Sunday 26 October 2014

DACON9's double standards

I came across an article by DACON9 called "CHRISTAINS AGAIN AFRAID OF JEWS THAT CAN EXPOSE THEIR LIES, THE FORTH BEAST" and I was appaled:

No source was given to back up his claims about the King James Bible or King James himself

Now I am not a KJV onlyist, but I have never seen so many outrageous claims without giving a source.

Now why do I accuse DACON of double standards you may ask?

I had been accused of misrepresenting the words of Tovia Singer on the word Echad and misrepresenting the word Echad, thus will not recieve the recording of a dialogue that took place between me and NITEMARESDEN.

I have responded to this on some articles which you can read here:

I have evidence from Singer's own papers that I did NOT misrepresent what he said on the usage of Echad and it is on display for all to see.

DACON on the other hand has NOT provided a source in his article and funnily enough is guilty of misrepresenting facts and not providing evidence for his assertions, condemning himself.

I'll say what I said to NITEMARESDEN, The Lord hates a lying tongue. But also observe from the book of Proverbs:
"Proverbs 20:10 Differing weights and differing measures—
    the Lord detests them both.

Be consistent DACON, next time you accuse someone of not giving a source, you give a source too. If you don't, you are being inconsistent.

Answering Judaism.

PS. The subject of homosexuality I have dealt with here:

Seeing Demons around every corner?

There is a grave concern that has been in my mind, even if it was brief, but now I feel I should right this.

There is a paranoia among some individuals regarding the Muslim People, specifically, being suspcious of them to the point where you think that they could gut you at any time.

One individual said that if he was near a Nazi or a Muslim, he would rather choose to be near a Nazi rather than a Muslim.

This is not concern for the Muslims, this is just paranoia about the Muslims taken to the nth degree.

Now I am aware of the actions of ISIS and it can be demonstrated that Islam is not a religion of peace, HOWEVER.... That is no excuse or precedent to assume that every single Muslim is going to gut you at the first opportunity.

Yes, Nazism is a dangerous ideology, but I am not going to assume that a Nazi is going to kill me just because I don't have blond hair or if I wear glasses. I am not going to assume right away that a Muslim or Nazi is going to kill me. Call me naive or not I don't care, but it is foolish and dangerous to assume that a person is going to kill you, but on the otherhand I shouldn't be so naive that I am to take anything at face value.

Deporting the Muslim people as a whole is not going to get rid of Islam, it is naive, it is simplistic and of course it is an IMPOSSIBLE idea. Is Islam dangerous, Yes, but no Christian should automatically assume that every Muslim is some power hungry, violent nutcase that needs to be shut in a mental asylum.

David Pawson, a British evangelical, when speaking on Islam recognized it was a danger but exhorted those who attended his lecture to not regard Muslims as their enemy and told them have compassion on them. My thoughts exactly and a lesson I should of learnt years ago.

Muslims in and of themselves are not the enemy. They are however stooges used by the real enemy, Satan, and this is the same with any other false religion or heretical group, they themselves are not intrinsically the enemy, but are used by the enemy. They should be prayed for, witnessed to and must be given the Gospel. No fellowship with heretics is allowed of course as doing so is unequal yoking and of course ecumenism with them and other religions is definitely out of the question.

All I am saying is, there is no need to assume that every Muslim on this planet is a threat. There are individuals who ARE a threat, but for the most part, Muslims are peaceful. However they are just as doomed as many individuals are if Islam spread around the globe.

When you are speaking to a Muslim, try not to treat them as second class trash and instead reach out to them. Don't assume they are out to get you.

Answering Judaism.

Saturday 25 October 2014

Willingness to listen

I leave the comments open in order for people to give their points and in order for me to think it over.

There are times even where new information is brought to my attention, either through comments or reading someone else's material.

What the Rabbinic Jews say about the scripture I do not dismiss immediately, but instead, I wonder if a point made about scripture by them has some validity to it. Not to mention whether or not it can be reconciled scripturally, as well as even seeing how the NT may fit into this.

A case of not listening would be my dialogue with Nitemaresden, my most recent was short, since he wouldn't listen to me, he would misrepresent my point or just accuse me of being a liar without any logical grounds. That is a case of someone not willing to listen.

My case is different, I do take into consideration some of the arguments from the Rabbinic camp to see if it hold weight, and rather be a detriment to the NT, it has surprisingly helped me affirm the NT more and more. Even some of the arguments I have seen bolster the NT's credibility rather than diminish it.

If I provide a response to a claim about the NT or Jesus himself, its not a case of dismissing truth, but seeking it.

Answering Judaism.

PS. Some of the Eranoites have been blocked due to absolutely refusing to address my points but repeat them.

Wednesday 22 October 2014

Concerns about Eastern Orthodoxy

There maybe a lot of material regarding the subject of Roman Catholicism, but there isn't really that much material that I have come across regarding dealing with the issues that are prelevant within the Eastern Orthodox. It is my fond hope to address the issues in Eastern Orthodoxy in the hopes that the Eastern Orthodox recognise their errors and turn to Christ away from their falsehood. I shall spend the next few videos addressing the issues of the Eastern Orthodox church that I need to address.

IconsThe first issue which I have come across is regarding the issues of the veneration of icons in a lecture that was conducted on the subject of icons at an Orthodox School.

One claim you'll here from the Eastern Orthodox adherents is that they do not worship the icons themeselves but rather venerate them. They also make it clear that they don't worship it but respect it.
However, the problem I see is that wouldn't cut any ice with God in the OT or the NT itself. We know that cherubim were placed on the ark, they were images of 3D, but they were not to be worshiped as idols nor bowed to in religious reverence. The same thing can be said about icons itself, Although one can claim he or she is respecting the person the image represents rather than the image, how can one justify using the icon in this way? The cherubim and the snake that Moses uses were used for a purpose but were not to be venerated at all. Surely the same principle would apply to an icon itself?

Wouldn't this be a form of idolatry itself? Even if it's veneration and not worship in your sight, what would it be in God's sight?

In Exodus in the decalogue in the second commandment says:
"4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

This doesn't forbid painting icons or building an image for decoration, it does however repudiate the idea of using the icon and the statue for the purpose of worship or even for devout veneration.

Again, I am aware the Eastern Orthodox claim not to worship icons but venerate them instead, but it is still a concern.

In the lecture, Corey John Keeble, the man who presented the lecture, mentions in passing John of Damascus on the subject of icons itself. While I agree on John Damascene's interpretation on Philippians 2 that it teaches Christ's deity which is another topic, The main problems I have with John of Damascus' sermon on icons is his endorsement of venerating images. One point he makes in his first sermon is "You who refuse to worship images, would not worship the Son of God, the living image of the invisible God and his unchanging form".

Though we do worship Christ is YHWH God, we do not worship the flesh. John of Damascus' point about refusing to venerating images entails refusing to worship the Son of God doesn't logically follow at all. Christ commanded that all are to honor the Son just as all are to honor the Father. Jesus would never endorse the veneration of a drawing at all.

Furthermore, the point that John makes about the cheribim, doesn't justify veneration of icons for a simple reason, The Jews did not construct the icons for that purpose. Furthermore, to anathemeatize those who forbid the veneration of icons as those who are trying to put people back under the law is unthinkable, the apostle Paul made it clear that idolaters will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Another point to bring to the table is that that the Jews bowed to the Shekinah glory that is found in the temple and the tabernacle, not to the actual artifacts themselves. Although John later says in the second part of his treatise that image making was forbidden on account of idolatry, he goes onto say the following:
"I never said thou shall not make the image of the cheribim in adoration before the propitiatory. What I said was Thou shalt not make to thyself gods of metal and thou shalt not make to thyself gods of metal, and thou shalt thou adore the creature instead of the Creator, nor any creature whatsoever as God,nor have I served the creature rather than the creator."

Once again however, assuming I have read the quotation correctly, I have already made a point about the cheribim itself so I needn't go into too much detail regarding this matter itself. Although the repudiation of Manichean Gnostism is commendable, John of Damascus should not anathematise those who refuse to icon veneration. I deem this a case of correcting error with error rather than correcting error with truth. Yes matter is treated as good in the Bible, but not in the sense of icon veneration. Even though the cross is a biblical symbol, we are not to venerate the cross, but the one who died on it.

Also, the serpent in the wilderness allowed people to be saved from the disaster and that incident is used by Jesus as typology pointing to his lifting up and people looking to him for their salvation. The serpent wasn't used as a means of veneration initially nor was it built for that purpose. Hezekiah destroyed it because of it's usage in idolatry.

Though the saints in the New Testaments are held in high esteem, I would not say that this allows us to venerate them, considering that is not the point of the writer of the Hebrews himself. The anonomous writer uses them as examples of faith in the OT saints, rather than for a personal devotion and though we are not under the Law, that still doesn't allow us to venerate saints or icons in this insane manner, nor are we obligated to.

Though there aren't any explicit commands regarding this issue, it should be obviously from the context of the Decalogue that icons are covered in this regard.
You can read the subject of John's letters online itself.

I am persuaded in my mind about one reason why we are not given a description of Jesus while he exists on the earth itself, it is to safeguard the brethen and the saints from bowing to an image or icon of Christ, rather than bowing to Yeshua himself.

BaptismThe subject of baptism is interesting. Unlike Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox actually baptise a person thrice, once for each member of the Trinity itself. The earliest referrence that mentions a three time cleansing in the Didache which says in chapter 7:
"Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. "

The only time that is indicated in the text a three time cleansing is mentioned. I wouldn't say that this is to much of a problem, however, If I recall, Some Eastern Orthodox do practise infant baptism, which I do not see as something that should be done. Baptism is pointless if there is no repentance accompanying it and a child does not have the incentive to repent, considering he doesn't understand.
Tertullian's treatise on baptism notes and interesting point in Chapter 18 is whether or not baptising infants is something to do.

But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. "Give to every one who beggeth thee," has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: "Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine;" and, "Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men's sins." If Philip so "easily" baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous evidence that the Lord deemed him worthy 678
had been interposed. The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer's sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered--to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain's chariot. The Scripture which he was reading falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. "But Paul too was, in fact, 'speedily' baptized:" for Simon, his host, speedily recognized him to be "an appointed vessel of election." God's approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every "petition " may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.
For why is it necessary--if (baptism itself) is not so necessary--that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine!
Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asketh." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred--in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom--until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

In the treatise itself, Tertullian himself doesn't see infant baptism as profitable. He seems to indicate that it is not a wise thing to do and I think Tertullian is correct on his stance here, considering there isn't an indication in scripture of infants being baptised. Though some will point to the jailer being baptised, but I don't think you can make a strong case from the scripture overall regarding this issue. At least I don't think so.

Now I have undertaken the task of listening to a set of old programmes hosted by Yanni Simonides to give me a basic understanding of what Eastern Orthodoxy actually teaches. Although I would encourage others to check out what I am saying regarding these issues.

Prayer and FastingThis next issue is not against prayer and fasting. We are commanded to pray without ceasing in scripture as well. Not to mention in certain cases fasting was necessary as well as prayer in order to drive out demons.

Prayer and Fasting are not the issues. It's the type of prayer and the type of fasting itself. Prayer is communication with God. Man himself has a desire to pray which animals do not even possess. We can speak with God and interact with him as well as him speaking and interacting with us. Man opens himself to God when he prays to him. Prayer also needs to be reverent and God is not the big Santa Claus living in the sky. These points I don't think many will dispute within religious circle. The question is, are there prayers in the Eastern Orthodox church that are biblical? Let's take a look.

Firstly, It is right an good that communal prayer and private prayer is encouraged, that is something to be commended and there is nothing wrong with the subject of setting time for prayer to God, so far these are not problematic. Certainly after prayer there should be a change as well and the sit

Though prayer with the mind is found in scripture, we aren't told to empty our minds when praying to God. I don't see any biblical mandate for this. In fact prayer and singing can be done with the mind if one so chooses to. The only "emptying" that would be in scripture is concentrating on God himself in the prayer and pushing other things to the wayside, except for those things which you need to pray to God about, regarding sin confession, repentance, giving thanks, praying for his will to be done and other issues that are placed on your heart.

Nevertheless, communal prayer with believers and private prayer is indeed something that the apostles encouraged, Even Paul and Barnabas did the same while in prison and they even sang to the Lord in prison.

Now next is fasting. I don't condemn fasting in and of itself. The TANAKH or The Old Testament contains several points about fasting within it's confines. It would include different reasons of fasting, including at times of repentance like putting on sackcloth or fasting before offering up a sacrifice.

Under the New Covenant, you are free to fast or to feast. However, I am not adverse to someone fasting before they are baptised into the faith, even the Didache encourages it in it's chapter on baptism which I quoted earlier. You are entirely free in the matter of fasting. It is also noble to fast from a particular delicacy you like to show self control as well

One thing I will say about the Lenten fast is that there is no mandate in scripture that needs to be carried out regarding this and I see no reason to carry out, as well as having particular set days of fasting. When you fast is a matter of conscience. The only obligatory fasting I can think of in the NT is praying and fasting with respect to free demoniacs from their demon possession.

To me, fasting is not an obligatory thing unless it's to do with the point I just made a few seconds ago but one shouldn't impose Lent on another. Now whether Lent is pagan or not is another dispute altogether.

Another problem is speaking of fasting from sin, which one Eastern Orthodox metropolitan described it as on Holy Cross Live. Repentance from sin I think is a better term, because repentance doesn't give you the option of returning to the wickedness you once treasure. I think it is innapropriate to describe abstaining from sin in this way.

One is free to fast or feast, according to his own conscience.

Dialogue and EcumenismThis next issue I will tackle is the subject of Dialogue and Ecumenism. One question that shall arise is the subject of What Unity was Jesus praying for in his priestly prayer? The answer is simple, he was praying for the disciples to be one and for the world to be one, but that oneness was common doctrine and spiritual unity, not ecumenical.

It is one thing to have a dialogue with one another, which happens quite frequently on Paltalk itself, but that is not the same as having an ecumenical gathering, which is condemned. Considering the fact that false brethen are not to be welcomed in the home.

In High Cross Live, the Eastern Orthodox gentleman speak of the splits that came with their repeated assumption that the Eastern Orthodox church goes back to the apostles, which Frank Shaeffer assumes as well and I ask this question in a response I did to Shaeffer on this issue, Does Eastern Orthodoxy go back to the apostles. I am convinced the answer is NO.

The first split according to the men in High Cross Live was between the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox at the Chalcedonian Council, the second being the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox split in 1054 (The men don't give an exact date) and of course the Protestant Reformation in which many leaders challenged the teachings of Roman Catholicism and rejected many doctrines that the church had accumilated over time.

In the tape, Simonides and the two priests discuss trying to discuss past differences and trying to supposedly overcome them. However, I cannot see how bridging the gap between the Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox is going to give us unity, it is not true unity in the Spirit, it is false. There are people with all these groups that reject the idea of the Ecumenical movement and the World Council of Churches.

I don't agree that there can be ANY reconciliation between the four groups, it is simply not possible. Making a peace treaty with Rome and Constantinople is not the way to unity whatsoever.
Divisions are a necessary evil. Certain issues like what hobbies Christians can have or the issue of cessationism or the time of the Milleniual Reign of Christ are not divisive issues. However, I am not willing to get into bed with the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and I am sure there are others who agree with me on this.

A dialogue I am happy to engage in, that I am not against, If there is no such thing is dialogue, we cannot debate the issues and put them on the table. But I have no interest in the Ecumenical movement or the World Council of Churches and there are those who are Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who will agree with me that Ecumenism is certainly out of the question.

The Bible and the Orthodox churchThe next topic I am going to cover is the subject of the Bible and the attitude to the Eastern Orthodox church itself. The first thing to note is that the Eastern Orthodox churches don't read the Bible as individuals but read it as members of the church in communion with the members and the final interpretation comes from the church itself.

One thing to say is that if this is the case that you cannot personally study the scriptures alone, how then are we to discern truth and error? I know that you can try to keep a consistent interpretation of the scriptures themselves among a body, but what if error creeps in and the church adopts the error as it's own, this is a grevious concern I have to say in all fairness and honesty itself. We had this problem also in the Old Testament in which the Old Testament Prophets spoke out against the people's immorality and idolatry but where ignored simply due to the false prophets that arose. In fact at one stage the scribes in the book of Jeremiah were actually guilty of misinterpreting the text of the Law in Jeremiah 8:8, a passage sadly abused out of context by Muslims to suggest Bible corruption, but that is another topic neither here nor there.

Not to mention, we need to check if the church fathers interpretation of scripture is in accordance with the scripture itself. I am fully aware that the context of Acts 17 where the Bereans are mentioned refers to them checking if Paul's words were true about Jesus' Messiahship in scripture but the same principles apply to any doctrine.

One point that is often made by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike is "The apostles didn't have the New Testament", as if that is somehow a big shock to those who have studied canon issues either in brief or in depth from reliable sources. The apostles did oral tradition and Paul mentions having the Gospel conveyed to him orally. In the program, Theodore Stylianopoulos was told when he was studiying scripture as a boy by his professor that you say Bible instead of Church. But considering the fact we have a collection of the New Testament books and when the canon was completed, we can now sift false teaching from the true teaching of the scriptures, much the same with the Old Testament.

I will address some texts that Theodore Stylianopoulos, one of the guests on Holy Cross Live, did not bring up when he was asked to speak about the Bible in the Orthodox Church but is frequently brought to the table by a Romanist by the name of Savioursheart. Savioursheart has often claimed that Sola Scriptura is refuted by 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which speaks of holding fast to the traditions. However, the verse is speaking of the apostolic teaching, it is not speaking of all traditions. Another Roman Catholic is AsyrianPrince9, who has spoken out against private interpretation by his abuse of 2 Peter 1:20 . However, the context is speaking about the prophet's interpretation coming from God, not his own mind, it is not condemning private study of the scripture. Not to mention both of them show abysmall ignorance on what Sola Scriptura actually is.

See my articles below:

This isn't to condemn tradition period, but only to repudiate tradition that violates the scriptures themselves. There isn't anything wrong with corporate and personal Bible studying in and of itself either. However we need to carefully check out what a person says with scripture and also listen to biblically solid teachers, lest we be "tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming." As Paul puts it in Ephesians 4:14.

The church fathers, though very interesting read, also need to examined in light of the scripture just as we examine modern writers. There isn't a dispute about the Trinity here, it's an early belief in the church and is certainly a belief which can be found moreso in John, Acts, Philippians, Hebrews and Revelation quite explicitly and also in other letters implictly and explictly, the latter pertaining to Jesus' relationship to the Father and his incarnation as well as the identification as YHWH by the New Testament authors. There is no question about the Trinity in the scriptures, not to mention there is even more an explicit witness of Trinitarian thought in Pre Nicean Church writings. I have many videos and articles that speak on the subject of the Trinity itself which may be invaluable to the Body of Christ. I will not be commenting on the Alexandrian and Antiochian interpretation in this refutation.

There are other details I could go into about the false doctrines hyperdulia, transubstansiation, prayers for the dead and necromancy but that's it for now in this section. 

SaintsNext we are coming to the issue of the subject of Saints in the Eastern Orthodox. The problem isn't the sanctification by the Spirit helping us to be holy. One thing I will say it is not by our efforts that we become holy considering our works are like dung and rags and cannot save us from our sins but by allowing the Holy Spirit to sanctify us and allowing ourselves to submit to Christ through repentance and faith. A grace that can neither be brought, nor earned. By his grace we can become a saint and the office of sainthood is open to all and all have the potential to be one, as George Bebis  mentioned when he was interviewed by Yanni Simonides in Holy Cross Live.

Obviously this can only happen when man is convicted by the Spirit and drawn by the Father and we cannot turn to Christ on our own, unlike what Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians claim. Eastern Orthodoxy I think rejects these two heresies but that is not my focus.

George Bebis speaks of distinctions in sainthood, such as prophets, apostles and the church fathers and gives a few examples, Such as Abraham in the TANAKH or Old Testament and the church father Basil the Great.

There is a recognition of saints within the confines of holy scripture, although the canonisation of dead saints can only be done with those which we can be certain who are in heaven, such as the prophets themselves and of course the apostles.

There really isn't much to say in this section here regarding the issue of praying to the saints.
However, Dr Bebis explains that there is praying to the saints to Simonides in the program itself and seeing them as brothers and sisters. He explains that the saints taste the glory of God and enjoy the taste of paradise, thus they can feel us and have been through trials, thus they can pray for us. The jist of what he is saying is that we can ask for the saints intercession, that's what I percieve Dr Bebis to be saying. and those listening to my video can go back and listen to the program to hear what he is saying then correct me in comments if I have misrpresented his position.

Bebis claims that there is New Testament evidence of this, but he doesn't provide a verse either implicitly or explicitly regarding this issue. There isn't any context from the scripture that springs to mind where we can seek the intercession of the saints. They are alive in Christ, but they cannot communicate with us. Bodily they are dead but are alive and present with the Lord if they died in faith, but that doesn't logically mean that we can seek their intercession.

We are not to consult the dead on behalf of the living, which is condemned in Isaiah by YHWH, it is necromancy. Now a Roman Catholic on paltalk tried to create a false dilemma to try and say if my memory serves me correctly that we cannot condemn prayers to the saints otherwise this means Jesus is guilty of necromancy because Elijah and Moses were spoken to and they were dead, that was one argument presented and also he claimed that Necromancy was not what prayers to the saints were, I forget the nature of his question.

Jesus is not guilty of necromancy because the Father had allowed Moses and Elijah to speak with Jesus, no violation of the prohibition of consulting the dead on behalf of the living at all, The prayers to the saints are not something for Christians to engage in.

See may article on Mary:

Monastic life
Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox contain monks within their ranks. The problem with the subject of monks is that they are not mandated by the scriptures themselves. Others have gone into the various problems with the monastic life but one point I will speak on is with regards to whether the scriptures tell us to be monks.

Well, the first problem to arise is that the Great Commonision can HARDLY, if not CANNOT be carried out if you hide yourself away from the rest of the world. We are not in the world to trust or love it, we are sent into the world for a purpose, to bring those out of enslavement to the world into slavery to God, the latter being a good kind of slavery. Even John Macarthur has commented on the word doulos in the NT showing what our relationship to Christ is, but this is another topic.

You are a minister of the Gospel where ever you go, whether you are working in a job or out in the Caribbean on holiday. We are IN THE WORLD, but we are not of the world. It is our duty to spread the Gospel of Christ across the globe, which is impossible to do when you have shut yourself off from the outside word in a convent or something like that.

Youtube is a good medium to spread the gospel but that's another issue. Even a blog like this can also be used as a tool to utilise by the grace of God.

The point is, we are to be IN the world but untainted. We are surrounded by unbelievers all the time but we don't have to conform to their ways or compromise. We need to be the salt of the earth. If we are in a convent hiding from the world, We are certainly hiding our lamp in a cupboard and are not allowing it to be seen by all who are in the world, which would be utter disobedience to Christ's commands.

This is certainly one contention that I have with monasticism itself. In fact Martin Luther's time in the monastic life certainly didn't bring him to closer communion with God. I would advise a person to avoid considering the monastic lifestyle as a feasible option for them.

Be a soldier for Christ on the battlefield of the world, Running away will do you no good.

In Conclusion
In conclusion, I feel that the Eastern Orthodox church is not the church that was the first church established by Christ and humbly plead and ask that the Eastern Orthodoxy cease relying on their works, leave their false system and trust in Jesus as their Messiah and God. He is risen, he is Lord.


Answering Judaism.

PS.The programs of Holy Cross Live can be found on YouTube. I would recommend looking at them if you need more information on the Eastern Orthodox church from Eastern Orthodox theologians themselves. It will be of great benefit of those who are seeking to evangelise Eastern Orthodox.

Holy Cross Live! - The Bible in the Orthodox Church:
Holy Cross Live! - Prayer and Fasting:
Holy Cross Live! - The Orthodox Church in Dialogue:
Holy Cross Live! - Ecclesia:
Holy Cross Live! - Saints:

If the Lord Wills, more information may be added.

Comments on some of Theodore Shoebat's points in his debate with Keith Thompson

This article is going to comment on some of the points made by Theodore Shoebat in his debate with Keith Thompson back in August 2014.

The debate "Walid Shoebat’s Son Supports Catholic Massacre of Cathar Children & Women" can be found here:

War Rhetoric

In the debate that took place between Keith Thompson and Theodore Shoebat, an issue arose such as the wiping out of the Canaanites and Amalekites.

Through the Bible and thanks to some interesting scholarship, Thompson showed Shoebat that when it speaks on young and old being killed, it is simply near eastern rhetoric denoting a decisive war victory.

Shoebat however would not accept the evidence and claimed that Thompson was denying the scripture and what it said.

Keith was not denying what scripture was teaching, he was pointing out what was actually meant by root out individuals in a war context.

Keith also showed contemporary examples of the rhetoric itself from other sources, Egyptian included, to which Shoebat said "now you are using pagan sources interpreting scripture?".

Shoebat again missed the point. Keith was not saying to interpret the scriptures through paganism, he was giving evidence that the war rhetoric was not that uncommon in ancient times in that area of the world.

This is a straw man and a misrepresentation of Keith's premise.

For more information on the literary device used, read this article:

Cathar and Waldensian massacre
When Keith pointed out that these two groups shouldn't be killed, Theodore's question was "Were the Cathars Christians?".

Regardless of Cathars being Christians or not, that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is an unbeliever or heretic, there is no justification for Christians to go out and kill. The fact the Catholics massacred these people in the first place, calls into question whether or not they were following the commandments of Christ and I contend the Catholics were not Christians.

Although Jesus and his followers are in a spiritual war with Satan and his forces, that is not the same as, nor a pretext to commit mass murder. So to question the Orthodoxy of the Cathars is irrelevant to the fact that they shouldn't of been wiped out in a full scale massacre, but instead should have been brought to repentance.

If there was a modern day equivalent today, Here is a question. Do we have a pretext to kill Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Anti-Trinitarians of all stripes, Anti-Trinitarian and Anti-Pauline Messianic Jews? OR.... Should one's efforts be placed in evangelising to those people, praying for them and witnessing to them? I'd say, the latter is what Christ would want.

It is one thing for a Christian to engage in self defense or even join the army to defend our country or dispence proper justice, but it is quite another story to go out and massacre innocent people, even if only ONE individual was killed by said group. I say this because Shoebat brought up the murder of Peter Castadown, for what reason I have no idea, because that wouldn't let the Catholics of the hook for killing the Cathars.

These points by Shoebat speak volumes on his attitude toward the Inquisition and the Crusades. Very troubling. More points may be added at a later date IF the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism.

Tuesday 21 October 2014

Forced Celibacy: A doctrine of demons

To often celibacy in the Church has been considered a higher holiness than marriage and even in some cases, sex is considered to be either some unholy practice, or just simply an activity that is just a base instinct that is to be ignored.

In some cases however, such as Roman Catholic priesthood, celibacy may be a requirement, but not of the lay folk.

Celibacy does have positive benefits when it is NOT forced on the individual person. Sometimes celibacy allows for full dedication to YHWH, but this doesn't mean that an individual cannot marry. Quite to the contrary, marriage is holy and of course I mean biblical marriage and not referring to same sex marriages, which are NO marriage at all, much like how marrying a bridge, a country or your pet is NO marriage at all.

Bestiality, Homosexuality, Incest, Pedophilia and other sins cannot be the foundation of a true marriage, nor are they the foundation of such. Biblical marriage entails a man leaving his parents and clinging to his wife, in holy matrimony and God blesses such a marriage.

Christians recognise that marriage does NOT allow for the possibility of marrying unbelievers and that if one is to marry, they are to marry someone already in the faith.

"1 Corinthians 7:39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God."

Just like in the OT the Jews were not allowed to take pagans for marriage, the same goes for Christians with respect to non-Christians and heretics.

"2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[b]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will live with them
    and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.”[c]

17 Therefore,

“Come out from them
    and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
    and I will receive you.”[d]

18 And,

“I will be a Father to you,
    and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”[e]

Heading back to 1 Corinthians we read:
"25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

While Paul is not against marriage, nor condemning marriage, he does make the point that those who are unmarried may have their attention given to the Lord wholeheartedly, but also he does go on to say there will be trials and tribulations should they marry, persecution for the sake of Christ is also included and there is a possible scenario where a family member is threatened to be killed unless their spouse renounces their faith in Jesus. It is possible that Paul doesn't wish for any, to be in that particular scenario.

Jesus also makes a point about those are celibate for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus in Matthew 19 is speaking to the Pharisees on the issue of marriage, what it is and the subject of divorce. In verse 12, he is speaking about those who for the sake of focusing on the Kingdom of God, do not focus on Marriage but rather on giving the Gospel to the nations. While there is nothing wrong with marriage, those who do may face having to see their family persecuted or killed if they are Christians as mentioned before:

"Matthew 19:10 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.”

Only certain individuals however are to live this way, if God has taken them for a purpose.

Rabbinic Jews try to argue that Jesus sinned in this passage, due to supposedly violating Genesis 1:28. However, this is not the case.

While marriage is something that God has blessed the human race with, Genesis 1:28 speaks of filling the earth. I think with 7 billion people at the time this article was penned shows that the earth is quite full, even in the times of the TANAKH there were many nations after the time of Noah. This is not a command to be married, although marriage is part of being fruitful and multiply, considering fornication is out of the question. What do I mean? There is a command to marry and have kids, but because of the fact there are many on this planet after being fruitful, this command is not obligatory and marriage is an option. Considering the fact that in the time of Jesus you already had many on the earth, he is not violating this command by being celibate. The earth was already filled in his day.

"Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”"

An example of Old Testament celibacy can be given with Jeremiah himself. In fact God even told him NOT to waste his time marrying the daughters of Israel because the disaster that was approaching:

"16 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “You must not marry and have sons or daughters in this place.” 3 For this is what the Lord says about the sons and daughters born in this land and about the women who are their mothers and the men who are their fathers: 4 “They will die of deadly diseases. They will not be mourned or buried but will be like dung lying on the ground. They will perish by sword and famine, and their dead bodies will become food for the birds and the wild animals.”"

Considering Jeremiah was commanded to be celibate in a given context and Jesus was talking about being celibate in a given context. Genesis 1:28 doesn't condemn Jesus or Jeremiah, but if one want to say it does condemn Jesus because of celibacy, then reject Jeremiah as well, if one are going to be consistent.

The fact remains that due to the earth being already filled as it is, it is still not a command for marriage for all people, my point stands. Furthermore, even if one wants to argue Jeremiah did it in a specific time and place for the purpose of a mission, Jesus had a mission to accomplish, he didn't have the time to settle down, nor was it the reason he came to earth. If anyone wants to argue that Jesus was violating Genesis 1:28, the individuals who raise this point are stuck with the fact that Jeremiah, despite not having children, EVEN IN a specific place, they would have to toss Jeremiah out.

While there are scenarios that celibacy is allowed, Celibacy is NOT to be forced on anyone, a vow of celibacy included. There is one reason why and Paul gives us that reason in the context of his first letter to Timothy:

"4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."

While under the OT it was holy and good for the people of God to abstain from certain foods, Gentiles are released from this under the New Covenant, contrary to what some Messianic groups and Seventh Day Adventists would have you believe:

Read the following paper on this issue:

Marriage is a holy vocation and good, it should not be forbidden to anyone, even if there is a good motive behind it. Celibacy is not a higher holiness than marriage, both can be regarded as holy to the Lord, each to his own I say. HOWEVER.....

There is NO biblical precedent for imposing a vow of celibacy on any elder of a church. The Romanist has NO excuse to justify forbidding biblical marriage to anyone, even if there is an intention or motive that is altruistic.

If you want to be celibate, fine, if you want to be married, that is fine. if the Lord has called you to one of those vocations, wonderful, but the bottom line is... Forbidding biblical marriage is a doctrine of demons.

Answering Judaism.

Saturday 18 October 2014

Biblical and Manmade tradition

Tradition is essentially teaching. There are two examples of tradition that exists, written and oral. This website would be an example of written tradition and giving a talk on Paltalk or YouTube would be an example of tradition conveyed orally to a congregation.

Tradition as said before is simply teaching, something used to explain the biblical text.

Tradition in the Bible not only refers to the traditions of men, but also to the teachings apostles themselves and the prophets.

The traditions or teachings that one is yo hold to are the ones that do not contradict the scriptures themselves.

While Jesus may have accepted some of the traditions that existed in his day, they would only be traditions that biblically interpret the text, not ones that pervert the scripture itself.

 "Matthew 7:1 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a])

5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.’[b]

8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Paul also gives a warning about these kinds of traditions that may creep into the church:
"Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ."

This was a point of contention that often got him in trouble with the Pharisees and the scribes, who had the responsibility of giving the people the word of God as it should be understood.

Heretical groups such as Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and other cult groups have a tendency to elevate tradition as equal to scripture or even consider it revelation, which cannot be questioned.

Rabbinic Jews hold to the concept of an Oral Torah, believing that Moses had been given this as well as the Written Torah. The claim of an Oral Torah going back to Moses is a huge stretch.

For more information on the Oral Torah, Read the following articles by the Messianic Drew:
(Both links above are defunct).

However, it is blind acceptance of tradition without checking if it is indeed scriptural is the downfall of many groups, even those professing to be Christians.

Thankfully inside the groups I mentioned there individuals who do ask questions to see if what is biblical and what is not, and while these groups do say the Bible is the Word of God, they still hold tradition as equally inspired and even part of the Word of God itself, Which should be called into question since ALL of these groups that I mentioned above claim that their tradition in some way goes back to God, an assumption on their part.

Sola Scriptura seeks to use scripture as the ultimate authority to which all other authorities are to be subject. Jesus ultimately rejected any unbiblical tradition and any teaching that couldn't be substansiated either implicitly or explicitly.

Paul also makes the following point to Timothy about the scripture

"2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
While the text refers to the OT or the TANAKH in context, it does extend to the NT in principle. The same rule applies.

The groups I mentioned reject this method and require their followers to either subject themselves to a teaching magestirium governed by a body of individuals or subject themselves to (God forbid) the Pope.

This is not to deny the importance of elders in a church, Elders ARE required in a church to lead and govern it. Authority is also very important. The authority of the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox can be denied due to their unbiblical doctrines.

Sometimes there is the absurd question of "Show me where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible" or "Where in the Bible does it say you are justified by faith alone" shows up, with the individual pretty demanding it to be proved from the scripture failing to see how their own point backfires on themselves, namely, its a double standard that is knowingly or unknowingly engaged in.

The subject of the canon is not going to be addressed here. If the Lord Wills, a seperate paper may be dedicated to it, but I will say 2nd Peter itself treats Paul's writings as scripture:
"3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Another point which is raised by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox specifically is that you cannot interpret the scripture on your own and the passage that is abused, is 1st Peter 1:20:
"16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The text in question does not refute individual Bible study and seeking to interpret the Bibilical text, it is referring to the revelations of the Biblical prophets not being an invention of their imagination  but comes from God through them. Nothing about biblical exegesis is spoken about here.

Just reading the scripture itself shows that the prophets and the apostles called all back to the scriptures and even Christians had to check if what Paul had said was in line with the TANAKH itself. Yes I know that the NT wasn't available in its entirety during the time of when the apostles had begun their ministry but you get the point.

Others who reject sola scriptura do so out of confusion, believing using ANY tradition is wrong, which is SOLO Scriptura, not Sola.

Going back to the downfall point, we observe what happens in the TANAKH when people blindly follow their teachers and go into apostasy. In fact in the scribes and teachers are accused of perverting what the text said, rather than interpreting the text correctly, see Jeremiah 8:8:
"Jeremiah 8:8 “‘How can you say, “We are wise,
    for we have the law of the Lord,”
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
    has handled it falsely?

Keith Thompson has penned articles dealing with this topic which I would recommend reading:

I would also recommend Sam Shamoun's own article on this and William Webster's volume of audio series discussing their issue.

Shamoun's article can be found here:

For Webster's audio series on Catholicism, go here:

Answering Judaism.

PS. This article may be subject to update.

Here are some links on the canon of scripture I recommend:

Tuesday 14 October 2014

Mary: The greatest woman who ever lived

What the title says, Mary is indeed the greatest woman who lived in this planet. However, that definintely needs to be put into perspective, namely, Who is she?

I'll let this section from the Catholic Encyclopedia explain itself:
"In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." "

Keith Thompson has also compiled in his article what this doctrine teaches and I would recommend checking this article for more information:

William Webster also discusses this in his talk "Mary: Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity" which can be found here:

Now the question is, Was Mary preserved from the stain of original sin? No. Cleansed later obviously by the meritorious works of Jesus Christ, but certainly not preserved from the state of original sin.

The first abuse of of the biblical text can be found in Luke 1:28 which says the following:
"28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”"

The word kecharitomene is used, which means highly favoured. It is often claimed that this refers Mary's immaculate conception. But such is folly as the context doesn't refer back to her birth and does not specify a particular occasion where she was highly favoured.

Furthermore, the same word, though masculine (Which is irrelevent), says the same in the book of Sirach in chapter 18:

"17 Yes, kind words are more effective than the best of gifts, and if you are really concerned, you will give both."

Does this mean that man has undergone the same thing as Mary? Well by the Romanist standard, that is what we would have to accept if we even accept their premise. (Bold emphasis mine)

Thompson notes the following in his paper:
" “Lo, is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a gracious [κεχαριτωμένῳ] man” (Sirach 18:17).

If the perfect participle form of the word grace in Luke 1:28 proves Mary was graced at the Immaculate Conception, then it also proves the man in Sirach 18:17 was graced at his Immaculate Conception as well. Yet Catholics believe Mary was uniquely graced at conception in the same way Christ was.

It is because of things like this that Roman writers and scholars will actually admit this word kecharitōmenē does not even prove an Immaculate Conception. For example, Catholic writer Jimmy Akin who states,

“And so it’s [the Immaculate Conception] something that is consistent with and coheres with the use of the word kecharitomene there, but it’s not something that the word kecharitomene requires. This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn’t immaculately conceived” (James Akin, Catholic Answers Live, audio file downloaded from

Hence, although Roman writers are willing to admit the fact that Luke 1:28 does not firmly establish the Immaculate Conception (which is correct), many others refuse to admit the obvious and instead stick with the debunked idea that the verse demands the doctrine. For example, William Weary asserts the Immaculate Conception is “‘contained within’ the angel’s Annunciation greeting to her, ‘Hail, full of grace’ (Luke 1:28)” (William Weary, A Difficult, Daring Doctrine: The Immaculate Conception, ed. Peter M. Stravinskas, The Catholic Answer Book of Mary, [Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2000], p. 49). It is astonishing how Catholic writers who utilize more of a realist approach admit without second thought that the verse does not establish the Immaculate Conception since it is the best Rome has to offer concerning Scriptural support for this dogma. As Keating says: “Catholic exegetes, in discussing the Immaculate Conception, begin with the Annunciation” (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians”, [Ignatius Press, 1988], p. 268).
" Keith Thompson, The Bible does not teach Mary's Immaculate Conception:

Furthermore, it is important to note the context in the very same passage that is often appealed to what Mary says in her song to God
"Luke 1:46 And Mary said:

“My soul glorifies the Lord
47     and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has been mindful
    of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49     for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
    holy is his name.
50 His mercy extends to those who fear him,
    from generation to generation.
51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
    he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones
    but has lifted up the humble.
53 He has filled the hungry with good things
    but has sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
    remembering to be merciful
55 to Abraham and his descendants forever,
    just as he promised our ancestors.”

If Mary was immaculately concieved, why in the word does she refer to God as her saviour? The obvious conclusion is that she was a sinner and no it is not a profession of HOW God the Father or God the Son saved her.

Take also into consideration this:
"John 2 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

4 “Woman,[a] why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Mary asked Jesus at an innappropriate time to do something but he tells her that it isn't the time to for him for such.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown in his commentary observes the following:
"4, 5. Woman—no term of disrespect in the language of that day (Joh 19:26).

what … to do with thee—that is, "In my Father's business I have to do with Him only." It was a gentle rebuke for officious interference, entering a region from which all creatures were excluded (compare Ac 4:19, 20).

mine hour, &c.—hinting that He would do something, but at His own time; and so she understood it (Joh 2:5)

Now some reading may say "Well she simply wasn't guilty of sinning delibrately but was only guilty of sinning by accident". However, though the TANAKH itself DOES acknowledge as well as the NT that there is a difference between wilfull and accidental sins or practising sin and falling into sin, the objection presented is vacuous and demonstrates nothing contrary to the Biblical position.

Perpetual virginity?
It is important to note that the claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin is ridiculous and is even refuted by the words of Matthew himself.

"Matthew 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Part of consummating the marriage would imply and give way to the fact that Joseph DID lie with Mary but not until Jesus had been born into this world, the context giving way also to the possiblity of Jesus having literal brothers and sisters, rather than a referrence to distant relatives or cousins.

"Matthew 12:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

"Mark 4:31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

The thrust of Jesus' point is not that he doesn't have a mother or brothers, but his point is who are his true family, in particular a spiritual family, namely those who seek to do the will of God.

The fact Jesus doesn't deny that his relatives are calling him only demonstrates the point that he acknowledges that he had siblings who were born after him.

Prays to Mary?
To quote the words of John MacArthur with respect to this exaltation of Mary:
"That's paganism, that would nauseate Mary, if she knew about and she doesn't. She never heard a prayer from anybody".

I couldn't have said it better myself. Although Mary is alive in Christ, this is not a proof that one can simply pray to her and ask her to go to the Son for a request.

Mary is physically dead, though alive with Jesus and the saints in heaven. HOWEVER, only Jesus has the perogative to be prayed to and as YHWH God can answer prayers.

The only way any individual can ever answer multiple prayers from across the globe is if they possess omnipresence, which is something Mary lacks.

Also, praying to the saints or to Mary is necromancy, namely praying to the dead. Asking a dead person in prayer to take your request to God is an abomination.

Isaiah makes the following point to his people in chapter 8 of his book:
"Isaiah 8:19 When someone tells you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. 21 Distressed and hungry, they will roam through the land; when they are famished, they will become enraged and, looking upward, will curse their king and their God. 22 Then they will look toward the earth and see only distress and darkness and fearful gloom, and they will be thrust into utter darkness."

Before anyone tries to appeal to the transfiguration, where Jesus speaks to Moses and Elijah, no that is NOT necromancy. God the Father allowed Jesus to speak to Moses and Elijah and no where in the context of Isaiah did God the Father ever grant such a thing to the people. It was a onetime scenario and it fails to take into consideration that Jesus is the one who came down from heaven, thus he would have the perogative to speak with Moses and Elijah because of the Father in heaven allowing it. Plus, Jesus is NOT seeking Moses and Elijah's intercession, which shoots the Romanist claims in the foot regarding this passage.

There is no endorsement from the NT that would allow us to pray to Mary.

Thompson says also the following regarding this matter in the same article I have linked to.

"However, the biblical prohibition in Deuteronomy 18:11 is that men should not pray to the deceased who are in Sheol, not that the transfigured God-man, Jesus, could not to speak to Elijah and Moses if they made an appearance on earth during Jesus’ advent. There is a big difference. Not once does Jesus beseech and seek help from Elijah, Moses or any other saint in heaven while on earth as He actually does in reference to the Father numerous times."

James White also states:
"“Are we seriously to believe that the unique, one-of-a-kind event of the Transfiguration itself is a meaningful foundation for communication with those who have passed from this life? Do I really need to point out that there is actually no example of communication between the apostles and Moses and Elijah, that it is limited to Jesus, and hence would not, even if it was pressed far out of its meaningful context, support such a concept?”" (James White, A Brief Comment on the “Communion of Saints” and Catholic Blogger “Devman).

Need I say more? It is obvious and clear that one cannot prove biblically that these doctrines of Mary actually exist.

While the Catholics may accuse me of hating Mary, this isn't so. I don't hate her, I am just simply putting her back in her proper place. Perhaps you should be asking if what you are doing may be something that Mary is going to see on Judgement Day is something that actually makes her ill and upset?

For more infomation on church history and church fathers which are not covered here, I suggest reading Keith Thompson's article and the talk by William Webster on the subject of Mary.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday 12 October 2014

Are Christians required to tithe?

I have already written an article discussing whether or not Christians are to observe the Torah, specifically Gentiles rather than Jewish believers.

The article can be found here:

You can also find the video adaption here:

I am going to tackle some of the objections raised by many individuals, be they some Messianic groups who put Gentiles under the law (Judaizers) and of course the false group 7th Day Adventists.

Let's tackle these.

Jesus tells us to tithe
The context in which Jesus addresses the subject of tithing is when he confronts the Pharisees on the subject of their traditions. Let's read:
"Luke 11:42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone."

"Matthew 23:23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

Jesus is tackling the Pharisee's hypocrisy and is rebuking them for such evil. While they may be meticulous and careful carrying out the rituals in the Torah, they neglect actually taking care of others or having a heart for God, both of which the Pharisees lacked. While Jesus is using tithing as an example of how the Pharisee's fall short of righteousness, he is not saying that his future Gentile followers are to tithe. To read into Jesus' words that Christians are required to tithe is miss the point he is making.

Before anyone tries to accuse me of inconsistency, read the article posted above and also read this article:

What about the book of Malachi?
Let's read it shall we?
"Malachi 3:6 “I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord Almighty.

“But you ask, ‘How are we to return?’

8 “Will a mere mortal rob God? Yet you rob me.

“But you ask, ‘How are we robbing you?’

“In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—your whole nation—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop their fruit before it is ripe,” says the Lord Almighty. 12 “Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land,” says the Lord Almighty.

YHWH is speaking to the people of Israel and chastising them for not tithing and brining their offerings to him and condemning their apathy in this area. However, this is not a proof text for Christians to tithe as this is NOT a command that applies under the new covenant, BUT, there is the principle of giving, which is totally different.

"2 Corinthians 9 There is no need for me to write to you about this service to the Lord’s people. 2 For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting about it to the Macedonians, telling them that since last year you in Achaia were ready to give; and your enthusiasm has stirred most of them to action. 3 But I am sending the brothers in order that our boasting about you in this matter should not prove hollow, but that you may be ready, as I said you would be. 4 For if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to say anything about you—would be ashamed of having been so confident. 5 So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to visit you in advance and finish the arrangements for the generous gift you had promised. Then it will be ready as a generous gift, not as one grudgingly given.

6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9 As it is written:

“They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor;
    their righteousness endures forever.”[a]

10 Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. 11 You will be enriched in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.

Here there is a principle of giving to God not in the sense of being forced to give, but rather a case of only giving if you want to give. This isn't to say you shouldn't care, but it is to say that you are supposed to give out of gratitude to God rather than begrudgingly give it.

Sin of Omission
Those who advocate tithing for Christians often claim that you are to give 10% of your income to God, but what they fail to mention, either due to ignorance or deception (let's hope it's the former and not the latter), that tithing is NOT limited to giving money over to God, it consists of other things, namely what Jesus said in the context of Matthew 23 but also in Leviticus and Numbers, which address tithing:

"Leviticus 26 When you have entered the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance and have taken possession of it and settled in it, 2 take some of the firstfruits of all that you produce from the soil of the land the Lord your God is giving you and put them in a basket. Then go to the place the Lord your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name 3 and say to the priest in office at the time, “I declare today to the Lord your God that I have come to the land the Lord swore to our ancestors to give us.” 4 The priest shall take the basket from your hands and set it down in front of the altar of the Lord your God. 5 Then you shall declare before the Lord your God: “My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. 6 But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, subjecting us to harsh labor. 7 Then we cried out to the Lord, the God of our ancestors, and the Lord heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. 8 So the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with signs and wonders. 9 He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey; 10 and now I bring the firstfruits of the soil that you, Lord, have given me.” Place the basket before the Lord your God and bow down before him. 11 Then you and the Levites and the foreigners residing among you shall rejoice in all the good things the Lord your God has given to you and your household."

"Numbers 18:21 “I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the tent of meeting. 22 From now on the Israelites must not go near the tent of meeting, or they will bear the consequences of their sin and will die. 23 It is the Levites who are to do the work at the tent of meeting and bear the responsibility for any offenses they commit against it. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. They will receive no inheritance among the Israelites. 24 Instead, I give to the Levites as their inheritance the tithes that the Israelites present as an offering to the Lord. That is why I said concerning them: ‘They will have no inheritance among the Israelites.’”"

What the Israelites had to grow in their fields also had to be handed over to God as part of the tithe. The equivalent today would be to hand to God what ever was grown in our allotment or our backgarden.
So are we required to tithe? The answer is a resounding NO.

This article isn't saying that tithing is necessarily bad, but is pointing out that tithing is not required of Christians, though giving to God is still needed.

If one is going to teach tithing to a Christian congregation, they must teach BOTH the blessing and curse.

Answering Judaism.

Wednesday 8 October 2014

Tackling Rabbinic Objections

In this article I hope to deal with some more Rabbinic objections that have been brought to my attention.

The first objection was with respect to what was said in my article "Comments on School of X and Y"

On my Answering Judaism Facebook page, the following was said:
"This is not a sufficient answer. According to the gospels, Jesus fulfilled this prophecy 30 years before he was met with people who didn't like him. What is Matthew doing declaring fulfillment before it happened? A better application might be, "and they sought to have him stoned, to fulfill what the prophets have spoken, saying he shall be a Nazarene." When Matthew places fulfillment so early, he is hinting to the location as essential, not his teachings or enemies.

Further, it wasn't just Galileans who were held in low esteem; so were the Babylonians. Why don't the gospels appeal to the prophets saying "he shall be a Babylonian?"

Although the article claims "the prophets" include Psalm 22, 118, and Isaiah 53, these do not clearly speak of the messiah. Is there a clear verse which states that the messiah will be rejected, or only verses removed from context that support this claim?

Psalm 22 is addressed here:

The subject of Isaiah 53 has been addressed here in the following papers:

Read also the article responding to Maestro M Erano Evangelista:

To be fair, Does ANY passage speak explicitly of the Messiah? That's a point I have raised in my articles in the past.

The Gospels don't say Jesus is a Babylonian because that wasn't relevant to their point to beginning. They were referring to their particular time they state of Galilee and how it was percieved in their day.

Psalm 118 in it's context refers to David but can also refer to Jesus. I won't be debating who it is in the passage in the context of the OT passage, but I am making the point it's David.
"1 Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good;
    his love endures forever.

2 Let Israel say:
    “His love endures forever.”
3 Let the house of Aaron say:
    “His love endures forever.”
4 Let those who fear the Lord say:
    “His love endures forever.”

5 When hard pressed, I cried to the Lord;
    he brought me into a spacious place.
6 The Lord is with me; I will not be afraid.
    What can mere mortals do to me?
7 The Lord is with me; he is my helper.
    I look in triumph on my enemies.

8 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
    than to trust in humans.
9 It is better to take refuge in the Lord
    than to trust in princes.
10 All the nations surrounded me,
    but in the name of the Lord I cut them down.
11 They surrounded me on every side,
    but in the name of the Lord I cut them down.
12 They swarmed around me like bees,
    but they were consumed as quickly as burning thorns;
    in the name of the Lord I cut them down.
13 I was pushed back and about to fall,
    but the Lord helped me.
14 The Lord is my strength and my defense[a];
    he has become my salvation.

15 Shouts of joy and victory
    resound in the tents of the righteous:
“The Lord’s right hand has done mighty things!
16     The Lord’s right hand is lifted high;
    the Lord’s right hand has done mighty things!”
17 I will not die but live,
    and will proclaim what the Lord has done.
18 The Lord has chastened me severely,
    but he has not given me over to death.
19 Open for me the gates of the righteous;
    I will enter and give thanks to the Lord.
20 This is the gate of the Lord
    through which the righteous may enter.
21 I will give you thanks, for you answered me;
    you have become my salvation.

22 The stone the builders rejected
    has become the cornerstone;
23 the Lord has done this,
    and it is marvelous in our eyes.
24 The Lord has done it this very day;
    let us rejoice today and be glad.

25 Lord, save us!
    Lord, grant us success!

26 Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
    From the house of the Lord we bless you.[b]
27 The Lord is God,
    and he has made his light shine on us.
With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession
    up[c] to the horns of the altar.

28 You are my God, and I will praise you;
    you are my God, and I will exalt you.

29 Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good;
    his love endures forever.

And the references from the NT shall be provided:
"Matthew 21:33 “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.

35 “The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.

38 “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

41 “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“‘The stone the builders rejected
    has become the cornerstone;
the Lord has done this,
    and it is marvelous in our eyes’[h]?

43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”[i]

45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46 They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.

"Mark 12:1 Jesus then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.

6 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’

7 “But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

9 “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Haven’t you read this passage of Scripture:

“‘The stone the builders rejected
    has become the cornerstone;
11 the Lord has done this,
    and it is marvelous in our eyes’[a]?”

12 Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.

"Luke 20:9 He went on to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. 10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. 12 He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.

13 “Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’

14 “But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

“What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”

When the people heard this, they said, “God forbid!”

17 Jesus looked directly at them and asked, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written:

“‘The stone the builders rejected
    has become the cornerstone’[a]?

18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”

19 The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.

The Lord raised up David to be the cornerstone, the leader of the nation to whom all Israel is subject. There are rebels within the land of Israel but also outside Israel that rejected David's kingship and authority over them and for this reason would be punished or exiled. Absalom himself rebelled against King David and paid the price for it. The Pharisees themselves rejected Jesus thus had the kingdom taken from them and given to other Jews more worthy of this privelage. The suffering of David and the future Messiah are found in Psalm 118, the suffering that comes from their enemies.

Defense of Jesus is not left to taking verses out of context.

Another point that was made was this:
"John 13:18 asserts that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecy in Psalm 41:9. Is it just this verse which is messianic, or is the whole chapter a prophecy of the messiah? Follow-up question: if only that verse is messianic, how do you know? Can we really trust selective prooftexting, i.e. taking a single verse from a chapter and calling it prophetic? If the whole chapter is messianic in nature, then how can you demonstrate that? Additionally, would you agree verse 4 speaks of Jesus, when he says "forgive me, for I have sinned against You?""

I recommend this explaination by Gill on this point:
"but he observes, so it is, and will come to pass, that there is one of you which will betray me:
that the Scripture may be fulfilled: Psalm 41:9, as it literally (b) was in Judas's betraying Christ. The passage is by many interpreted either of Ahithophel, or of some other counsellor of Absalom's, or of Absalom himself; and is applied to their conduct, with respect to David, at the time of their rebellion against him; and which is thought to be typical of the treatment Christ met with from an apostle of his: but we do not find that, at the time of that rebellion, David was sick, or had any disease upon him, from whence they might hope for his death; it does not seem, as though it could be literally understood of David at all, and of the behaviour of any of his servants; but most properly of David's son, the Messiah, Jesus, with whom everything in the psalm agrees; and particularly this verse, which so plainly describes Judas, and expresses his base ingratitude, hypocrisy, and malice: the former part of the text is not cited, "yea, mine own familiar friend", or "the man of my peace, in whom I trusted"; though it fully agrees with him, he being admitted to great familiarity with Christ, and lived peaceably with him; and who was intrusted by him with the bag, into which the money was put, which was ministered, either for the sustenance of him and his apostles, or for the use of the poor: but our Lord thought fit to cite no more of it than what follows, that being sufficiently descriptive of him; and especially at this present time, when he was at table with his Lord.
He that eateth bread with me, hath lift up his heel against me; he sat down with him at table frequently, and ate bread with him; and was doing so, when Satan put it into his heart to betray him; which is strongly expressed, by "lifting up" his "heel against him"; and sets forth the ingratitude, wickedness, and cruelty of him; who, like an unruly horse, that has thrown his rider, spurns at him, to destroy him; and also the insidious manner in which he did it; he supplanted, he tripped him, as wrestlers do, in order to cast him down to the ground, and then trample upon him, and triumph over him: he first "laid snares for him", as Jarchi explains the phrase used in the "psalm", and then "he magnified his heel", he behaved proudly and haughtily to him.

Obviously we need to avoid proof texting and understand why the New Testament authors quote the TANAKH with respect to Jesus, in other words, What is the point that is been made by the NT writers.

Though David sinned and Jesus did not and though Jesus died at the hands of his enemies in accordance with the Father's will, their circumstances are the same, both David and his descendant the Messiah would be betrayed by their closest friends and be handed over to their enemies.

Now let's move onto the next point:
"Many holy rabbis are/were known to effect miracles. Even becoming resurrected, or bringing others to life. Yet they didnt claim to be...Gd!!!
Followers of jezus transgress half of the decalogue."

Such as? I would like to know. Furthermore, my argument is not resurrection proves you are God, my argument is Jesus claimed to be God and because of his resurrection, his claims are proven true and he is vindicated. For those who are interested, see the following on Deuteronomy 13:

Regarding the decalogue and to reiterate a point I made in response to Rabbi Eli Cohen, Jesus is referring to his goal that he is coming to accomplish and that he is not setting aside the Law and the Prophets. This doesn't mean that Gentiles are to observe the Torah in it's entirety and I write on this subject here:

Fulfilling of the law is not the same as abolishing it. Jesus fulfills the demands that the Torah requires and thus there are certain commands that needn't be carried out by virtue of him fulfilling those requirements. I also direct people to this article for other pieces of information regarding the laws pertaining to women raised by Yehuda Yisroel and others:

Read also the following on the subject of repentance that is raised in one of my papers responding to Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal:

Now the next point:

"AJ, the Sh'ma was not proclaimed with any goal in mind. It simply the foremost statement in the Hebrew Bible establishing the principal that Hashem is Israel's only Deity and that the Eternal is ONE- not ONE composed of three persons or hypostases as the church fathers would tend to state. Why do Christian Trinitarians think they see the truth but for more than 3000 years the revelations made to my ancestors at Sinai through the greatest prophet who ever lived and throughout the centuries were misinterpreted because we have "veils" over our eyes.?"

The Shema doesn't teach on the Trinity or the nature of God for that matter, it only teaches on how many Gods there are, hence, no violation of the Shema is commited by the Trinity.

Even if a Rabbinic Jew or a Christian argue about Echad being singular or plural, it is meaningless since the Trinity isn't the Shema's point to begin with.

Here is also a response to sandz that was done a while back:

Here is another objection to tackle:
"Christianity on the other hand however teaches God declares you righteous when you come to him in repentance and faith and then you carry out good works as GRATITUDE to him, rather than for your salvation."
This is what I said, to which barry umansky said:

"Actually, that is what Judaism teaches, not Christianity- at least according to Paul's teachings. It is Judaism that teaches that if man sincerely repents of his sins and tries to improve his behaviour- then forgiveness is obtainable from Hashem. Our guide for ethical behaviour is the Torah, and its commandments or mitzvot."

Judaism doesn't teach that forensic justification before God, Christianity DOES teach what I assert in the point made above.
 Read Ephesians 2:8-10 "8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

So Paul does speak on works, but he makes it clear you are NOT saved by works, but saved for them instead.

While the Torah itself is good as a guideline, you can't be saved by merely observing it. I have also written articles on whether Gentiles should observe certain ordinances of the Torah or not, a common issue raised by some Messianics and the heretical 7th Day Adventists.

Other objections may be addressed in the future if the Lord Wills

Answering Judaism.