Sunday 28 September 2014

Clearing the air: XM Flash's objections

"Who would've thought that the religion of Jesus would have things in common with the early Christian faith. Gee. If you wish to anachronistically deny the historical period of Judaism and what Pharisaic Jews of the first century believed then be my guest, I'll on the other hand look at the historical context and do proper exegesis. Quite honestly I don't understand your views since they're all over the place. First, one shouldn't look towards Judaism? The religion that most of the Bible is based upon? Rather, we should just make our inferences from scripture alone? That is craziness, we wouldn't even be able to discern the basics (Like a Monotheistic Deity in the Torah) without looking at the historical Jewish belief and reading "back into" the text. And I'm not a coward. That's another false accusation. What have I ever done that is cowardly? I have attempted to dialogue and dissect your rabid fundamentalism and all you have done so far is failed to engage in dialogue and go and make childish names up like "Romanist." Also, it was you who adminned in Fitzy's room, despite his despicable un-christian behavior, and participated in a room that meant to mock, clone, and attack Catholic rooms and Catholic users on Paltalk. Those are things you'll have to answer to before God, not me"

Firstly, I haven't adminned in fitzy's room since 2013. While fitzy allows me in his room, he doesn't make me the admin anymore. I do remember admining last year in his room before but:

A. That was long before I began my apologetic videos on YouTube.

And B. I do not admin in other rooms or his anymore except mine. Know what that means, I haven't admined in his room for MANY MONTHS.

I don't even admin in rooms except mine these days. Also I have spoken with fitzy himself, he doesn't clone Catholic rooms.

Also, You don't stand against savedbybaptism or anyone else who has lied about me (cbd94, Dk Man and MustphaShagsAisha) and rebuke them when I have been in the room, namely when I was accused of attacking Shamoun, YOU JOINED IN, thus guilty by association and cooperation, thus you are a coward for not speaking against them. Though you have warned me about some individuals, why is it when I was in the room attacked by them you didn't oppose them, but joined in with them? In fact as I have said in a comments page on this blog:  
"you threatened to tell Sam Shamoun that I was accusing him of cloning me (who said that i cant remember) but when I made it clear i never accused Shamoun and what I actually said in the room was "the Sam I knew wouldn't do that." You threatened to dob me and jonnykzj in for something he and I never said"

I think cbd was the first now that I think about it but I could be wrong, but that doesn't change the fact you and Dk man were willing to join in with his false accusation. As you said "Those are things you'll have to answer to before God, not me" :)

Furthermore, fitzy is not online all the time so and I don't go on Paltalk all the time. There are better things to do than spend your existence in a chat room.

Christ himself took the Pharisees' back to the Biblical text whenever he was confronted on an issue, so obviously Jesus held to Sola Scriptura and again Sola Scriptura has no problem using tradition, SOLO Scriptura as you have already been told denies the usage of tradition.

You can easily discern there is a monotheistic deity in the TANAKH anyway from the Shema (Deuternomy 6:4), Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 45:5 etc. There is nothing wrong with looking at 1st Century Judaism either, Sola Scriptura doesn't reject historical study either.

Answering Judaism.

Tuesday 23 September 2014

Comments on Psalm 2

Let's look at what Psalm 2 is speaking about:
"Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire[a]
    and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth rise up
    and the rulers band together
    against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break their chains
    and throw off their shackles.”
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
    the Lord scoffs at them.
5 He rebukes them in his anger
    and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 “I have installed my king
    on Zion, my holy mountain.”
7 I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:

He said to me, “You are my son;
    today I have become your father.
8 Ask me,
    and I will make the nations your inheritance,
    the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron[b];
    you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
    be warned, you rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear
    and celebrate his rule with trembling.
12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry
    and your way will lead to your destruction,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
    Blessed are all who take refuge in him."

The context refers to King David historically and refers to Jesus messianicly and our putting out trust in him. If Jesus is the truth and the NT itself is correct that Jesus is in the Psalms, then we can safely put our trust in him.

To start with, David's enemies are plotting and conspiring against him in order to try and destroy him and has a future application with the world at large coming against Jesus and even in his day he certainly had the Pharisaical leaders to contend with.

God is laughing against David's enemies and the enemies of the Messianic king for their destruction is coming and the New Zion is established in Jerusalem in Israel. David in Psalm 2 is given power to rule against the nations and will not be overcome by his enemies for God is with him and Jesus is given power to do the same by The Father in heaven. Both will be powerful rulers backed to the helm by the Father who will not be opposed.

Submission to the King of Israel and the Messianic King is called for in the context of the chapter and those who don't will be destroyed. Those however who allow the King of Israel and the Messianic king to rule over them shall indeed dwell securely for as long as they live.

One point to make about sonship here is this: Jesus has two sonships in the New Testament, a divine sonship and a royal sonship as I have mentioned before in the past. Solomon is adopted as God's son and also has a royal sonship. David also is like Solomon in this regard.

The only difference is that David and Solomon a sons by adoption and only Jesus is the divine son from eternity. All do have in common that they have a royal sonship. Within these texts, they refer to the coronation of the Kings Solomon and David. This is royal sonship. Although Jesus was the Son from eternity, the sonship that is spoken of in Hebrews 1:5-8 is sonship in terms of his coronation, which occurred after his resurrection and sat at the Father's righthand. All three events that I have mentioned are to do with the coronation of the Messianic King. David,  Solomon, then the Messiah himself.

"Hebrew 1:For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
    today I have become your Father”[a]?
Or again,
“I will be his Father,
    and he will be my Son”[b]?
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”[c]
In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels spirits,
    and his servants flames of fire.”[d]
But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
    a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

These are my thoughts on Psalm 2.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday 21 September 2014

Mark of the Beast: Can you be saved from it?

Can someone be saved by taking the Mark of the Beast? The answer is a catergorical no.

This is what Revelation 14 says:
"Revelation 14:9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.

13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.”

“Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.”

While the nature of the mark as to whether it's physical or spiritual is disputed, one thing is as clear as day, those who are deceived by the Anti-Christ themselves shall not be saved.

The context is not a question of whether or not someone who has taken the mark has the oppotunity to repent, is an irrelevent point in the first place, because those who follow the Anti-Christ at the end of days will not have the incentive to actually repent.

There is a difference between an unforgivable sin and a sin that a person is not forgiven of because of their no repentance or lack thereof.

The people who take Anti-Christ's mark, do not have forgiveness robbed from them for one simple reason, They will not repent anyway and because they will not repent, they will not be forgiven.

The question of being forgiven after turning away from Anti-Christ is not even raised by the author of the book of Revelation, simply due to the fact that those are decieved by him will not seek forgiveness, hence it would be pointless to even suggest or entertain that idea.

Whether John Macarthur teaches this or not is another question but if this he is what he is teaching that one can be saved despite taking the mark, he has (I am not trying to be offensive towards him here) missed the point that the passage is trying to make.

Answering Judaism.

Friday 19 September 2014

Importance of learning

It has been some time since I have listened or read what counter missionaries have had to say but I am familar with some but not every counter missionary. Specific ones include Yisroel Blumenthal, Tovia Singer, Eli Cohen, Moshe Shulman, Tzvi Jacobson etc. I don't spend all my time listening to counter missionaries but I have looked at some of their material.

I need to get back into listening to some more if the Lord Wills.

I need to be very clear that if one desires to be an apologist, he needs to listen to the other side. But even then, we need to be grounded in the TANAKH and the NT so that we are not lead astray by falsehood and can hold onto the truth.

I am happy to learn from Jews and get a better understanding of what they believe rather than strawman what they were saying. Speaking even with Jews gets me thinking about what they are saying and to see if that fits with both scriptures

Let us pray that the Father preserves us through his Son via his Spirit. Let the Triune God preserve us forever.

Answering Judaism.

Tuesday 16 September 2014

John 17:11-12: Possession of YHWH's name.

On Monday 15th of September 2014, I had the pleasure of partly seeing a discussion that took places between Sam Shamoun and AngelQueenFox, a Jehovah's Witness on Paltalk.

One of the texts that was brought up in the room was the text of John 17:11-12 which says the following:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

The whole premise behind Shamoun's point was Jesus was given the name of Jehovah or YHWH and must be Jehovah for Jehovah doesn't share that eternal name with any creature (Amendments can be made to this if I have misheard what Sam said)

Angel kept trying to make the point that all the prophets had the name of Jehovah given to them trying to say that it doesn't prove his point. However there is a problem.

Angel is comparing apples and oranges, because no prophet was given the name of Jehovah and pointing out that a prophet has God's name in their name (Elijah or Eliyahu or YHWH is my God or Isaiah aka Yeshayahu or YHWH saves) is not the same as one being given the name of God, for no man can call himself Jehovah.

If Jesus was claiming Jehovah's name as his and that the Father gave him that name, that would bolster Jesus' claims to deity rather than refute them.

If I have misheard what Sam Shamoun has argued, he can correct me if he is reading this paper.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday 14 September 2014

Comments on False Prophets

False prophets are no doubt a serious subject which sadly many individuals overlook.

When the discussion is brought to the table, more often than not some notable false prophets who have been publically exposed as such, some of their listeners flock to their defence, claiming that the person preaches the true gospel or we should not touch them for they are God's anointed.

Be that as it may, it's irrelevant that the false prophet may preach some semblance of biblical truth or are the closest to being the most biblical teachers around, those who claim to be prophets don't get a free pass, nor are they above examination simply that they  claim to be God's anointed.

Every prophet no matter who they are must be held to account if what they say doesn't come to pass.

Jesus' own reliability hinges on his resurrection, and if his resurrection happened, his claims about himself are automatically true and it is a sign of God's approval that had been sent by God.

I demonstrate in my articles on Deuteronomy 13 why the resurrection is not counted among the signs and wonders that a false prophet can do, see my articles on this topic for more information:

Prophets outside of the canon of scripture are indeed to be held to scrutiny and held accountable to the Bible itself.

False prophecy is NOT an issue to gloss over and it doesn't matter to me if they have an orthodox Christology or even biblical soteriology, if someone makes a false prophecy, they are to be avoided and if possible, be brought to repentance.

Even if a false prophet can expound a biblical gospel, what of the teachers they may endorse? Namely those who are notorious false prophets and have been exposed. Endorsement of a false prophet is just as bad as engaging in false prophecy.

Think carefully and discern who are the true prophets and who are not. Don't let yourself be led astray by anyone who comes along claiming divine revelation.

Answering Judaism.

Husbands love your wives, Wives submit to your husbands

In Back to the Future's part 1 and 2, we see a contrast between two husbands and how they treat their spouses.

At the end of Back to the Future, Lorraine, Marty's mother is lively, vivacious and outgoing and George clearly loves her and has taken care of her. Though they may of had a few arguments and had low points here and there, their marriage has remained a consistently strong one.

In Back to the Future part 2, Biff Tannen, one of George's obstacles in his youth, goes back in time and gives his teenager self a sports almanac and says to him "bet on the winner and you'll never lose".

Thus an alternate timeline is made where Biff has killed George and married Lorraine but it is clear from the film, that Lorraine has been reduced to an emotionally distraught woman. 

Biff has accumulated massive wealth and is essentially a powerful CEO of a business empire, yet he has done the following:
1. Sent Lorraine's children elsewhere with no responsibility to take care of the kids and the only thing to do is provide money. His excuse is they are Lorraine's. kids, not his.

2. He has caused Lorraine so much grief and treated her so badly, she has to resort to alcoholism to dull her pain.

3. Biff is unfaithful to Lorraine because he has kept mistresses for himself, specifically when he is in the bathtub watching a Clint Eastwood film.

What is my reason for mentioning Back to the Future, Simple, its to show a contrast between what is a biblical marriage and what isn't.

I'll make it clear right off the bat, I am not saying the two McFly's are Christians, I am just saying how marriage should be approached and how it shouldn't.

Paul exhorts men to do the following in Ephesians 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her bythe washing of water with the word,27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendour,without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Here, marriage is to be honoured and kept pure in honour of the Lord, How can this be done when the husband doesn't love his wife? If there is no love, the wife will either submit begrudgingly or be rebellious. There is no sanctification in the sight of the Lords if this is the attitude that is been demonstrated.

Christ is not abusive, it is hypocritical to abuse your spouse when your Lord and Saviour doesn't treat you that way, you can't have it both ways.

Answering Judaism.

Thursday 4 September 2014

Slave of Christ: You were brought at a price

Turn with me to 1 Corinthians 6:
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases,why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church?I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers![a]
Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. 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.

Flee Sexual Immorality

12 “All things are lawful for me”, but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me”, but I will not be enslaved by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know thatyour bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined[d] to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin[e]a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

In the context, Paul is exhorting the Corinthians to live holy and pure lives because they now belong to Jesus.

The Corinthians were guilty of many sins, such as taking brothers in Christ to unbelieving judges and suing them, engaging in lustful and sexual immorality and other sins of the flesh that cut on off from God.

Paul makes it abundantly clear that man is a slave of Christ due to the phrase "you were brought at a price", giving us the implication that one is subject to Christ in all his life and that we are to live to him and die to sin and live for righteousness.

Being a slave of Christ doesn't mean that we are partakers of apartheid and subject to it, but we have our will to be inexorably bound to his (His way or the highway to put it bluntly).

This is why Jesus tells us to deny ourselves, take up the cross and follow him, it is his will that is to be accomplished, not mans.

By all means see if it is the Lords Will for you to do something and if there isn't a direct command, do what should please him, which includes listening to your conscience if you feel uncertain about a particular activity, movie, what you can read etc.

Let us give ourselves to the cause of Christ with no hesitation.

 Answering Judaism.

Tuesday 2 September 2014

Confusion of Identity

There are case both outside and inside of Paltalk where I have been mistaken to be Jewish. This article should lay to rest what I am.

The mission statement on my website is this:
I am a young apologist and a Gentile. A Christian. I seek to demonstrate the truth of Jesus Christ to the Rabbinic Jews for them to consider the belief in him, respond to objections and strengthen believers to defend Jesus biblically from the scriptures.

I am a Gentile and that is who I am. Even my introduction to this blog it makes that clear.

Hope this clarifies the confusion.

Answering Judaism.

Monday 1 September 2014

Clearing the air: XM Flash's lies

More lies for me to dispel right here and now.
Glad the anti-semite bobo is too scared & cowardly to debate any Catholic. Which is why he just hides on his videos & blogs making anti-semitic & anti-catholic comments everywhere. But when will he do as the Bible say and "prove all things?" Glad I'm not an Anglican occultist like him. 

Firstly, I have not studied Roman Catholicism in immense depth, though KeithTruth's documentary has indeed been of great help and benefit.

Second, I seldom engage in oral debates and have really only had two or three debates namely with savedbybaptism (twice) and with Nitemaresden. I'd rather not engage in oral debates, I prefer written.

Third, I do not hate Jews nor have I made anti semitic comments to them or about them and I have seldom done videos on Roman Catholicism.

And fourth, I am not an occultist.

I am not a Jew nor have I ever claimed to be a Jew. So you are lying again. I guess you want everyone you hate to fit in the "Jewish" category which is typical of people like you. You call me spineless which is an ad-hominem, and untrue. I have never refused to debate you, whereas you run to anti-catholic rooms, spout your hateful nonsense, then refuse to tackle the issues head on. Which makes you a coward

This coming from one of the guys who has blatantly lied about me, claiming I was malicious to Sam Shamoun or in the very least trying to tarnish his reputation! Something I have never done.

Did you actually read what I said, I never said you were Jewish, I asked you if you were a Roman Catholic or a Rabbinic Jew? Why you ask? Because you used have Rabbinic Jewish and Roman Catholics arguments AT THE SAME TIME.

You distorted my words. Are you one or the other? Be honest, because you come across to me as a deceptive chameleon.

I don't call anyone Jewish because of a disagreement and FYI, I OPPOSE antisemitism. It doesn't surprise me you distort my words because you belong to your father the devil. Furthermore you are a gutless coward for not telling the room you were in that YOU ATTACKED ME FIRST when you complained about what happened to you in fitzy's. You also do not oppose savedbybaptism's lies about me either and I have to see you actually repudiate him.

You have never refused me a debate because I never asked you for a debate in the first place.

I don't spout hate, I hate Roman Catholicism but not the Catholics and I SELDOM GO in anti-roman Catholic rooms these days, why? BECAUSE I AM NOT ON PALTALK ALL THE TIME AND FITZY DOESN'T ALWAYS HAVE HIS ROOM OPEN!!

Repent before hell claims you as its own.

Answering Judaism.