Friday 21 August 2015

Response to Trev of Economia

There are a lot of objections to get through and I hope to answer them by God's grace. Let's take a look.

"Does Ephesians 2:12 say you're still a gentile, still out of Israel? How about Numbers 15:15-16. Are you equal before The Lord with an Israelite, or is God a respecter of persons? Does it not say here that the foreigner and the Native Israelite have the same law and status? How about Leviticus 24:22. Try as you might to escape it, it's there. The yoke their fathers couldn't endure was using the Law for salvation. God never placed that yoke on anyone, since salvation was by grace through faith since Abraham back in Genesis 15:6."

Let's look at Ephesians 2
"11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."

All the word Gentile means is non Jew, Whether you are a Christian or not, you can be called a Gentile. The Gentiles being grafted into the olive tree does NOT change their status as Gentiles, the only change that occurs is that they are no longer pagan idolaters or atheists and agnostic. The context further shows that the Jews and Gentiles are united in one faith if they turn to Jesus Christ:

"14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens,[d] but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by[e] the Spirit."

Paul himself makes a point that that Jews don't cease to be Jews and Gentiles don't cease to be Gentiles.

"Galatians 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

The one here refers to one in Christ as to salvation, be you a Jew or a Gentile (Or Greek in this particular translation), you are saved by Jesus' blood, the cross and are resurrected at the end of days. It matters not if you are a Jew or a Gentile, provided you have turned from idols to serve the living God himself.

Let's now look at the context of Numbers 15:
"15 For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the Lord. 16 One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.”"

The context itself pertains to how Old Testament is to function, it is not referring to how the church functions under the New covenant. The text in numbers refers to what Gentiles or the strangers when they desire to live among the Jews in the land or where the Jews are currently living.

A similar point is said of Leviticus 24:
"17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. 22 You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God.” 23 So Moses spoke to the people of Israel, and they brought out of the camp the one who had cursed and stoned him with stones. Thus the people of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses."

Again, This pertains to how the people of Israel were to function in the Old Testament.

The law itself wasn't bad, but Israel failed to keep it. The Gentiles were freed from the law of Moses by Jesus' own fulfillment of the law of God.

"The ruling in Acts 15 continues to Acts 15:21. The reason Gentiles only had a few *necessary* rules to follow was that there were synagogues for them to learn the rest of the Torah in after they had started following the restrictions in Acts 15:20. It was clear that since Cornelius was accepted by the Holy Spirit without circumcision or works, one didn't have to do anything other than have faith in Jesus to be saved. Acts 15:1 was thus addressed as heresy by that fact and by the witness of Abraham's righteousness in Genesis. The Pharisees among believers (different from certain men because they are called believers by the Bible) wanted to get the Gentiles to adhere immediately to circumcision and the entire law of Moses (Acts 15:5). That would've been too much for a new believer to bear, and none of them had to deal with any of that, so James decided that it would be made easy for the Gentiles turning to God, by giving them a few easy prohibitions, and letting them figure out the rest at the synagogues around them."

I speak on the Acts 15 council:

"Unfortunately, today, very few Christians even do well with those basic prohibitions. Many eat blood, are perfectly fine with meat from Halal and other idol ceremonies, and engage in some form of sexual immorality (such as divorce followed by remarriage). Clearly these weren't the only rules, because things like stealing and murder weren't mentioned. The reason such things weren't mentioned was that they were thought of as "common sense" or "basic morality", which virtually every person has, even though the Law spells them out. As for sexual immorality, the Law defines such, and it can be difficult to figure out what counts without it (for example, homosexuality, sex with a woman on her period, and premarital sex with a virgin you don't intend to marry are implied to be sins there, but there are a wide range of sexual situations one would need to figure out). If the Gentiles were required to do the Law for salvation, or get circumcised, it would be a massive stumbling block few would undergo. If they had to do the whole law for fellowship purposes immediately after being saved, it would be no good, because they would quickly feel overwhelmed by all these new prohibitions. The ruling was for them to have a few relatively easy commands to follow at first, aside from common sense, and pick up the rest later. That's why the four prohibitions are things from the Law."

I have recently penned an article on 1 Corinthians 8:
See again also about Acts 15 in the article above.

Here is also a comment in a previous article I wrote on Acts 15:
"Another point made by the apologist is that it is NOT just the 4 things mentioned that are forbidden and that it cannot be used as a pretext for let's say to murder. Very true, Acts 15 itself doesn't address the subject of murder and murder is wrong anyway, it's carried over into the New Testament writings, people who don't repent of murder will not go to heaven.

The point is it was a given to the New Testament church that stealing and murder was wrong, regardless of the New Testament writings being penned at the time or not. There was common sense and basic morality found in that very council. The whole point of the council was to see which of the 613 laws apply to Gentiles now that they believe in the God of Israel and need I remind you, JESUS' JEWISH APOSTLES were the ones to determine this.

"The New Covenant doesn't involve the Law changing, but involves the Law being written on our hearts: Jeremiah 31:31-34."

Read carefully:
"31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”"

This particular covenant will be different to the Mosaic covenant. It is still made with the Jews and it does have the law of God written on their hearts, with the Gentiles being grafted in, but not necessarily the entire Torah is written on the hearts of the Gentiles. It's a covenant that is not like the one made with their fathers.

"Legalism used to mean works salvation instead of grace. Now it just seems to mean following God's commandments (1 John 5:2-3). Interesting how adaptive this buzzword is, that it attacks Jesus' very doctrine (Matthew 7:20-23, Matthew 5:17-20) and gets away with it. It's now up there with 'tolerance' for how quickly its meaning changes."

Matthew 5:17-20 I comment on here in these papers:

Furthermore, Even if you are not teaching legalism, you are not supposed to be putting Gentile believers under the Torah, you have no right to do that.

"Japheth3 August 2014 at 17:14
Even if the resurrection was a verification for a true prophet , no prophet can change the eternal law we received on mount sinai by moses and suppose to forever keep (deu 29:29). The prophets came to strengthen moses law throughout the bible not to alter and change the message and commandments . Not to abolish the laws of circumcision shabbes diet laws etc.. like yeshua did eventually!


Trev of Economia9 August 2015 at 04:34
You're right. The problem is that Christians have a poor understanding of what Jesus said or did. Many of them think He did away with the Law, and that He did indeed turn Jews and Gentiles away from the way God commanded Israel. The problem is that it's based on false witnesses who were set up by the Pharisees (Acts 7:13-15) and distortion a of Paul's letters (2 Peter 3:15-17). Jesus even said you shouldn't even think He came to do away with the Law, and that not a joy or tittle would disappear from it until Heaven and Earth have disappeared (Matthew 5:17-20). "

What section of Acts 7:13-15 even says what you are saying?
"13 And on the second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers, and Joseph's family became known to Pharaoh. 14 And Joseph sent and summoned Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-five persons in all. 15 And Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died, he and our fathers,"

This might be a mistake on his part, I am not sure what section he is talking about.

I have already commented on Matthew 5:17 above in the papers I linked to.
"What happened was that a faith headed by Jews became headed by Gentiles around 66 AD, when James was killed, and after the fall of the second temple, antisemitism picked up, to the point that people who knew the Apostles disregarded the things they were told by them and despised Jewish people and anything ostensibly Jewish in the Bible, the Law especially. Through their commentaries, they invented a Jesus who says eating pork is fine, who dies to do away with the law given by God through Moses, who does away with Israel and creates this new thing called the Church. God wouldn't give ressurection followed by ascension to a prophet sent to test you, but His Holy one would not see corruption (Psalm 16:8-11)."

Anti-semiticism and "disregarding" the Old Testament law are not closely connected. A hatred of the Jewish feasts is certainly a problem and that is different from acknowledging the feasts as good but not embracing it simply because they were never exhorted to in the New Testament.

Just because the church later became anti-semitic later in it's history, it does NOT mean it is connected to the church allowing the consumption of foods once forbidden in the Torah.

To say that "Through their commentaries, they invented a Jesus who says eating pork is fine, who dies to do away with the law given by God through Moses, who does away with Israel and creates this new thing called the Church" is a rash generalisation.

A church is simply a congregation, that's it, Nothing harmful and Jesus said "On this rock i'll build my CHURCH", so Jesus had no problem using that term. Also, saying that we invented a Jesus who says eating pork is fine is a lie.

We didn't invent that Jesus. The fact is, He NEVER put Gentiles under the Mosaic Law and how do we know? because his disciples did not.

Read the first one and it's last paragraph specifically. If you tell Gentiles to practice circumcision and abstain from pork or shellfish, while at the same time expressing no concern about bodily fluid purity, you are being inconsistent.

I am not saying that you specifically Trev necessarily are doing this, but think about this issue carefully.

Check also Peter's vision in the book of Acts.

Case and point, NO Torah observance is required of Gentiles, period.

"God foreknew that the Gentiles who came into the faith would try to make things easier, so He gave Steven, James, Peter, and even Paul, to do and say things that would affirm the Law in its entirety still standing. The good news for you, as a Jew, is that contrary to what the establishment says, the Moshiach came right on schedule, during the Second Temple period, and fulfilled Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, becoming a valid sacrifice for sins, so that you don't need the temple to atone, or to make up a mitzvah-based salvation scheme God never gave, but all you must do is trust in God with all your heart, soul, and resources, through the blood of God Himself, and you will be saved, and your sins atoned for. The lot of Yom Kippur came up in the left hand for 40 consecutive years, starting on 30 AD, the very year Yeshua died and was ressurected."

The comment was I think directed towards Yehuda Yisrael. I have already pointed out that not every aspect of the Law applies to Gentiles, moving on.

Still I happily agree Jesus came on schedule and fulfilled Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 so I need not labour over them.

"Statistically speaking, the chances of that are less than 1 in a trillion. It's like filling up the Grand Canyon with pennies, and pick one penny I selected earlier and mixed in the rest completely at random. Rabbis have long known that there must be some significance to that, that it meant God no longer accepted their sacrifice, but they could never figure out or admit why. I'm telling you today that the reason why is that there now stands an infinitely more valid sacrifice, a high priest in the order of Melchizedek, who has put His own blood on the ark in the tabernacle of God in Heaven, and that in doing so, there is no more need for daily continual sacrifices, even though when He reigns the world from Jerusalem, He will reinstate them under the Law, and give the true Zadokite priesthood back what was stolen from them by the Hasmoneans. He never did away with the Law, and there are plenty of verses from His own mouth affirming this, which most Christians try their best to explain away. Here are some verses showing the Law stands today. I hope you look at these, share them with your Jewish friends, ponder them, and rejoice when you realize the meaning of this:Matthew 7:15-23, Matthew 5:17-20, Revelation 21:1, Deuteronomy 30:19, Deuteronomy 17:6, Romans 8:2, 1 John 5:2, Romans 3:31, Romans 8:7, Jeremiah 31:31-34, 2 Peter 3:15-17, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Deuteronomy 30:11-14, Romans 10:6-7, John 1:1, John 1:14, John 6:53, Acts 6:8-15, Matthew 23:1-3, Acts 15:21, Acts 15:5, Acts 16:3, Acts 21:20-26, Romans 8:7, 1 John 2:4-6, John 14:15, John 1:14 (do you think that anyone would call Jesus the Word if Jesus turned people from it?), 1 John 3:4-10, Revelation 12:17, John 3:19-20, John 8:34, Luke 6:46-49, James 2, James 1:25, Matthew 19:3-9, Luke 1:6"

It's interesting that the Zadokite priesthood is mentioned here because I have written on that subject here in these papers:

Need to look at the texts raised and address them another time.

"In reading these, you will find it self evident that the first Christians, indeed Christ Himself, held to, observed, practiced, and taught the Law as a whole. Gentiles were held to the same standard, not some meager 'Noahide' standard, as the Jews, but instead of being forced to do everything before they converted, they were eased in with the rules of not eating blood, eating animals that weren't slaughtered, not practicing sexual relations forbidden by Torah, and refusing the pollutions of idols as the only hard and fast non-obvious rules (since things like not murdering and not stealing were obvious) (Acts 15:20), with the assption that they would learn the Law at synagogues every Sabbath (Acts 15:21)."

Acts 15 I have already addressed previously. But to make a point about the Noahide Standard, That is the standard being conveyed, at least to a certain degree. I say certain degree because as I have mentioned elsewhere, we need to look at the Old and the New Testament to see which law applies to Christians and which do not, a point I have written on this point in the past.

There is a "Noahide" standard if you want to use the phrase. Going back to Genesis 9:
"9 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
    by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
7 And you,[a] be fruitful and multiply, increase greatly on the earth and multiply in it.”"

Long before the Torah was given to the Jews, there were some basic rules the Gentiles were to live by (Which of course we know later they didn't uphold these). The moral commands were present already, long before the Mosaic law came into play and are still there long after the fulfillment of Mosaic Law through Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection.

There is a link back to the Noahide Laws in the Acts 15 council, a basic set of principles, but not limited to four things as mentioned before. Case and point, the Gentiles were NOT called to observe Torah, not even the idea of weaning them into Torah is there. The Jews however are free to keep the Torah in honour of the Messiah but the Gentiles do NOT have that responsibility.

"I'm telling you that Jews and Gentiles alike have lied about Yeshua, each to their own differing levels of destruction (least in the kingdom and not in the kingdom), but it's fine because today you have been enlightened in your reading of this that there is more to the picture than you thought at first, that Yeshua is not only a real candidate for Messiah, but that He is Messiah, and He's the only true candidate for Messiah across all time, since God does not lie about when He schedules these things to pass. You know well that Haggai claimed the glory of the Second Temple would be greater than that of the first, yet rabbis deny this because of the missing Ark and Shekina Glory. What they missed was that instead of dwelling there in a cloud, God walked there in the flesh as a man named Jesus, just as He appeared to Abraham as a man and wrestled with Jacob as a man, and God did as great as to preach at his own Temple a number of times, even driving out people who were buying and selling there on what may have been a Sabbath! Furthermore, the concept of eternal torment in Hell is not a Biblical one, but God makes it plain that all will be made alive in Christ, and His steadfast love endures forever. In other words, even if you refuse Him now, and suffer ages upon ages of pain in Gehenna for your disobedience, He will still hold out the Olive Branch of Salvation for you to grab onto as soon as you're ready, and the wicked can be made righteous even then by truly having faith in Him, so that they will do no more wrong. If you made it this far, you are a true seeker of God and the truth. I hope that you are blessed in your ways, that you find salvation by faith in Yeshuah Messiah, and that you spread the true Gospel that has been hidden in a library almost everyone has, that few actually have searched honestly and diligently to learn from. Shalom"

There is eternal torment in hell in the scripture, there is plenty of evidence for it, but that is another article for another time if the Lord Wills.

Jesus wasn't driving people out of the temple because they were buying and selling on the Sabbath, it doesn't tell us what day it was, but the reason the people were removed from the temple itself was because they were profiteering in the temple and defiling it, something they shouldn't of been doing:
Read Matthew 21:
"10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?

11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

"Jesus didn't do away with a sliver of the Law. Jesus didn't even do away with circumcision. Paul didn't either for that matter, but most people who read his writings get confused (2 Peter 3:15-17), think he did, and then project that back on Jesus to find any sort of rationalization to say He did. The love of God is keeping His commandments (1 John 5:2-3). Since many Gentiles don't really like God, with all His rules and the destruction of the Caananites and various peoples in the Torah (erroneously called genocide by even some Christians), they find ways to do away with His commandments. I can guarantee you that if Judaism, with just the Tanakh alone, and no New Testament, was predominantly gentile, we would be looking at the same situation, with most gentile converts claiming the Law to be done away with, based on Isaiah or some other real prophet, who never said any such thing."

The destruction of the Canaanites I agree was not genocide, I can agree with that. Paul doesn't say Gentiles are to observe Torah and there are many reasons WHY that isn't the case as already mentioned in previous papers above. Need I repeat myself?

"Cool. The fact is, God did vindicate Jesus, but not because He broke Deuteronomy 13. He vindicated Jesus because He was innocent of breaking Deuteronomy 13, and His accusations of blasphemy were false because He was indeed God, and God wanted everyone to know He was the real deal. God would not give resurrection to a man claiming to be God if that man wasn't God, and God would not break His own rules (like Deuteronomy 4:2 or Deuteronomy 12:32). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for adding extra rules to the Torah and for ignoring the rules of the Torah(Mark 7, Matthew 23). They made extra rules about washing hands before eating, and they ignored honoring one's mother and father, justice, and other weighty matters of the Law. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus did not declare all animals clean, but anecdotally mentioned all food (and only vegetables and the meat of clean animals which are properly prepared are considered food- look up the definition of broma) being cleaned by the digestive system, as if one eats with unclean hands, the uncleanliness gets digested and expelled, and does not enter the heart, but evil words come from the heart, as does all sin. The context had nothing to do with unclean animals. Eating unclean animals goes directly against the Torah, and is thus sin, and an action from the heart, which says to God, "I don't care about this rule." It's similar to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because it's eating something God deemed forbidden."

Yes, eating unclean animals is against the Torah, which Christians are free from observing, a point you and others like you miss, Foods were declared clean for the believers in Christ. I am not repeating this again in this paper.

"The doctrine of the serpent, from the very beginning, has been "has God said" (Genesis 3:1) and "you will not surely die"(Genesis 3:4). Today, it's "God didn't mean that for you" and "it's not sin anymore". We see homosexuals who don't repent using the same rhetoric used by those who choose to eat unclean animals to justify themselves. The New Testament tells us "touch not the unclean thing" (2 Corinthians 6:17) and to not practice sexual immorality, but did not do much to clarify either matter, as it assumes we will go back to the Law to see what those are, but people who do either find ways to redefine the terms, and justify themselves. Interestingly, God used the same word (towebah, translated as abomination) in Deuteronomy 14:3, Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13 to describe both the act of homosexuality and unclean meat (thus the act of eating or touching it). Today the church struggles with both, with hard antinomians supporting homosexuality and soft antinomians supporting eating unclean things. I sincerely hope we can go back to the way of Christ, which has neither, but lovingly offers salvation and fellowship to those who do both, on the condition that they accept Christ and put their faith in Him to free themselves of sin (thus repent and turn away from the acts), and put their faith in His blood and grace to save them from the penalty of sin."

There is no such thing as "hard" or "soft" antinomians, there are anti-nomians period. Furthermore, Those who do not believe in the food laws applying to Christians are not anti-nomians, as said before, We need to look at the New Testament to see which laws apply and which don't. There is an exegetically based teaching that Gentiles need not observe the ceremonial laws of the Torah and there is exegetically based teaching that homosexuality is an abomination under the New Covenant, considering the moral law, minus the death penalty due to Christ's atoning death, apply to us today.

Christians, while we point out the Torah as a whole does not apply, that doesn't mean we cannot look to it to see what applies to us and what doesn't or even read it period. The NT gives us a list of sins not to commit and while sins such as pedophilia aren't mentioned explicitly, our conscience tells us that it is wrong and is sexual immorality that Christians should NOT engage in.

It wasn't just the law that God gave, he also gave man a conscience. While man who have never heard of Christ will be judged by their conscience and what they know to be right, I want to point out that doesn't mean they will be saved by it, since fallen man violates it constantly. Common sense and basic morality are there, whether or not Trev wants to acknowledge that.

Also, See my papers on homosexuality:

Specifically read the first article on Matthew 19.

To those who read this article, Feel free all to study what Trev and I have said and see what the scriptures say.

Answering Judaism.

Tuesday 18 August 2015

Avodah Zara: What is true and false worship.

In July 2015, The movie Terminator Genisys was released to generally unfavourable reviews with critics with casual movie reviewers being more favorable toward it.

A common defense of the film is that it pays homage to the first two Terminator films and James Cameron, the director and co-writer of the first two films has given his blessing on Terminator Genisys. You can find Cameron's comments in this featurette:

A lot of people as said before claim it is a homage to the first two films, but more than that, they even consider it the third installment in the franchise, a comment even made by Cameron himself.  This specifically refers to the recreation of the T-800's introduction from the ground up in the film, including an admittedly excellent recreation of Arnold Schwarzenegger in his youth, as he appeared in the original film. There have been complaints of course regarding the appearance of the punks from the original film, but more or less, the recreation has been well received. Whether other reasons are given for it being respectful of the first two films I would need to see.

I did like this movie a lot at first, so much so I saw it three times in the cinema, but my view of it has dropped slightly and this will tie into what I am going to talk about.

The biggest problem I have with Terminator Genisys is the screen play. While the production of the film was top notch and the action was well executed and phenomenal, The screen play of the film is ultimately the film's downfall, namely being loaded with too much expository dialogue and a lack of story and themes present in the film and a convoluted plot. It's a sad case of a film distracting you from it's glaring problems.

It hit me like a sponge, The attitude towards Terminator Genisys and the claim that pays the first two films is similar to the attitude that most have to false worship in the church, namely the claim that honor is being paid in a certain way that God has not endorsed.

Just as I am convinced that Terminator Genisys pays superficial lip service to the James Cameron Era of Terminator films, Those who participate in false worship in the church are themselves guilty of paying lip service to YHWH God himself.

Idolatry is a problem in the church that can easily be spotted and dealt with, but unbiblical worship is something that is not quite so. Unbiblical worship is the same as Idolatry, but it is NOT always bowing to a false god, it can also be worshiping the true God in a false way, also known as Avodah Zara or alien worship.

Isaiah 1:10-20 shows us an example of it:
"10 Hear the word of the Lord,
    you rulers of Sodom!
Give ear to the teaching[b] of our God,
    you people of Gomorrah!
11 “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
    says the Lord;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
    and the fat of well-fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
    or of lambs, or of goats.
12 “When you come to appear before me,
    who has required of you
    this trampling of my courts?
13 Bring no more vain offerings;
    incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—
    I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts
    my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
    I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands,
    I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
    I will not listen;
    your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
    remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
17     learn to do good;
seek justice,
    correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
    plead the widow's cause.
18 “Come now, let us reason[c] together, says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet,
    they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
    they shall become like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
    you shall eat the good of the land;
20 but if you refuse and rebel,
    you shall be eaten by the sword;
    for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”"

We see that the people had all the right rituals but their attitude and their sins were abhorrent to God, rendering their devotion entirely worthless and meaningless. Such an attitude to God is displeasing and he will not accept your worship if your heart is NOT in the right place or if you introduce into the church rituals that he himself has not commanded you.

Read also from Deuteronomy 12:
"29 “When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, 30 take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.’ 31 You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.

32 [b] “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it."

There is a principle here that is carried over into the new covenant, namely that you don't look to pagans to see how God is to be worshiped. Just as Israel were not to do that, Neither was the church to do that. God demands his people to worship in the proper way.

See also Exodus 23:23
"23 “When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out, 24 you shall not bow down to their gods nor serve them, nor do as they do, but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their pillars in pieces."
and also Jeremiah 10:1-2:
"10 Hear the word that the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. 2 Thus says the Lord:

“Learn not the way of the nations,
    nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens
    because the nations are dismayed at them,"

So let us ask ourselves, If a religious practice comes into the church and God have not commanded such in his holy word, Is it right that we should observe it immediately? Should we not inquire as to where the practice in question comes from lest we be lead astray?

Paul himself also warns on false worship:
"Colossians 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions,[d] puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh."

Human precepts are to be tested and if they fail the text of being biblically good, disregard them completely.

Even Jesus makes the point of not accepting false tradition:
"15 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”[a] 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word[b] of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 “‘This people honors me with their lips,
    but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
    teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”"

Isaiah 29 is referenced by Jesus in this context:
"13 And the Lord said:
“Because this people draw near with their mouth
    and honor me with their lips,
    while their hearts are far from me,
and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,"

Again, this ties into another point from earlier, as to whether or not a human teaching has a bibilical basis for it.

We should NOT defend false worship for such a thing will send our fellow man to hell for eternity if they die in that state.

Answering Judaism
PS. I am not attacking individuals for liking Terminator Genisys nor is this an attack on James Cameron, I still like Terminator Genisys despite it's flaws. I am just using that as an example of people defending some thing and missing the point and showing that an attitude found in the Terminator community is similiar to how there are Christians who defend false worship and have no reason to do so and I condemn the false worship that is conducted by so called Christians.

An opinion of a film is subjective, but God's view of how we must worship in the proper way is NOT.

Tuesday 11 August 2015

1 Corinthians 8: Meat offered to idols

Now 1 Corinthians 8:
"8 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But whoever loves God is known by God.[a]

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall."

Food sacrificed to idols was a problem for the early church, specifically the Greco-Roman converts to Christianity, they were worried if meat being sacrificed to an idol would cause a problem for them. Paul says to them in effect, if your conscience tells you not to eat it, don't eat it and don't force someone else to eat it either if it goes against their conscience. In the Old Testament there was a risk of being drawn into worshiping idols thanks to Balaam inciting the Israelites,

If you are aware of the food being sacrificed to idols, what should be the concern is whether or not this will hurt your testimony or even compromise your belief in YHWH. This is something that needs to be watched out for and I am sure Jesus did have this concern even when he said "Eat what is set before you" in Luke 10:8:
"8 Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you."

If you are presented a meal by an unbeliever and your brother and sister is concerned about eating meat offered to idols, it is better to politely turn down the meal for the sake of your brother or sister's conscience.

Be sensitive to the fact that even if you could eat a certain food and have no doubts in your mind if you can eat it, your brother and sister in Christ may not share that same conviction, so it is better for you to abstain in their presence for their sake, lest you cause them to sin. If you love your brother or sister, then build him up.

Let us all take this matter to heart.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday 9 August 2015

Does the Bible condemn homosexuality 3

This article was held off for a while, now it is the time to release.
"Now can you answer the following questions:
1) If God created our genders, and when we are born, our genders determine our sexual orientation for us, (we can agree that God is a 'just' God), and that He would never make a law that all of mankind could not keep, why would he create AIS people? Now before you say he didn't create them, but the fall of man did, let me remind you what Colossians 1:16 says, "For in him ALL things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL things have been created through him and for him."
2) Could your God not make up his mind? The Bible says in Psalm 139:19, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
This verse makes it clear that He is still involved in our creation, so again, what was God thinking if he is so hung up on gender? ;)
3) Who should an AIS person choose to marry without sinning? After all, they will be gay and straight no matter whom they choose?
4) And probably most importantly, can you offer any Biblical evidence or scientific evidence for your answers to these question? You have yet to provide any evidence of either. I'LL BE WAITING!! ;)
5) Would you not allow AIS people to marry at all since they are clearly 2 genders or would you try to stop that as well?"

Colossians 1:16 refers to the beginning of creation BEFORE the fall of man that God is responsible for the creation of all things. Deformities, frailties, diseases etc came as a result of the fall of man AFTER the events of God creating the earth.

Also You cannot twist the text to say that God is responsible for creating a birth defect, not even Psalm 139:19 proves that. Defects occur thanks to the fall of man and while God may be responsible for the person themselves, he is NOT responsible for the defect that the person has. That distinction must be made.

The issue of hermaphroditism is difficult.... HOWEVER, An answer to this issue has been addressed in a paper by the following point made by Dr Batton. The point Dr Batton responds to I have highlighted in bold. Other bold emphasis are his: "When I tell people that homosexuality is wrong they will bring up hermaphrodites as proof that sometimes females are born with male genitalia and vice versa … . He then went on to tell me that this blew my beliefs regarding homosexuality right out of the water.
This has nothing to do with the morality of homosexual promiscuity. Morality is not determined by biological abnormalities. You could use the reductio ad absurdum approach:
Say a person was born with a gene that made them a kleptomaniac. Would that mean that we should legalize / legitimize stealing? Hardly. Say it is found that there is a genetic predisposition to pedophilia in some people; would that mean that pedophilia should be accepted? There are people who have such a serious personality disorder (sociopath) that they will abuse and even kill other people without remorse. Does that mean that their behaviour should be accepted by society because they naturally want to behave like that? Of course not; the prisons are replete with such individuals to protect society at large from their behaviour. Just because someone has a natural bent to do something does not mean that society should accept their behaviour. This is a ridiculous argument. You could probably think of even better examples to prove the point." Dr Don Batton:

Hermaphroditism should NEVER be used as a crutch for homosexuality to be justified and for anyone who doesn't suffer from this condition to use this as an argument, it is down right offensive.

I recommend reading the article as I believe it appropriately deals with this sensitive subject of hermaphroditism.

As to whether they should marry, I can only say, no. HOWEVER, I need to contemplate on this point more.

Answering Judaism.

PS. Feel free to look at this paper here:

Homosexuals should be killed? A quick response to Steven Anderson.

Let's get one thing straight before I comment on a statement made by Steven Anderson. I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUALITY. I do love the homosexual community with agape of course, and because I have a love for them, I want them to know the truth. I desire their repentance and want to see them get saved.

You can read my article on this topic here:

"Author's Note: I have never called for people to rise up and kill homosexuals. I believe that the GOVERNMENT should put them to death as the Bible lays out in Leviticus 20:13. We as Christians should NOT accept homosexuals. Am I going to harm homosexuals? NO. Should they be put to death by the legitimate authorities (i.e. our government). YES"

Why? Why is a secular government to put homosexuals to death? I am not saying that homosexuality is an acceptable practice at all, but what justification does Anderson have to suggest that the government should put them to death?

Also, The Christians are to reach out to the homosexual community, witness to them and tell them that they need to repent and turn from their sins. If anything, Wanting the government to put homosexuals to death is going to prevent and hinder the gospel being given to them. It's one thing for an unrepentant mass murderer or murderer to death, but to call for the death of a homosexual by the legitimate authority isn't going to happen.

Furthermore, why isn't Anderson saying that secular authorities can put sorcerers, adulterers, zoophiles, fornicators, idolaters, disobedient children, blasphemers, abortionists and other groups that do things worthy of death to death? Care to give a justification Mr Anderson?

Also under the new covenant Christians are NOT to hate their enemies but pray for them. The Christians are to bring sinners to Christ, and the redeeming power of the Holy Spirit will begin to work in their hearts.

Do we accept them into congregations as they are in the sense of being unrepentant? No.

"1 Corinthians 5:4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. 6 Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you.""

Yes we should be kind to them and bring them to repentance, but we shouldn't accept them as brothers if they continue in their sin and do not repent. If they desire repentance and want to actually abandon their lifestyle of wickedness and consecrate their life to God, then we can accept them into the fold. Former homosexuals and lesbians have been saved and set free from that evil, as have many others.

"1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. "

Here we have a congregation that had been involved in these wicked practices, homosexuality included and they have WASHED CLEAN and taken out of these sinful backgrounds by Christ's redemption and his work on the cross and the power of the Spirit granting new life, with them being reconciled to the Father. Such is a great work accomplished by YHWH, The one God, the Blessed Trinity.

It is very easy to get unbalanced. One the one hand, it is easy to become liberal and end up not hating the evil in the world and just accept it. But on the otherhand, it is easy to end up driving people away, not because of the truth, but because we are being actually hurtful for a different reason.

It is one thing to hurt someone with the truth, that they need Jesus to be saved from the sin and the church needs to be reminded that they are not exempt from giving an account to God. It's one thing to give the truth to a polluted world, but quite a different matter if you go out of your way to be spiteful and hurtful.

Truth hurts, but it's the kind of hurt that may bring eventual healing or even make the person bolder (should they accept the truth that is regardless of it being attractive).

Answering Judaism.

PS. If the Lord wills, I may respond to Anderson's other points in a future article.

Defense of Paul of Tarsus: Response to a Muslim: Looking at objection 46.

I decided to set a different page for objection 46 and here it is

I had this article and two others left alone for sometime, but I have decided to release this one right now. Let's take a look at the objection in question.


"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed")
Rom. 9:33

Paul misquoted Isa. 28:16

"Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste".

Isaiah says nothing about "on him" or "being ashamed."
Isaiah says God will lay a precious corner stone, a sure foundation, not a stumbling stone or rock of offence.
True, Isa. 8:14 ("And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel....") speaks of a stumbling stone and a rock of offense, but it is speaking of God himself. Paul deceptively combined two unrelated verses and altered the text in the process."
it is possible that Paul is using a rabbinic hermeneutic called Gezera Shava, which is defined as
"Gezera shava – analogy by common term or similarity in phrase.
Argument from analogy. When the Torah uses a similar (usually uncommon) term or phrase in two places, it demonstrates a connection, such that information about one case may be applied to the analogue. The usual formula used is “here it is said…there it is said; As here…so there.” 

Sometimes Gezera shava is rendered as “Ke yotzei bo mimakom ac'her” - "like it says elsewhere" – indicating that the explanation of a word in the text of interest is clarified by use of same word in an unrelated text.

In arguments using gezera shava we find a similar law in a verse containing a similar phrase to one in our verse and argue that the same principles apply though the general context may differ. Such analogy enables us to assume that the lessons we have learned in one instance may apply in many different instances. 

However, such conclusions do not in general afford certainty but only a degree of probability." (

Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal of Your Pharisee Friend in "The School of Matthew" states the following about Gezera Shava and what it's application actually is:
"On page 114 Shapira attributes the usage of “gezera shava” to Metzudat Tziyon. This demonstrates Shapira’s complete lack of familiarity with either the term “gezera shava” or the Metzudat Tziyon or both. The Metzudat Tziyon is a commentary on Scripture on the most basic level. The comments of the Metzudat Tziyon are limited to the direct meaning of words. Metzudat Tziyon often supports his rendition of a given word by quoting another passage in Scripture in which this same word or a grammatical derivative of this word is used. But this has nothing to do with rabbinical “gezera shava” which points to similar words, not to determine their literal meaning, but to create a conceptual connection between the two passages. The commentary of Metzudat Tziyon never engages in this style of Scriptural analysis. It seems that this simple piece of knowledge, one that school-children are familiar with, is beyond the grasp of Itzhak Shapira."

Sam Shamoun of Answering Islam has mentioned the following with respect to this practice in his response to MENJ, albeit on a different passage but the principle is the same. Shamoun's quotation of John C. Fention is in italics:
"Had MENJ's author simply done some historical investigation he would have found that Mark committed no error whatsoever. The ones making a gross blunder are Helms and the Muslim author copying his argument. It was a common practice amongst the Jews to take two separate biblical citations and attribute them to a single author, especially when the references touched on similar themes or ideas, even though the quotes didn't all come from that particular author.

A common method of interpretation used by the Jews was gezera shewa, an exegetical practice where passages that used identical words or phrases were used to explain one another.

Liberal NT scholar, John C. Fenton, while commenting on Matthew 2:5-6 where the inspired author combines Micah 5:2 with 2 Samuel 5:2, noted:

The prophecy is from Mic. 5.2, but it is not given in the LXX translation, nor is it an exact rendering of the Hebrew text, 2 Sam 5.2 MAY have been combined with the Micah prophecy; combining of similar Old Testament passages WAS A REGULAR FEATURE OF RABBINIC STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES. (Fenton, Saint Matthew - The Penguin New Testament Commentaries, Penguin Books, 1963, p. 46; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Hence, Mark was being very accurate and thoroughly consistent with common Jewish practices at that time. There is therefore no correction made by Matthew and Luke to Mark, since Mark didn't need to be corrected." (

Rabbi Eli Cohen in his review of The Return of the Kosher Pig states the following regarding the misuse of Gezera Shawa:
"Another rabbinic convention which Shapira completely mangles is the gezerah shava principle.  A gezerah shava is an exegetic rule with restricted application.  This rule is usually applied when two Scriptural verses contain similar words.  If one verse is clear and the second is unclear, the verse with greater clarity is used to clarify the ambiguity that exists in the other verse.Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz, a world-renowned Talmudic scholar, warns about the potential exploitation of the gezerah shava rule.  “This important exegetic rule may prove dangerous if employed indiscriminately, since many words appear in different sentences and any desired conclusion may be obtained.”"

So it is clear one must exercise caution when using this rabbinical rule, as this may lead to some pretty wacky conclusions.

Answering Judaism

Sunday 2 August 2015

Leviticus 12: Did Mary offer a sin offering?

Before anyone TRIES to use this article to say Mary never sinned, read the following before you read on:

With that issue out of the way, let us continue.

Let's read the section in question where Mary herself gives an offering.

"Luke 2:22 And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”"

This occurs after Jesus is born and the verse in question being referenced is this from Leviticus 12:
"Leviticus 12:12 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying. She shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. 5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.

6 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, 7 and he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. 8 And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons,[a] one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”"

The uncleanliness here is NOT to do with sin or moral uncleanliness, this is to do with ceremonial uncleanliness, namely being made unclean by bodily fluid. Leviticus 15 talks about the handling of bodily discharges, read here for more information:

So as a text to use to say Mary sinned doesn't work, however, you DON'T need this verse to prove that as that can be proved elsewhere as mentioned above in the articles I posted.

Answering Judaism