldn't indicate that it is a teaching that is not found in the NT.

Regarding as to why Jesus is described as the Passover lamb in the NT is quite simple, Even though the Exodus story doesn't mention repentance, that isn't what Paul is conveying when he alludes to the Passover.

His whole point is that just as the blood was used to cover the doorpost and cause the angel of death to Passover the Israelites, so the blood of Christ which we are washed in, causes God's wrath to Passover us. Paul does mention putting away the old leaven (evil and sin), but his point, again, the blood on the door post and the blood of Jesus acting as a protective covering from God's wrath.

"A mindful study of the Jewish Scriptures reveals that the Paschal Lamb was alluded to long before the Exodus from Egypt. Centuries earlier, Abraham’s faith was tested by God when he commanded him to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac. Genesis 22:7-8 relates that as the two ascended Mount Moriah together, Isaac asked his father,

“Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the offering?” Abraham then replied, “God will see to a lamb for an offering, my son.”

(Genesis 22:7-8)
The question that comes to mind is, what happened to that lamb that Abraham promised? A few verses later we find that ram was sacrificed rather than a lamb! Where was the lamb to which Abraham was prophetically referring?

The answer of course is that our father Abraham was prophetically alluding to the Paschal lamb. Just as God tested Abraham’s faith to demonstrate his worthiness to be the father of the chosen people, the young Jewish nation also had to have their faith tested to show their worthiness to participate in the exodus from Egypt, receive the Torah at Mount Sinai, and emerge as the progenitors of the covenant people who would forever be known as “a light to the nations.”"

The point about what was being sacrificed misses the point about why Christians appeal to the passage in the first place, the lamb or ram being sacrificed is a minute point that overlooks what Christians claim about the passage.

The point that is made is that God will provide as substitute in the future to deal with our sin. Isaac is about to be sacrificed and God stops him, providing instead a ram for him to be sacrificed in Isaac's place. Bringing up the objection of being a burnt offering or not a lamb is just nitpicking when it comes to typological fulfillment.

Though I find Singer's point about Abraham prophetically alluding to the Passover Lamb an interesting point.

"During the period of the Exodus in Ancient Egypt, the lamb was deified and worshiped as a god. By Egyptian law, it was therefore forbidden to harm a lamb in any way; such an act was considered a crime punishable by death.

For this reason, Moses refused Pharaoh’s initial offer that the Jews bring their sacrifice to God while remaining in Egypt, following the third plague of lice. Moses explained to Pharaoh that it would be impossible for his people to sacrifice these animals in this land because the Egyptians would execute us for carrying out this ceremony (Exodus 8:25-26).

The Almighty, therefore, tested the faithfulness of the Jewish people by commanding them to kill Egypt’s cherished god, and place the lamb’s blood on their doorposts, displayed for all of their neighbors to see. Only those Israelites who, like Abraham, demonstrated that they feared nothing but the God of Israel were deemed worthy to have their homes “passed over” during the tenth and final plague.

It is worth noting that the synoptic gospels, i.e. the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, do not associate Jesus with the Paschal Lamb. The Book of John, on the other hand, draws a clear link between the two (John 1:29-34). The synoptic Gospels insist that Jesus was crucified on the first day of Passover – the 15th day of Nissan. Written several decades after the synoptic Gospels, th John’s author accordingly has Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover, the 14th day of Nissan, when the lambs were slaughtered. As a result, the Passover Seder is noticeably absent in John’s Passion Narrative."

Though a link is drawn between the Passover lamb and Jesus is made, The NT NEVER claims that Jesus had some connection to any deity in Egypt and such a thought was never in their mind when the comparisons were made.

I have already mentioned why Paul made the connection to the Passover Lamb with Jesus so I needn't go over that again, but even if I grant Singer's point as valid that the Israelite's faithfulness was tested by killing the Egyptian's most cherished god, none of the NT writers had Egyptian theology in mind or something from that. See my article "The Lamb of God":

Just because certain details are not mentioned in a Gospel, that doesn't make a point a particular Gospel makes to be false. The Gospels are each written to a specific audience at a given time. Hence, they would only mention things that are relevant to the point that they themselves are trying to convey. The same principle applies to the virgin birth Matthew and to the I AM statement of Jesus in John, they were points only made to the audience they were addressing specifically.

Any information I have missed I will be happy to look into if the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism.

Thursday 17 July 2014

Some more on the Deity of Christ and the angel of the LORD

I thought I may deal with the subject of Genesis 18 but also deal with the subject of Isaiah 7:10-14 together and to see if the subject of Jesus being the angel of the LORD is refuted.

Let's recap the points about Genesis 18 and add additional points to it.

Here is Genesis 18 in context:
"The Three Visitors
18 The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

3 He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord,[a] do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”

“Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.”

6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,” he said, “get three seahs[b] of the finest flour and knead it and bake some bread.”

7 Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.

9 “Where is your wife Sarah?” they asked him.

“There, in the tent,” he said.

10 Then one of them said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.”

Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. 11 Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. 12 So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure?”

13 Then the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?’ 14 Is anything too hard for the Lord? I will return to you at the appointed time next year, and Sarah will have a son.”

15 Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, “I did not laugh.”

But he said, “Yes, you did laugh.”

Abraham Pleads for Sodom
16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.[c] 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord.[d] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[e] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home."

Now, here are my points from Contra Blumenthal on this issue about the angel of the LORD:

"While you are free in the matter to suggest that the angel is a representative, this wouldn't undercut Jesus being God and appearing to the people as an angel FUNCTIONALLY. Jesus is Ha Shem, but he is not the Father, however this wouldn't detract from the fact he can function as the Father's agent or his representative. It's one member of the Trinity speaking on behalf of another, like in the examples that were given by Blumenthal himself where a representative can speak on God's behalf. If Jesus himself is YHWH, then he is worthy of the devotion that is given to God, considering he is in nature God (Philippians 2:5-11) but is a distinct person from the Father. If however he is not God, I think Jews and Christians already know the answer to that one."

To add to this, Jesus is a man, but that wouldn't refute him being God. Jesus existed eternally with the Father. His human body is created, not his divine nature. Jesus being God wouldn't refute him being a man and vice versa. John 1:1* and Philippians 2:5-11 being prime examples of the deity of Jesus. If you read Philippians 2, it says:

"6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very NATURE OF A SERVANT,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.". He takes the form of a slave and set aside his divine perogatives while he was on earth."

He didn't exist as a man before man existed. He didn't take on flesh until 2000 or so years ago. Jesus appeared to Jacob in the form of a man, it was temporary and wasn't a true incarnation. It's not until the time of the NT that he had a physical body.

There is a difference between taking on flesh and taking on appearance of a man. The angels appeared as men in Genesis 18, but we know they aren't men. Likewise, Jesus appeared to Jacob, but only appeared as a man, rather than have a true incarnation centuries later.

One of the angels in Genesis 18-19 doesn't head down to Sodom and Gomorrah, the other two go down there, hence one of the men or angels who appeared to Abraham is God, who stayed with Abraham and spoke with him. The two men were angels ontologically, whereas Christ functioned as an angel.

Two of the men go down to Sodom and Gomorrah but one doesn't and stays near Abraham, then leaves after the conversation. Obviously, angels and prophets are not synonymous with God, however my claim is that there is a particular angel in the TANAKH who functions as an angel, but is in nature God.

Let's take a look at Isaiah 7:10-14:

"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]"

Isaiah does function as an agent but this is a different context to Genesis 18, since Isaiah himself isn't being identified as God, but in the context of Genesis 18, The angel is identified as God explicitly and Abraham even stood before him and talked with him as a regular person. Isaiah was merely used as a mouthpiece to convey the words of God to Ahaz and tell him what will transpired. These are two different contexts and do not refute Jesus being the angel of YHWH, nor do they prove that Isaiah is synonymous with God himself. There isn't inconsistency or lack of consistency here.

Hope I have answered the objection.

Answering Judaism.

*10th of February 2020. See the following information on John 1:1: It is very important regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses arguments regarding John 1:1.