A return to John 6: Does it teach transubstantiation?

I want to take a look at a few more objections that have been raised to me due to either passing the article on or a quick discussion on the matter and I hope to make a few comments on John 6. You can find the original article here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/john-6-does-it-teach-transubstantiation.html

Firstly we'll at the subject of eating and drinking, As mentioned previously in an article I wrote, Jesus wasn't speaking literally of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, even in John 6:55

"53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

As pointed out previously, eating is believing in the context of John 6, including verse 55 and the other texts I quoted (Jeremiah 15:15-19, Ezekiel 2:8-3:9, Revelation 10). Not to mention, despite the graphic language used in John 6, namely the word trogo which has been addressed already.

Keith Thompson notes the following in his paper on John 6:

"Catholic argument #4: Dave Armstrong argues one must adopt a literal interpretation because of the alleged “graphic realism and intensive reiteration (for example, John 6:55)” (Dave Armstrong, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, [Sophia Institute Press, 2003], p. 90). In John 6:55, the text Armstrong cited, Jesus says, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” Contra Armstrong, this is not a sound argument. For, in regards to Jesus’ symbolic statement that he is “the door” in John 10, He first states this in v. 7 and then reiterates it again using the same words in v. 9: “I am the door”. Plus He shows the same kind of realism Armstrong mentions when he says in v. 9 “If anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” Yet no one is going to say Jesus was saying He was a literal door. The fact Jesus so commonly employed this kind of symbolic language should give the Catholics pause in their position." http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/proof-roman-catholic-mass-is-unbiblical.html

Jesus didn't have to say something was metaphorical explicitly, and once again Jesus didn't have to clarify to his audience that it is symbolic, he already made it clear it was symbolic and his audience MISUNDERSTOOD his words.

Furthermore, if you go back and read what Jesus said earlier in the chapter, he says this:

"28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”

32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”"

The very first thing that Jesus sets out to establish in the context is to believe on him, to believe in the one whom the Father sent. Jesus also defines how we are eating his flesh and drinking his blood as believing as mentioned before, including in the passages I have mentioned in the Old Testament and Revelation. He doesn't define this as feasting on him in a literal sense. Jesus doesn't have to say "Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven and I will give you a symbol of it.  For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." in order for the point of symbolism to be valid. It still holds weight for the Protestant and the Messianic Jew.

"41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”"

I have said the Jews misunderstood Jesus' words and this context is a demonstration of such. The Jews in the context believed that Jesus was referring literal, physical food, though Jesus wasn't claiming that he was literal food or actually giving them bread. Those who come to Jesus and eat the bread (his flesh) ie believe in him, shall have eternal life. The bread that is given from heaven as Jesus states is his flesh, but that doesn't entail literal consumption of his body as the context established earlier and just because Jesus died, that doesn't mean he didn't have literal flesh. His literal death doesn't refute a spiritual or symbolic application in John 6, that doesn't follow. The entire discussion is centering on the belief in Jesus, whether you submit to him or not. There is NO discussion of transubstantiation in the slightest.

"53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum."

The comment on trogo has been covered already so I needn't labour the point, but in light of what Jesus had said in the context of John 6, you cannot argue transubstantiation as a valid biblical belief.

"60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray 

him.)""

The Jews turn away after Jesus has laid down his teaching and the final nail in the coffin for the Catholic argument is that Jesus says "the flesh profits nothing", hence the context of John 6 cannot be suggesting that Jesus is referring to literal consumption.

More comments may be made if the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism.

Defense of Paul of Tarsus: Response to a Muslim 6

"41.

"Let their table be made a snare, and a trap and a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them: let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway")
Rom. 11:9-10

Paul misstated Psalm 69:22-23

"Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake".The Psalmist said nothing about a "stumblingblock," a "recompense," or "bowing down their back alway.""

This is nothing more than nitpicking the text, "that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap." is synonymous with a "a stumblingblock". This is a non-objection.

"42.

"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob, For this is the covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins")
Rom. 11:26-27

Paul misquoted and misused Isaiah 59:20-21

"And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord....".
Isaiah 59:20 says "to Zion," not "out of" Zion.
Isaiah says the Redeemer shall come "unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob." It does not say the Deliverer "shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." In other words, he will come to those who turned from transgression on their own volition. It does not say he will turn away ungodliness.
Moreover, "when I shall take away their sins" is not in Isaiah 59. Paul created that out of nothing.Nowhere does Isaiah use the word "saved" or "salvation" as Paul uses it."

The subject of Isaiah 59:20 is addressed here in my response to Rabbi Eli Cohen: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html

There is a historical application of salvation in Isaiah's day and a future salvation accomplished in Jesus Christ. Israel in Isaiah's day has idolatry and many of it's sins removed and Israel is restored, with Jesus doing the ultimate accomplishment in his day via his death on the cross, so the sins of those who have repented are paid in full.

"43.

"as he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God")
Rom. 9:25-26

Paul misquoted and misused Hosea 2:23

"...and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God"

and

Hosea 1:10

"...and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God").
Hosea 1:10 is speaking only of Jews as Hosea 1:11 ("Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together") shows. It is not referring to Gentiles and does not justify spreading the word to Gentiles.
"and her beloved, which was not beloved" is not in Hosea. Paul created the words.Hosea 2:23 says, "and they shall say, Thou art my God," which Paul conveniently left out of his quote since millions of Gentiles have clearly not made such a statement."

Do they have to make a verbatim statement? Through Jesus Christ, the Gentiles are brought into reconciliation with God and worship the God of Israel i.e. YHWH. Thus they proclaim him as God without having to utter the statement "Thou art my God". This is nothing more than nitpicking at minor details.

"44.

"But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? [that is, to bring Christ down from above] or, who shall descend into the deep? [that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead]. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach...."),
Rom. 10:6-8

Paul mutilated Deut. 30:12-14

"It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it? But the word is very nigh unto thee in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it".

The latter is only saying that his (Moses) commandments are easy to obtain. They are not far off but as close as one's heart or mouth. Deut. says nothing about "faith."
It refers to seeking "it" and doing "it," not seeking "him" or doing "him."
It does not even imply Christ or Jesus, let alone mention him.
Deut. is referring to Penitence and is not about believing on or bringing down Jesus from heaven or up from the dead.Deut. is saying that God wills us to repent of sin and that you may know when you have sinned. You have only to look at his law which is very close by."

I would need to take a look at this particular objection in another article.

"45.

"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more")
Heb. 10:16-17

Paul misquoted and misapplied Jer. 31:33-34

"...but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts,...for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more".
The New Covenant referred to in Jer. 31:31 is not that of Jesus' New Testament but a reaffirmation with Israel of the importance of following the Old Law. Jer. 31:33 clearly states that God's law (my law) will be put in them.Jer. says the law will be written in their hearts, not their minds and God's law will be put in their inward parts, not their hearts. "And in their minds will I write them" does not appear in Jer."

The subject of Jeremiah 31:31-34 I address in a video response I have done to Asher Meza: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k5y6gt-OOQ
Here are the texts:
"Hebrews 10:16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
    after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
    and I will write them on their minds.”[b]"
"Jeremiah 31:33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
    after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
    and write it on their hearts."

All that is being done here is nitpicking. The text is quoted in these two passages, both are valid.

Objection 46 is covered here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/defense-of-paul-of-tarsus-response-to_7.html

"47.

Heb. 12:20 is a misconstruction of Ex. 19:12-13"
Here are the texts:
"Hebrews 12:20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.”"
"Exodus 19:12 Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, ‘Be careful that you do not approach the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain is to be put to death. 13 They are to be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on them. No person or animal shall be permitted to live.’ Only when the ram’s horn sounds a long blast may they approach the mountain.”"

The author of the book of Hebrews is paraphrasing what the text in Exodus 19:12 is actually saying. He is not misconstruing the text.

"48.

Heb. 4:3 is a perversion of Psalm 95:11."

If you actually read what Hebrews 4 says in context:
"4 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed.[a] 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,

“So I declared on oath in my anger,
    ‘They shall never enter my rest.’”[b]
And yet his works have been finished since the creation of the world. 4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “On the seventh day God rested from all his works.”[c] 5 And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.”

6 Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, 7 God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted:

“Today, if you hear his voice,
    do not harden your hearts.”[d]
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works,[e] just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.

12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."

The author is making a point that only those who were obedient and are obedient will enter the Sabbath rest that God has prepared, the true Sabbath being in Jesus Christ. Not only is Christ the one who gives us rest, Entering into heaven is also our rest according to the chapter, which shows once we are in heaven, there is no need to strive any more because salvation is complete. Just to be clear I am not teaching works salvation, far from it.

"49.

"For even Christ pleased not himself: but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me"
Rom. 15:3

Paul misinterpreted Psalm 69:9.The "me" referred to in Psalm 69:9 is David; he is speaking, not Jesus."
Psalm 69 I need to write on in another article. This issue needs thinking through.

"50.

"...I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?"
Heb. 1:5

Paul misinterpreted and misapplied 2 Sam. 7:14

"I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men".
In 2 Sam. 7:14 God is saying he will call Solomon, not Jesus, his son.
How could Jesus commit iniquity which Paul omitted. It must be referring to a mere mortal like Solomon.Certainly God would not beat Jesus with a rod, cause stripes to be put on him, or threaten to chasten him with stripes."

The text is a reference to not only Solomon, but also to the Messiah descended from David, namely Jesus. The judgement of 2 Samuel 7:14 doesn't apply to Jesus because he himself did not sin. When Jesus was crucified and flogged, he was not guilty of sin, rather he was accused falsely of sin.

Answering Judaism.

Arrogant dismissal of unbelieving testimony, is it right? 2: Christopher Hitchens

I had written an article previously on this issue so I recommend reading this before writing this one: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/arrogant-dismissal-of-unbelieving.html

You may remember if you have been looking at the Answering Judaism Facebook page I had linked to a video by the late Christopher Hitchens on Mother Teresa and needless to say, his assessment of Mother Teresa was not a positive one.

After a serious think and the thought of the previous article I have linked to above being brought to my mind, I think I am justified in sharing the video, and here is why.

To restate a a few previous points, while the motivation behind HBO is to disprove Christianity with their expose on Benny Hinn and Reinhardt Bonnke is a malicious one, that doesn't change the fact that what they said about Hinn and Bonnke's claims is true, that their claims of healing are not true.

HBO needs repentance for their attack on Jesus, but their assessment of Hinn and Bonnke are correct. To clarify something I should have done in the original article, I only know of HBO's claims because of second hand hearsay and in the future I have to look into what the expose says.

Also, Should we dismiss counter missionaries points that someone is misrepresenting a source because of the fact that they are not Christians? No.

Likewise, Christopher Hitchens may of had some malicious intention in going after Mother Teresa considering the fact in one video I have seen, his hatred of God is definitely found in what he says, but does that discredit what he said about Mother Teresa, which was a SPECIFIC subject of his video? Of course not.

I am not saying Hitchens was correct about the Bible, but why should his testimony about Mother Teresa be dismissed? Simply because he hated God?

Unbelievers can have some truth, they are not automatically liars just because they are not Christians.

Answering Judaism.

Paltalk: Apologies to Muslims

While nowadays I try to treat Muslims with respect when I talk to them but on a number of occasions, I have been very harsh and wrongly so on Paltalk.

It is one thing to call them out on anything about the Bible, but it's another thing to disparage them, hurt them etc.

I once sneezed on a Quran and didn't care while on the mic and while I believe that the Quran is not the word of God, It is not helpful to do this during the dialogue with them and there has to be decorum in speaking to them.

I had also mocked Waduha's voice behind her back in 2012, to which I repudiate and repent of doing. Waduha is kind and very graceful and I am disgusted with my past behavior. Such behavior I now repudiate. (The context was she mentioned to me there is a science of hadith but regardless).

I have also been too harsh with Shadid Lewis and other muslims and while I have sent a private message to Shadid from muslim4life, It is a lot better if the apology is out in the open and I apologies for the insults I have made to him and that includes insults behind your back Shadid, which the Answering Christianity room were not impressed with.

While there are also Muslims I have spoken to and apologized for my bad decorum, there are others who I haven't seen for a while and if they are reading this, I apologize for my bad behavior and I hope that a fruitful dialogue will take place in the future.

I may disagree with your religion, I disagree with Muhammad and believe him to be a false prophet and I don't believe Islam is the truth, but there is a difference between offending someone with what is the truth and offending someone by being rather nasty and ungracious.

This is something that should of been done ages ago and I thank YHWH for the convicting power of the Holy Spirit for giving me the courage to write this.

Answering Judaism.

Subtle and Blatant Heresies: The Lord detests them both

When it comes to heresy, doctrine that is damnable and not disputable, sometimes it can be easy to spot and sometimes it isn't, or in the very least, it's harder to mark a heretic as a heretic. There are a few examples to give here.

A Blatant example of heresy would be the Word of Faith movement. We get those who blatantly teach heresy, namely Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, The Copelands, The Crouches (one of whom passed away last year) etc, but there are the more subtle ones like Joyce Meyers. She is subtle in the fact that many claim that her teaching has been very beneficial, but there are also many things that she has taught that are heretical, including her word faith preaching as well as the Jesus dying spiritually heresy. She is not as obvious to spot on the surface from what I have observed from others, but certainly her false teaching has been documented.

We also have this when it comes to Modalism, the subject of Itzhak Shapira. If anyone is familiar with what happened a few years ago, Sam Shamoun and Edward Dalcour both examined what Shapira had said in a video response to Yisroel Blumenthal.

You can Dalcour's comments here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/video-examination-of-itzhak-shapiras.html

There are two types of Modalism that exist, Successive and Synonymous and they both teach Jesus was a manifestation of God, rather than Jesus being a distinct person from the Father and Vice versa.

Successive Modalism, teaches that the Father existed at one time, then the Son at another time and then the Spirit at another time and is an earlier form of Modalism.

Synonymous Modalism however teaches that all the three manifestations co-exist at the same time. In both cases, Jesus is all three manifestations simply taking different roles.

The latter is harder to spot and is funnily enough a common form of modalism that hides in plain sight and to the untrained eye, can easily disguise itself as Trinitarianism when it isn't and for the most part, it's a doctrine that is held to in ignorance.

Unlike all forms of modalism, The Trinity teaches in the very being or essence of God, there exist Three Distinct persons, Not three beings in one being or three persons in one person (like Ahmed Deedat falsely claimed). There are not three separate Gods, but one Eternal God which the TANAKH and the NT make very clear. The Father is not Jesus, Jesus is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Modalism however does not make this distinction and treats all three persons as manifestations, they do not treat the members of the Godhead as divine persons. Again as said before, a synonymous is harder to spot than a successive modalist. Just asking them if they believe in the Trinity and pressing them will either reveal the person to be at best, ignorant and need education on the Trinity or at worst, believes in a false Christology and will not repent.

Universalism is also another example, there is Universalism that proclaims you don't need Jesus to be saved and all paths lead to God and there is Universalism that proclaims Jesus is the only way, but will be purified in hell and accept him as Lord when he comes to judge the quick and the dead.

Both are absurd and it's an obvious given that Unitarian Universalism is false but the other form of Universalism is harder to deal with, as the concept of hell isn't necessarily denied and possibly in some cases, one could be an annihilationist and be a universalist at the same time, it really depends on the individual who holds these views.

I have already spoken on Universalism in other papers, namely some of the biblical references used as well as looking at some of the church fathers on the subject to see whether or not they taught it:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/universalism-ancient-heresy.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/universalism-and-church-fathers.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/did-justin-martyr-believe-in.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/universalism-and-church-fathers_21.html

The latter form of Universalism seems to allow for one to proclaim that Jesus is the only way to heaven while adding the idea that all will be saved by Christ's death after a time in hell and that Jesus brings unbelievers out of hell later. It's just as deplorable as Unitarian Universalism while at the same time trying to shoehorn itself into Biblical Christianity. Satan never tells an outright lie, He mixes truth with lies. This is why sometimes people will inadvertently accept people who may have a false heretical belief. We must be on our guard against heretical beliefs.

The same scenario for the other groups I mentioned also apply to Roman Catholics and Mormons, especially when they claim faith in Jesus or claim that they themselves believe in God's grace, when the truth is they mean something different from what Biblical Christianity means by grace. A definition of certain terms is important to clarify, as your definition of grace may not be the same as theirs.

As Jacob Prasch once observed, people have no problem calling Charles Taze Russell or Joseph Smith false prophets, but an unjust balance is an abomination to the Lord and the scriptures themselves make clear we must not have uneven scales and unequal measures, for the Lord detests them both (Proverbs 20:10, 20:23). I say this because of the Kansas City Prophets, which would include Paul Cain, Rick Joyner, Mike Bickle, Lou Engle, the late John Paul Jackson, Cindy Jacobs and others. We are so quick to point out the false prophets that lead the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Islam, yet fail to overlook the numerous false proclamations of the Kansas City Prophets. Why do we examine one, but not the other?

Deuteronomy 18:20, despite it's dismissal by many still holds weight today that false prophets are to be rejected should they even have ONE false prophecy.

While under the New Covenant we are not to stone false prophets as found in Deuteronomy 18:20, this doesn't downplay the seriousness of false prophecy and the person who made the prediction should be rebuked, brought to repentance and must cease involvement in prophetic ministry. Contrary to the claims of The KC prophets, JWs and Mormons, One prophecy is enough to disqualify you for being in that office.

Heresy can be blatantly seen or in some cases, it can be well hidden and needs to be investigated to see it for what it is, but it doesn't change the fact that both are equally as dangerous. Guard yourselves lest you fall.

Answering Judaism.

How Answering Judaism began

Why not give an explanation of how this website came about and just the road I have been down to get where I am.

I first heard of Sam Shamoun back in 2011. I stumbled across a video where he explained that Muhammad was not a true prophet in a show on ABN with David Wood. I listened to future talks of theirs from that one and in 2012, I came across a video by Nakdimon316 where Sam Shamoun himself was dealing with a Muslim on Paltalk called Abdul Rahmaan 1. Abdul tried to use Hebrews 5:7 to try to say Jesus didn't die and Shamoun showed Abdul to be wrong in his assertion. This made me want to go on Paltalk to debate.

However, The arguments brought to me, I was flustered, frustrated and didn't know how to answer and my experience was pretty low in dealing with Muslim objections. It's case of a fool running into battle without armour and a weapon. This is one of the reasons why individual study of the Bible is vital.

I had in the past spoken with Shamoun in PM numerous times about a particular argument, a new one each time, he and I would talk through it, mostly the talks were to do with the Trinity. However, it's not just enough to listen to teachers, be they David Pawson, James White, John MacArthur, Jacob Prasch etc, I have to do studying of my own. Though these men have been helpful, I need to expend the energy as well, not only for my own sake, but also for others in case they may be watching.

There was also a debate with savedbybaptism I had on the Trinity (he claims there were four, but only one of them could be considered a debate, the rest were impromptu debates or discussions) and to be perfectly honest, I am disappointed with the performance in that debate. Even looking at the Biblical texts a few days BEFORE the debate could hardly be classified as study. I believed in the Trinity, but didn't know how to defend it and relying on a teacher isn't going to help, Study of the Bible is something that has to be done BY ME as well, not just by a select few and I wish I had been more prepared in the debate and more honest of why I believed in the Trinity. (God have mercy on me).

Apologetics wise, I started making videos on the bobo577 account back in March 2013, mostly dealing with arguments by Muslims and Anti-Trinitarians from there it expanded to other groups. Sometimes I would even reflect on an argument by a Muslim, mostly Shadid Lewis as much of my earlier videos respond to him, and I would see the holes in their arguments, in some cases, the Muslims were going as far as using counter missionary arguments. It wasn't just a case of Listening to Shamoun only, I had took into the texts on my own and defend the Trinity and other biblical beliefs from then on.

Speaking of such, I was introduced to the teachings of Michael L Brown, A Messianic preacher. I hadn't really dived into Judaism that much at this point and had listened to some talks by Jacob Prasch, but Brown in particular was certainly fascinating as a listen to, rather helpful material he had.

Then Funkdude came along (Which I am glad he did otherwise I wouldn't be wear I am) and I pretty much got stumped in my first discussion. There was also the issue of Contra Brown which Brown had not touched in writing for 5 years (The discussion with Funkdude took place in 2013).

I had the occasional dialogue with him and other Jews on Facebook, along with looking at Contra Brown, a document written by Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal and even going some of the biblical passages they brought to the table to see if a conclusion of theirs was correct and even looking at the first five books of Moses from cover to cover. However instead of having my faith in Jesus shattered, it actually strengthened it. These arguments got me to look more and think more. Some of my earlier papers even took a look at "Supplemental to Contra Brown" and later then penning an article looking at Contra Brown. Seriously, I ask Christians to look at Contra Brown, it's a document that I think would get many thinking and it's certainly made me rethink on a few issues and even to a certain degree has influenced my eschatology (Which is only conjecture just to make clear). Read Contra Blumenthal for more details:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/contra-blumenthal-examination-of-contra.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/addendum-to-contra-blumenthal-daniel.html

And here is the link to Contra Brown for your reading:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/contra-brown/

And speaking of articles, In my early YouTube apologetic days, It was suggested to me by Keith Thompson that I should write articles to get what I want to say down on paper. It helped out a great deal getting my thoughts on paper and little did I know that God was setting the stage for something larger.

There is also the name of my website, Where did it come from. Well, from my knowledge, I know there was an Answering Islam, and an Answering Christianity, but where was an Answering Judaism? So I added myself to the equation as it were and while my website isn't as large as theirs, it matters not, at least there is another website that you can add to the list that looks at Jewish objections.

However, It wasn't just Judaism I started addressing on this website, Later other groups I would address, namely Roman Catholics, Muslims again and the Eranoites, a cult in the Philippines founded by the late Maestro Erano M Evangelista and more recently, Universalists.

It has been a long road, but I haven't come to the end of it yet and I hope to provide more articles in the following years.

May the Triune God YHWH, Father Son and Holy Spirit, keep you safe and in his care eternally, amen.

Answering Judaism.

Universalism: Extra points to note

We can now move on to some other points that are important to keep in mind.

Calvinism

Though I do not hold to Calvinism personally, I do however regard them as brothers and do have respect for them. Calvinism deserves not to be misrepresented and I'll be speaking on it here. 

A common lie that is perpetuated by MANY groups is that Calvinists do not evangelize, This is incorrect. From what I have learned, Genuine Calvinism DOES carry out evangelism. Calvinists also do NOT claim that someone in another country is saved and chosen by Jesus without hearing the Gospel. 

It should be noted the Calvinists preach evangelism and carry out the mission, because they are ordained to give the Gospel to the world and as a matter of fact, they do not know WHO the elect are. The elect who are preached to hear the message and respond to it and the Calvinist doesn't claim that someone is brought to Christ without the Gospel, Monergism doesn't claim such. 

Calvinists do the following, they teach holiness, they evangelise, they tell people to repent of their idols and sins. They have a genuine concern for fallen man and want to see people come to repentance.

Universalists cannot consistently preach holiness and evangelism despite that claim. Whether or not a universalist believes that all paths lead to God or they believe that hell is a cleansing process that purifies a person so they can go to heaven, they are not presenting a true Gospel at all and they are presenting a Gospel that essentially says to the person "You can believe in idolatry and live in sin and still be saved" (not the Universalists intention but that is a conclusion the unbeliever could draw) The Calvinist and the Arminian despite their differences, can teach holiness and evangelism and not violate their theology whereas a Universalist cannot.

If the Lord Wills, I may make further comments.

Power of God
Does a denial of Universalism mean that God is weak and powerless? No. As I have said previously, He could save all if he so choose, but the question is, Why should he?

Universalism does NOT seem to take into consideration how righteousness will impact our relationship with God. Sin itself cuts man off from salvation and the severity of sin is there. Isaiah 59 for example says:
"59 Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save,
    or his ear dull, that it cannot hear;
2 but your iniquities have made a separation
    between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden his face from you
    so that he does not hear."

Sin itself cuts you off from having a relationship with God. Isaiah 59 does refer to the sin of the Israelites and a future hope for Israel, but it still drives home the point of sin as a serious problem that needs to be rectified.

Universalism doesn't provide that in this life, it doesn't provide hope or liberation of sin, it unintentionally encourages it. Notice I said unintentionally, because there are Universalists that teach repentance from sin, though even then that is rather inconsistent to hold to.

Church Fathers
I won't be repeating too much from the church fathers here, because I have already in previous papers shown from church fathers both before, during and after the time of Origen, that Universalism was not a teaching held as doctrinally true. Even if you want to argue that the fathers never address universalism, that is irrelevant in light of the fact that they themselves point out two destinies facing man, and making it very clear that a person faces one of those destinies eternally and even explicitly in some cases declare what they mean by eternal, defining it as how many (Including myself) who believe in eternal conscious torment, or hell forever.

You'll find my comments on the church fathers in these papers here:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/universalism-and-church-fathers.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2015/12/universalism-and-church-fathers_21.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/did-justin-martyr-believe-in.html

If the Lord Wills, more comments may be made.
Answering Judaism.

Fallacy of Appealing to Authority: A response to Paul Williams

Recently, I came across a link by an apologist by the name of Paul Williams. What his religion is now, I am uncertain, I was first aware of him at least two or so years ago.

Anyway, the link I came across was an article he wrote called "What does the largest Church on earth say about Muslims and Islam?" and I was not happy with what was written in the paper: You can find the original paper here: http://bloggingtheology.net/2016/01/11/what-does-the-largest-church-on-earth-say-about-muslims-and-islam-2/

Let's examine what has been said:

"It may surprise you! The official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church given at the Second Vatican Council in 1965 (known as Nostra Aetate), teaches the following:

“The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth (Cf. St. Gregory VII, Letter III, 21 to Anazir [Al-Nasir], King of Mauretania PL, 148.451A.), who has spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his Virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer, alms-deeds and fasting.”

Read the decree in full here

Also, at the Second Vatican Council, in a document entitled Lumen Gentium issued in November, 1964, the Church teaches,

“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”"

He firstly posts from two councils of the Roman Catholic Church to show what it's stance is on the Muslim people as you can see above and this is what Williams had to say:

"Muslims must always bear in mind that extremist Christians such as David Wood, Nabeel Qureshi, Sam Shamoun et al. do not represent mainstream Christianity.  The sensible, informed majority of the global Church – which also includes the Anglican Church and the Orthodox Churches – recognise considerable truth in Islam, though respectfully disagreeing about some things.
For further evidence of this mainstream, moderate majority see the signatories to the joint Christian & Muslim document A Common Word between Us and You. Here is a brief summary of the agreed common ground between the two religions:"

Firstly, Just because the Roman Catholic Church makes a pronouncement in a council, that doesn't automatically make it true and also referring to Wood, Qureshi and Shamoun as extremists I feel is nothing more than a harsh stab at them.

Second of all, there are various contradictions that Islam has with Christianity which are numerous (The obvious example being Allah being a Father to no one and Jesus is not his son, Whereas YHWH is a father spiritually to his people Israel and that Jesus is the Father's beloved and unique son).

Thirdly, as one who is an Anglican, I do not share the same view as that of Catholics or other Anglicans who may speak favorably of Islam. The Muslims are part of the mission field for Christians to evangelise to.

While there maybe some agreements among Christians and Muslims, the differences they have are irreconcilable.

Furthermore, this is nothing more than a fallacy of appealing to authority on the part of Williams. It's the same thing when some Muslims appeal to Moses Maimonides regarding mosques and synagogues, yet failing to mentioning the damning things the Rambam says about Muhammad.

Lest anyone claim "Oh you are saying Protestants are older?", I am not, I am just saying that what Rome says about Islam is irrelevant, because ultimately, it's the Bible that has the final say on whether those outside of Christ may be saved.
1 John 2 says this:
"20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[e] 21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also."

Notice John makes it clear if you deny the Son, you don't honor the Father. Yes I know Muslims do affirm Jesus' Messiahship, That's not the point, They deny him being the Son of God (The son meaning servant argument holds no weight either): http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/response-to-yahya-snow-and.html.

Furthermore, Jesus himself said in John 5:
"22"For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. 24"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.…"

While Islam may affirm certain things about Jesus that are true, It denies fundamental doctrines about Jesus, namely his death, resurrection and deity.

While Islam may nominally serve the God of Israel, in practice, they do not worship him and accept Jesus on his terms. I am not arguing Allah is a moon god, I am only arguing that he is a false god masquerading as YHWH.

"‘Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.

The basis for this peace and understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity.’"

But what about the differences that make the religions IMPOSSIBLE to accept both as viable options to take, One or the other must be chosen and I think there are Muslims who would agree with me on this.

Muslims need to be evangelized to by Christians and I am sure on the Muslim side, they have their concerns about the salvation of people.

One of the religions is right and one of the religions is wrong. We must ascertain who is right.

Answering Judaism

Any misunderstandings on my part, I do apologise.

Apologies to Mr Clandestine

Mr Clandestine asked me to record the debate for Dk-man7 and DrChrisClaus to which I agreed to. So why am I apologizing? It's not for the recording, it's my reply to Mr Clandestine.

The way I said it would be my pleasure to record the debate, I was terribly mean spirited in the way I said it, as if to say "Haha, I get to expose him (Dk)".

The apology is to Mr Clandestine and others who were present in the room (Even Dk who wasn't in the room). My tone was mean spirited when I said I would record the debate and I absolutely apologies for that. Despite the fact I consider Universalism a heresy, that does not give me the right to be mean spirited about it. It was uncalled for and I should not have done so.

While it is a duty to deal with heresy in Christianity, there is no need to gloat at someone who is in false teaching, but rather you should feel sorry and weep. It was bad decorum on my part.

With that, I leave you the words of Ignatius

"Chapter IV.-Beware of These Heretics.

I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact, ] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so m the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.

I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from these beasts in the shape of men, from whom you must not only turn away, but even flee from them. Only you must pray for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance. For if the Lord were in the body in appearance only, and were crucified in appearance only, then am I also bound in appearance only. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact, ] I endure all things for Christ, not in appearance only, but in reality, that I may suffer together with Him, while He Himself inwardly strengthens me; for of myself I have no such ability." http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-longer.html

Answering Judaism.

"I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked": Comments on the death of Acharya S

On December 25th 2015, Acharya S AKA Dorothy M Murdock passed away due to breast cancer. She was responsible for teaching the lies that Jesus' story comes from paganism and ran a website called Truth Be Known. She has received criticism, even from Hindu and Buddhist scholars whom Mike Licona had emailed or spoken to had pointed out a number of Murdock's errors. I would suggest reading Licona's original article here: http://www.risenjesus.com/a-refutation-of-acharya-ss-book-the-christ-conspiracy

But I am not here to talk about Murdock's errors, I am just here to comment on her death and to be perfectly frank, I am taking no pleasure in writing this article. It should grieve us when an unrepentant sinner dies and faces future judgement and torment in hell. It should move everyone of us Christians to give the gospel so that no man goes to hell for eternity.

Those who do not repent of the lies they told about Christianity and will perish for their slander and vile blasphemies. They do get what they deserve. That should be in our minds as we deserve hell just as much as those individuals and by clinging to Jesus, we will not go there.

The fact is, NO ONE has the right to go to heaven, it is a privilege granted by grace. No one deserves heaven, let alone a chance to breathe. He could even wipe someone out if he so wished. Why should God allow us into heaven when we have offended him and why should the Father send Jesus to die for our sins if we ourselves don't deserve it? Grace is the reason why.

Having said that, God doesn't take pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11) and Jesus tells us that there is much rejoicing in heaven over the repentance of one sinner (Luke 15:7-10).

Let's take a look at the chapters themselves:
"Ezekiel 18:21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? 24 But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die."

"Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?12 “And you, son of man, say to your people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness, and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness[a] when he sins. 13 Though I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die. 14 Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is just and right, 15 if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16 None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he shall surely live."

A sobering thought this is for someone who thinks they are beyond salvation but at the same time a sober warning to Jews (and later Christians) not to engage in wickedness, lest it lead us to ruin and judgement. The forgiveness one could have if they turned to God and from their evil could be man's if it wasn't for his wicked nature and refusal to submit to God in holiness and righteousness.

Sinners forfeit this wonderful grace that could be theirs simply because they refuse to submit to God. While ultimately all of us deserve the judgement of God, we have a way out through Jesus. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, including Acharya S, but as he is a holy God, one who persists in their wickedness will be judged for their sins and even be judged in a manner like she was, dying on December 25th. Some even go as far as saying Ahmed Deedat, the late Muslim apologist died by God's hand and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, considering his vile blasphemies he uttered against Jesus. See the following here: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Deedat/downfall.htm

God may afflict someone with a death befitting to the sins they have committed as a demonstration of his judgement towards them as well as a warning to us, It is quite possible for that to happen. Again, this doesn't mean God is sadistic, he isn't.

Again I say I don't take pleasure in writing this and we should weep if someone perishes without Christ and it is sad that Murdock died without accepting Christ and repenting.

Answering Judaism.

After debate: A quick response to Dk-man7

What it says on the tin, this is quick:
"While the overwhelming majority feedback about the debate was that it was informative and we had two great speakers representing their perspectives, there are those who disagree. The blogger who made this debate available (known as Bobo557 or Answering Judaism) and his colleague Keith Thompson made the following comments about the debate and myself:"
You can find the comments here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0uviu5k4ug

Also I have already pointed out bobo557 is not me so I am not going over that again here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/dopplegangers.html

"What baffles me is that Bobo asserts no Christians have called me out to repent of the heresy of Universalism, yet Bobo577 has never personally told me to repent of Universalism, only Chris Claus took up this debate. Rather in the past Bobo has tried to debunk my Biblical case for Universalism on his YouTube channel and on his blog, attempting to make corrections. He has never contacted me personally or publicly told me to repent. What is even more bizarre is that I have challenged Bobo at-least twice in Sam Shamoun's chat forum to have a public debate on whether Universalism is Biblical (this can be confirmed by Jaihabor). However both invitations were ignored by Bobo. However, Dr. Chris Claus at-least took up the challenge and tried to expose me publicly, hence Bobo himself fails his own criterion and fails to realize that Chris Claus is a Christian who fulfills his criterion. Hence not only has Bobo not publicly debated me, he has never called me to repent in private or in public. I will issue the challenge again to Bobo to debate this topic whether in written or audio format. If he is more comfortable with written format, I have no problem dissecting his responses and making it a formal written exchange."

First of all, When it comes to teaching heresy, it is NOT a private matter or going someone privately. You taught universalism publicly, therefore you to be challenged publicly: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/matthew-18-what-does-it-teach-and-other.html.

Second of all, I am only speaking from personal experience with respect to anyone call you out on your universalism or not. I haven't seen anybody call you to repentance nor rebuke you. DrChrisClaus debated you and took up the challenge, That I won't dispute and I won't assume what his attitude is. Looking back, I should have given you an exhortation to repent in the article.

Third, You are correct I am more comfortable to debate in written format. Written debate is fine.

"Keith Thompson asserts God is angry with me, yet I have no idea how he would claim to know this apart from divine revelation, and the Bible no where condemns Universalism (one could argue contradicts, but there is no condemnation), nor is Keith a prophet. Presumably he thinks I am invading the Church and spreading a false heresy, but it not made clear how Trinitarian Universalism is a heresy, unless he is appealing to a late council of which he himself would not accept in totality, nor are either of us obligated to accept all Church councils, so this is neither here nor there."

I won't talk about where Universalism is in the Bible or not here, I have written other papers on this issue. I will say however, Keith is not claiming every council we are obliged to accept EVERY council. It would be beneficial all to read his article(s) on Sola Scriptura so you know what his position is:
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/biblical-evidence-for-sola-scriptura.html

"Thompson who quite clearly dislikes me, seems to give the implicit admission that I won this debate since in his final comment he says Chris Claus was ill-equip to handle the Biblical case for the Universalist position since Chris avoided exegeting the passages I had submitted. However while he thinks that Chris failed to address these passages, he himself gives no explanation, or challenge to debate such texts, so presumably Thompson himself doesn't think he can win against me or refute my Biblical case for Universalism."

My thoughts on DrChrisClaus's performance I won't judge yet. An addendum will be added later. Also, Keith was making an observation of the debate and he was sharing his observation. Whether or not he looks at the biblical texts is another time, what ever the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism

Ps. I should have said to Dk man to repent publicly and for failing that I apologise.

Addendum: If Universalism contradicts the Bible, it is false, period, ergo, condemned as false teaching and a false gospel.

Addendum 2:
"Notice that Bobo has said Universalism is a heresy, yet I was not present in the room, when he made these assertions. Nor has Bobo publicly or privately ever said to me: "Dk you need to repent from Universalism" but only tried to show the Bible contradicts the position. Finally I have never taught Universalism in the Jesus or Mohamed room, I have debated Universalism with Chris Claus, but the goal of the room is not Christian/Christian debate. In fact the only time Universalism has ever come up even in other rooms is when it is being contested, not taught. Further more Bobo has never specified whether Universalism is a damnable heresy (putting one outside the faith) or whether it is merely a heresy in the sense of religious error. Now since Bobo thinks Calvinism is heresy in the latter sense (as in it's not biblical and contains some error), but not the former sense (damnable doctrine). But if he thinks Universalism is not a damnable heresy then why is he now calling me to repent, but not Keith Thompson? And why hasn't Bobo explained any of this to me if he is calling me to repent?  "

See my message above about private or public under my signature as well as earlier in the paper, I cover that already.

Firstly, I never claimed you taught Universalism in the Jesus or mohammed room, I said you taught it publically, referring to your website.

I am aware it came up in conversation as being contested not taught whenever it has been brought up

Second, Calvinism and Arminianism are not a salvation issue. I don't use the word heresy lightly, I NEVER even use the word when referring to a non damnable error. Despite disagreements with Keith, I don't believe it is heresy. Keith is my brother in Christ despite our differences. Calvinism and Arminianism are not an issue of salvation. Universalism on the other hand, IS an issue of salvation and one who holds to it is outside the faith.

Universalism IS a damnable heresy in light of what I have written in my papers on it. This is what I said in a previous paper:
"If Universalism is true, Then we can happily embrace it and those who teach such, but if it can be shown that Universalism is in fact false and that the scriptures teach to the contrary, then those who teach it are teaching a doctrine of demons and those who believe in the heresy of universalism need to repent and shun it.

The apostles gave us numerous warnings NOT to fellowship with false teachers and that doing so means partaking of their evil deeds." http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/universalism-ancient-heresy.html

So much for claiming I never specified. What Dk man was referring to was a comment I made to Keith on YouTube. If Dk read my papers, he would know how I view Universalism.

Addendum 3:

"After Bobo complained about no Christian calling me to repent, Bobo has now (ironically) conceded he himself was one of these Christians:

"Looking back, I should have given you an exhortation to repent in the article."

And:

"Ps. I should have said to Dk man to repent publicly and for failing that I apologise."

"

Here's the difference, I acknowledge that I should of called you out. I was making an observation that no one challenged you. (Putting aside the obvious debate that occurred)

"Bobo also claims that he specified on his blog that Universalism was a damnable heresy:

Universalism IS a damnable heresy in light of what I have written in my papers on it. This is what I said in a previous paper: 

"If Universalism is true, Then we can happily embrace it and those who teach such, but if it can be shown that Universalism is in fact false and that the scriptures teach to the contrary, then those who teach it are teaching a doctrine of demons and those who believe in the heresy of universalism need to repent and shun it. The apostles gave us numerous warnings NOT to fellowship with false teachers and that doing so means partaking of their evil deeds."

So much for claiming I never specified.

Bobo needs to learn to read carefully since in context I wasn't referring to him saying this any where at any stage, rather in the overall context I claimed he didn't inform me:

"Further more Bobo has never specified whether Universalism is a damnable heresy (putting one outside the faith) or whether it is merely a heresy in the sense of religious error. Now since Bobo thinks Calvinism is heresy in the latter sense (as in it's not biblical and contains some error), but not the former sense (damnable doctrine). But if he thinks Universalism is not a damnable heresy then why is he now calling ME to repent, but not Keith Thompson? Andwhy hasn't Bobo explained any of this TO ME if he is calling ME to repent?" 

Hence Bobo failed on two counts. He failed to call me to repentance (while complaining about others for doing the same thing), but further more he failed to inform me the serious nature of my heresy. And obviously I can't be expected to read Bobo's blog and posts unless he informs me they are directed to me or even that he has written such posts!"

I need not repeat what I said earlier. Furthermore, I wrote against Universalism generally speaking in my most recent papers. Since you are bothering to read my responses to you, it might behoove you to check out what I have said about universalism and also, my apologies for the misunderstanding of your statement. Should I have explained, Yes.

If you want my call to repentance, here it is, You doctrine is unibiblical, you are misleading people, repent toward God and repent of your false teaching.

"But what is even more thought provoking is that the very definition that Bobo provided to assert Universalism must be judged as a damnable heresy, actually matches Calvinism aswell. Just substitute the word Universalism for Calvinism:

""If Calvinism is true, Then we can happily embrace it and those who teach such, but if it can be shown that Universalism is in fact false and that the scriptures teach to the contrary,then those who teach it are teaching a doctrine of demons and those who believe in the heresy of calvinism need to repent and shun it. The apostles gave us numerous warnings NOT to fellowship with false teachers and that doing so means partaking of their evil deeds."

The only criterion Bobo specifies is that something is in fact false if it is contrary to Scripture, then it's demonic. Well, Bobo, is Calvinism contrary to Scripture or not? According to Bobo it is, hence it's a doctrine of demons. "

My point in context of the paper is referring to Universalism. I am saying contradicts the Bible, it is a doctrine of demons. That is not the same as something which is a disputable matter such as Calvinism and Arminianism. My statement about Universalism was addressing universalism in the paper.The statement from me in context could be applied to false teaching but not disputable matters.

"But what is rather baffling is that Bobo then asserts Calvinism which he thinks is contrary to Scripture is not actually a damnable heresy!

"Second, Calvinism and Arminianism are not a salvation issue. I don't use the word heresy lightly, I NEVER even use the word when referring to a non damnable error. Despite disagreements with Keith, I don't believe it is heresy. Keith is my brother in Christ despite our differences. Calvinism and Arminianism are not an issue of salvation. Universalism on the other hand, IS an issue of salvation and one who holds to it is outside the faith."

But in the very same breathe Bobo again affirms anything that contradicts the Bible is a false gospel and demonic:

"Addendum: If Universalism contradicts the Bible, it is false, period, ergo, condemned as false teaching and a false gospel."

That's twice! Does limited atonement contradict the Scriptures or not? Does unconditional election contradict the Scriptures or not?

Truly incompetent double standards from a person who has a chip on their shoulder rather than a heart for God's word and his truth. Bobo has no actual explanation as to why one is heresy and one is not other than his own cognitive bias.

"

The addendum was a quick response to one of your comments:
"Keith Thompson asserts God is angry with me, yet I have no idea how he would claim to know this apart from divine revelation, and the Bible no where condemns Universalism (one could argue contradicts, but there is no condemnation), nor is Keith a prophet. Presumably he thinks I am invading the Church and spreading a false heresy, but it not made clear how Trinitarian Universalism is a heresy, unless he is appealing to a late council of which he himself would not accept in totality, nor are either of us obligated to accept all Church councils, so this is neither here nor there."

That was the context of my addendum. it was pointing out that if one argues that universalism contradicts scripture, it results in condemnation.

For your information, I have a concern for what the Bible says and if it doesn't teach something, I have a right to speak out (again referring to heresy and not a disputable matter.) 

Dk man then provides quotations from Matt Slick which you can read here: https://carm.org/can-christian-be-universalist

"The sense in which I affirm that Arminians and Calvinists abide by heresy is in the lesser known sense of religious error. Bobo should take a page from Reverend Matthew Slick
Unlike Bobo, Matt Slick actually gives good justification for why some Universalists cannot be excluded from the Christian faith. As a Trinitarian Universalist, I accept all known orthodox doctrines that are essential and compatible with salvation. Can Bobo show a single passage that says belief in eternal conscious torment is a prerequisite for salvation? If he can't but he insists you can only be saved if you accept all Biblical truth, and nothing that contradicts the Bible, then why are Calvinists "saved" and Universalists "unsaved"? "

Sorry, but I don't share what Matt has said regarding Universalists. I have always seen it as a heresy. No where (And I have written papers on this) does the Bible tell us that all men are saved by Christ. Both scripture and early church fathers I quote don't open that door.

Addendum 4:
"Bobo added an Addendum 3, however I don't see any answers to either myself or Matt Slick, but rather insistent begging the question (assuming one is disputable and one is false teaching without any actual reason). I wasn't even sure in the point of a non-response response? 

Bobo asserts:

"My point in context of the paper is referring to Universalism. I am saying contradicts the Bible, it is a doctrine of demons. That is not the same as something which is a disputable matter such as Calvinism and Arminianism. My statement about Universalism was addressing universalism in the paper.The statement from me in context could be applied to false teaching but not disputable matters."

In context you are referring to Universalism, however I am extracting the criterion you use to judge Universalism. The very standard you use to reckon Universalism as a demonic-non-Christian heresy. The only criterion you give to show that universalism is unbiblical was that it is a doctrine contrary to scripture and/or that it contradicts Scripture. However this is as equally as applicable to Calvinism since according to you Calvinism is contrary to the Scripture, yet you say one is a heresy but not the other. It's time to be consistent, or stop writing "responses" that don't address the substance of the issue."

Problem, The criterion I used doesn't apply to DISPUTABLE matters as I have already said, It applies to matters of salvation. You are misusing my criteria.

"My question remains unanswered:

"The only criterion Bobo specifies is that something is in fact false if it is contrary to Scripture, then it's demonic. Well, Bobo, is Calvinism contrary to Scripture or not? According to Bobo it is, hence it's a doctrine of demons."

Again Bobo, shows us his standard is that if a doctrine contradicts scripture it is condemned (damnable heresy):

"That was the context of my addendum. it was pointing out that if one argues that universalism contradicts scripture, it results in condemnation.

Again, no one questions you were referring to if Universalism contradicts Scripture then it results in condemnation. Yet Bobo's double standards are glaring, if Calvinism contradicts Scripture it does not result in condemnation, yet if Universalism contradicts Scripture it does result in condemnation? Based on what? Where did you get this from? Stop saying that a doctrine contradicting Scripture is your criterion to determine heresy, because it's not! If Universalism contradicts the Bible clearly that does not make it a heresy, since you can't say the same about Calvinism, you need to find consistent standards. Does Calvinism contradict Scripture or not? If so it results in condemnation and you should be calling Keith Thompson to repent. Simply asserting one is a disputable matter of faith and one is not is begging the question. But not only do you relentlessly beg the question, you fail to address the positive case from Matt Slick."

I am just going to say this, Calvinism and Arminianism are not on trial, Universalism is on trial, not them. Your argument is like if someone tried to argue "Since the Trinity is true, You must accept Roman Catholicism as true". I can safely say that the Trinity is true and Roman Catholicism isn't. The same applies to Universalism, I can reject that without rejecting Calvinism. Once again, my statement in context is not applicable to disputable matters.

"Bobo again collapses:

"Sorry, but I don't share what Matt has said regarding Universalists. I have always seen it as a heresy. No where (And I have written papers on this) does the Bible tell us that all men are saved by Christ. Both scripture and early church fathers I quote don't open that door."

Why couldn't I just say something virtually identical about Bobo?

"Sorry, but I don't share what Bobo has said regarding Keith Thompson (and other calvinists). I have always seen it as a heresy. No where (And I have written papers on this) does the Bible tell us that Christ died only for some. Both scripture and early church fathers I quote don't open that door."

Again your statements can all be applied to the position of Calvinism, please stop publicly exposing your double standards, and repent and admit you are in error. Either both Calvinism and Universalism are disputable matters of faith, or they are both outside the fold, make up your mind or present a positive case for one being a damnable heresy and one being a disputable matter of faith. All the standards you have employed show that if we measure Universalism by this criterion, Calvinism must fall aswell.  "

Again, Calvinism is not on trial. The only reason I mentioned it was because you mentioned it first:
"Now since Bobo thinks Calvinism is heresy in the latter sense (as in it's not biblical and contains some error), but not the former sense (damnable doctrine). But if he thinks Universalism is not a damnable heresy then why is he now calling me to repent, but not Keith Thompson? And why hasn't Bobo explained any of this to me if he is calling me to repent? "

You introduced Calvinism into the debate, That's not the topic, As said before Universalism is the one on trial. 

As for Matt Slick, need I repeat what I said?

Addendum 5:
"Bobo says "well Calvinisim is not on trial, Universalism is". No Bobo, what is on trial is your consistency, if something contradicts or is contrary to the Scripture then it is damanable heresy (per you). You cannot selectively cherry pick one doctrine and not another. Either your standards are consistent or they are inconsistent, and yours are truly inconsistent, so inconsistent, that you have abandoned your own criterion selectively. If you are not capable of being consistent, you are not capable of being honest, which means a debate about Biblical Universalism with you would be obsolete. First you must demonstrate you are prepared to let go of your ego, and admit when you are in error. Simply declaring something is a disputable matter of faith and something is not is arbitrary and irrelevant to me. I am looking for a positive case, not a faith based blind assertion. Matt Slick gave a compelling case for why Universalism (while in error; he thinks) is not salvific issue, you did not, you merely begged the question. First show your commitment to truth, consistency and honesty before you debate Universalism, or are you incapable of such? "

No, Calvinism isn't on trial and never has been in our conversation, not the article I wrote, Universalism is on trial. You are the one who months ago wrote an article on it and I refuse to repeat what I have told you about my criterion since you refuse to take it on board. You are misusing and abusing my criterion. Consistency is important, I am not going to dispute that. Again, your argument is akin to someone saying that if the Trinity is true, Roman Catholicism must also be true, It's an absurd argument.