Thursday 31 March 2016

Work, Benefits and the Christian life

I want you all to read this article to read first before reading anymore of this paper:

With that out the way, I can expand on another topic, the subject of benefits.

Jobseekers Allowance
That is what benefits are called in the UK and as the name implies, they are there for you until you have found a job. It's something you are given if signed up for, but this doesn't mean you are to remain on them forever, they are only there until you found a job.

A Christian while in this state is to actively seek work while they are on this allowance, otherwise they will not receive any more benefits. There must also be an effort to be truthful, earnest searching and careful signing in, lest one be taken to court or prosecuted. Benefits are NOT an excuse to get off work, they are a means to motivate you TO work.

To those who refuse to work
The New Testament gives a severe warning to those who refuse to work:
"2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.[d]

13 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother."

Notice what I have underlined, This is not talking about someone who is trying to find a job and is unsuccessful in finding one. The ones who are seeking work are not condemned by the passage in question. It is also not talking about someone who has a handicap be it physical or mental, because in certain circumstances they cannot take a certain career and there are ways to accommodate that.

Paul is not talking about those people, he is talking about those who actively refuse to work, make excuses not to work and just want to be lazy. Those who are lazy should not be given a meal, but at the same time, they are to be brought to repentance and be ashamed of their laziness.

To those who are refusing to work, Why? What reason do you have? Is it because of your hobbies? If it is, you can still do those, but not in the bosses time. There is a time for everything, Ever read Ecclesiastes 3? God ultimately comes first in all things, your work is to be part of your daily routine and yes, having a job is something God commands you if you are an able bodied individual.

Your hobbies are something to be done either after work when there isn't much to be done or for relaxing or put to the wayside for a time so the work is done. Get your priorities straight.

Also, Refusing to work is a waste of what God has given you. There are individuals who are well known for abusing the system of benefits for absurd reasons, be it Mohammed Salim or Roger Tullgren, See the following links:
Roger Tullgren:
Mohammed Salim:

Check these videos out too: (Swearing in this one, viewer discretion is advised).

Why waste your life by being on the dole? You can have potential and purpose with a job and what better way to glorify God by working an honest wage, with an opportunity to present and live out the Gospel by being a loyal servant? Think of the fact that when the day is over and you have done a good job, that should give you great satisfaction for the service your provided, not only are your customers pleased, but so are your employers, Maybe a chance for great responsibilities can be given to you to handle.

Daniel was a trustworthy wiseman and Joseph, a slave in Egypt, is entrusted the care of Potiphar's entire household? If your boss is pleased with your work, he will trust you with greater things, not to abuse, but to use properly. If however you don't care about those things, I am not sure what to say except, Good luck, you're going to need it, but you'd better think about what you are doing, because God will hold you to account for your sloth and wickedness. Do you want to be associated with lowlifes who appear on the Jeremy Kyle Show and embarrassed in front of a live audience and disgraced for their actions?

Do the following:
"Proverbs 6:6 Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise!"

Or in the very least, observe other individuals hard at work and be inspired by it. Or more recently, go see or buy it when it comes out the movie Zootopia (Zootropolis in the UK and Australia.

I saw that movie last week on Saturday and this was a funny, sweet and charming movie and it really has some good subtexts, such as making a difference, overcoming prejudice etc. It also brings out the point that despite your background, you can prove that you are capable of doing things and there is a message of not giving up.

Work is the Christian way, Sloth is the way of the world, not taking a break or rest or relaxing, but sloth is the way of the world.

Disability Allowance
This I don't have much say about, this applies if you have a physical or mental illness, again, requires honesty lest court or prosecution come to you. Only apply for this if you do have a genuine physical handicap or mental handicap. Abuse of this is just as existent as abuse of the Jobseekers Allowance, ensure you don't do this.

Benefits when used correctly can be a valuable asset while one is searching for a job, but like any good thing, can be corrupted for evil purposes. May God keep us all from corruption.

Answering Judaism.

Thursday 17 March 2016

Amos 3:7: Does it refute Jesus?

I had a Jew on Paltalk known as Hamoreh contact me recently and a brief conversation ensured, it was very brief but I want to address one verse he brought which would apparently refute the fundamentals of Christianity. let's look at the verse in question.

"7 Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing
    without revealing his plan
    to his servants the prophets."

Let us take a look at the fuller context:

"3 Hear this word, people of Israel, the word the Lord has spoken against you—against the whole family I brought up out of Egypt:

2 “You only have I chosen
    of all the families of the earth;
therefore I will punish you
    for all your sins.”
3 Do two walk together
    unless they have agreed to do so?
4 Does a lion roar in the thicket
    when it has no prey?
Does it growl in its den
    when it has caught nothing?
5 Does a bird swoop down to a trap on the ground
    when no bait is there?
Does a trap spring up from the ground
    if it has not caught anything?
6 When a trumpet sounds in a city,
    do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
    has not the Lord caused it?
7 Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing
    without revealing his plan
    to his servants the prophets.
8 The lion has roared—
    who will not fear?
The Sovereign Lord has spoken—
    who can but prophesy?
9 Proclaim to the fortresses of Ashdod
    and to the fortresses of Egypt:
“Assemble yourselves on the mountains of Samaria;
    see the great unrest within her
    and the oppression among her people.”
10 “They do not know how to do right,” declares the Lord,
    “who store up in their fortresses
    what they have plundered and looted.”
11 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“An enemy will overrun your land,
    pull down your strongholds
    and plunder your fortresses.”
12 This is what the Lord says:

“As a shepherd rescues from the lion’s mouth
    only two leg bones or a piece of an ear,
so will the Israelites living in Samaria be rescued,
    with only the head of a bed
    and a piece of fabric[a] from a couch.[b]”
13 “Hear this and testify against the descendants of Jacob,” declares the Lord, the Lord God Almighty.

14 “On the day I punish Israel for her sins,
    I will destroy the altars of Bethel;
the horns of the altar will be cut off
    and fall to the ground.
15 I will tear down the winter house
    along with the summer house;
the houses adorned with ivory will be destroyed
    and the mansions will be demolished,”
declares the Lord."

The text in question is not a refutation of Christianity. The text is simply affirming what it says. Whether it be explicit or implicit, God makes his plans known to the prophets. The people of Israel were listening to false prophets and worshiping idols, hearing things from the false prophets that God had not said or ordained. The Israelites had not heeded the word of the LORD, hence they were going to be subject to judgement for their sins and wickedness.

My question to Hamoreh is this if he is reading, How does verse 7 alone refute Christianity and it's fundamental tenets?

Deuteronomy 13 doesn't refute Jesus:

The Mt Sinai revelation doesn't refute him either:

Not to mention there is plenty of evidence to show that Jesus is the Messiah and predicted in the Old Testament:

So how and what way does Amos 3:7 refute Jesus? That is my question to you.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday 13 March 2016

Smear Campaigns: My thoughts on them

A smear campaign is the following:
"a ​planned attempt to ​harm the ​reputation of a ​person or ​company by telling lies about them:"

It is no doubt a tactic that is employed by individuals to sway others to their course. What bothers me about these is when apologists engage in this kind of tactic to attack their opponents. Let me tell what these campaigns are not:

They are not the following:

  • Not knowing the full facts and making a rash accusation and repenting of such when clarification is made.
  • Exposing a false teacher with biblical scripture and truth
  • Demonstrating a person has been involved in a scandal
And there are probably other points that could be given.

What angers me is when a person, either using a recording that has been edited to make someone say the opposite of what they meant, misrepresent what they say, make up lies about them to make them look like a joke and just being plain nasty. I hate smear campaigns and I hate it when people who claim to be Christians engage in this behavior.

It angers me when someone has been maliciously spoken of with zero evidence. It disgusts me tremendously when a Christian is so biased and so unfair that they will grab hold of anything to justify their venom towards a particular person, including aiding another liar in "exposing" the person.

I have witnessed Sam Shamoun, James White, Paul Washer, John MacArthur and others being slandered and maligned by some individuals, Shamoun especially has been misrepresented by some in the Muslim camps, * I myself have been on the receiving end and am a victim of virtiol and lies and others who have been in this position of having vicious rumours spread about them also may share my anger and frustration.

It is one thing for unbelievers to engage in this kind of wicked tactic, It's quite another thing for someone who calls themselves a Christian to do it. Christians should not be engaging in slander or libel at all.

It is one thing to make a mistake in a charge and realize you are wrong (I have made rash conclusions and I have corrected myself), it's another to make a charge and run with it, even when the charge is demonstrably untrue. I question the integrity of any man or woman who is willing to stoop to this evil.

See my article on false witnessing for more information:

What is the best thing that can be done about those who build smear campaigns? Pray for their repentance or pray that God will bring his judgement upon them, either one of those two will be fine.

Pray that God will expose your enemies lies and deception so that they may have a broken heart and beg God for mercy and correct the damage they have done. That's really what can be done. Ask someone to pray for you as well as pray with someone. Bottom line, A smear campaign should be anathema to a Christian, for Revelation says the following in chapter 21:

"6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”"

Answering Judaism.

*16th of March 2016, I had to add a little extra to the sentence just to clarify what I was saying.

Brainwashed Children: What does is it mean?

I came across a horrifically offensive picture on Facebook and I want to comment on it. Here is the picture in question:

What offends me about this image in particular image is that somehow raising children in a biblically solid church is somehow brainwashing.

Let me be very clear, I don't deny that there are individuals out there who brainwash children, cults give false teaching to children, pedophiles who should not be serving in the church abuse children to satisfy their perverse pleasure and wickedness like that.

Let us dispel the notion that raising a child BIBLICALLY is not brainwashing or child abuse or pressuring them.

Deuteronomy 6 says the following to the Israelites:
"6 These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, 2 so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the Lord your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life. 3 Hear, Israel, and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you and that you may increase greatly in a land flowing with milk and honey, just as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, promised you.

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates."

There is a reminder to the people to consistently in the passage live in light of what God has commanded and that goes as far as raising your child biblically and they should be.

Under the New Covenant, you don't have to go as far as what is found in verse 8-9 but you nevertheless, the principle that is carried over into the New Covenant is to teach your children biblically how to live.

We find examples of this in the New Testament:

"Ephesians 6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3 “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”[a]

4 Fathers,[b] do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord."

"Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

21 Fathers,[c] do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged."

Both passages point out that children are to obey their parents, but the father must lovingly and compassionately raise them to be godly. The child should not disobey, but the father has no licence to be cruel to the child or be unreasonable. They are to discipline the child when they disobey but encourage when they obey and care for them.

Titus 2 contains the following:
"Titus 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."

If a woman loves her husband, she will submit to him (The husband has to love his wife and not be a dictator or abusive) and if a woman loves her child or children, she should also do all she can to raise up godly offspring. Both parents have a responsibility to biblically raise their children and train them in the way of the Lord and if anyone hurts or causes a child to sin, it would be better if a milestone would be tied around their neck.

In a biblically solid marriage between a man and a woman, a child will understand their roles and responsibilities depending on their gender. There is nothing abusive or disgusting about raising up a child in a godly and pure environment, it's a tremendous blessing for the child as it may prepare them for service to Jesus Christ, to love God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength and love their neighbor as themselves. Ultimately, the child is the only one who makes the decision, not the parents, whether they follow Jesus or not. A child cannot be saved from sin by their parents, nor can the parents be saved from sin by their child, but ultimately, you will have someone in the end whom Jesus can use for his glory and purpose.

(Yes I believe in original sin and I believe no one come to Christ by their own volition and they need to be convicted by the Spirit and drawn by the Father, but you get the point of what I am saying).

The child does not receive salvation because of their parents and vice versa, though the child is in a better position to be equipped.

Raising up a child to believe that transgenderism, homosexuality and other sins, sexual or otherwise, is morally reprehensible.

Putting aside debatable issues as to whether or not Christians can watch movies or hobbies, as that is a debatable issue which I won't be going into here, If you raise up a child and teach them that gay marriage or any other sexual deviancy should be celebrated, you are encouraging that child to make a not only a terrible mistake, but you are setting them up to destroyed.

A "homosexual marriage" (It shouldn't be called marriage because it is not even a marriage), destroys the distinction between man and woman. it leads to the child being confused on what their identity is, How they should behave, how they should act etc. Fornication, Adultery and other sexual sins do not have biblical fulfillment or are destruction of what God has laid out to be right and true.

Homosexuality itself robs a person of many wonderful things. They cannot embrace the joy of having children, they cannot have a person in that relationship say "This is the baby I have birthed" and rejoice in that. Oh sure a homosexual couple might adopt children, but they haven't produced that child have they? Furthermore, the twisting of God's created order that a homosexual (and others in sexual sin) impact the child in a negative manner.

Adoption is a wonderful thing for parents, but only a man and a woman who cannot have children due to infertility should adopt them. Assuming the adoptive couple are biblical Christians, that adopted child is going to have the opportunity to have Jesus Christ presented to them as Lord and Saviour. Not only will have another figure in their lives to fear and respect, they'll also have a compassionate figure who is their protector and not lie to them, for Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Adoption however, cannot be used to justify a homosexual relationship, it's taking a noble thing and using it to justify a perversion.

Plus, as James White has pointed out on a number of occasions, the homosexual is in love with a mirror image. They are not complementary. Not only do the genitals not compliment each other (The basement and the attic were never designed for that kind of interaction to put it politely), Their is no spiritual connection that is good, the two cannot become one flesh.

There is no plausible way for a homosexual relationship to work, it's empty, there is no fulfillment and there is no way to implement it without causing damage to the family unit, as well as their own bodies.

To teach children that homosexual marriage is to be celebrated (or that any sin should be celebrated), you are essentially telling them to embrace death.

There is a phrase thrown around "We need more love in the world". Is it love when you tell someone to embrace a lifestyle that will lead to their death and bring them ruin? If you tell a child that embracing a sexual sin is a good thing to be embraced, you are not teaching love, you are teaching hatred. And you want to accuse me and other Christians of hate speech? Who are the ones who are truly brainwashing their people? It's not Biblical Christianity that brainwashes people, it's the world that brainwash people.

I know there are people like the Westboro Baptist Church, Theodore Shoebat and Steven Anderson out there, I know that.

But their way is not the way of Christ, I don't want a homosexual to die in their sin, I'd much rather see them be saved from what they are doing and changed by God. I don't want to disparage them (And any disparagement of them I repent of).

If you want to see a biblical model for marriage and what God intended from the beginning, read Genesis 2.

For more information, read the following papers:

Also, before anyone uses the argument about shrimp, I direct you to the following papers:

Answering Judaism.

Saturday 12 March 2016

Response to Theodore Shoebat: Comments on The Bible Answer Man

A few days ago, I had listened to a dialogue that took place between Michael Brown and Theodore Shoebat and after listening to said discussion between them, I cannot express how angry and disgusted I was with Shoebat's justification for his position. Here is the discussion they had:

I read read an article by Theodore Shoebat before the dialogue and was not happy with what was written. But listening to the dialogue only made this article much worse. The article itself can be found here:

I would need to look at the supposed "contradicting himself video" before I can make comments on that, but we'll see what the Lord Wills.

With that out of the way, let's take a look at the article.


Ever wonder why American society is so infected with sodomites? Reality says it is not the disease (the sodomites), but the disease coming from modern theologians.

Listen to this debate (more like an Inquisition of Theodore) where Theodore schools one theologian claiming to be a ‘Bible Answer man’ by running his mouth on a radio show called Ask Dr. Brown who throughout the show kept asking “where in the Bible does it say ….?”  and “why doesn’t Jesus do it Himself (punish sodomites)” which is the typical question these belabor mouths ask, when in reality the question should be “where in mymodern interpretation of the Bible does it say …?”"

Brown was holding you to account Mr Shoebat via the scriptures. He asked you in the New Testament where to find these things and you ran to the Old Testament and the Church Fathers. He is asking you where the New Testament were your points justified.

Furthermore, you made audacious claims on your YouTube channel. A person who is watching could take what you are saying the wrong way.

Jesus is YHWH and is the God of the Old Testament, he is the Second Person of the Trinity, a distinct person from the Father, he has the right to exercise mercy or judgement on wicked people. We agree that Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever, but just because Jesus destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, that doesn't mean that Jesus would do the same thing to those who sinned in Jerusalem. For sure he would have driven them out of the temple.

Even if Jesus killed the homosexual in the temple, it is not a precedent for NEW COVENANT standards today. Jesus calls us to do the following in Matthew 28:19:

"19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”"

This would entail exhorting the people of the world to repent of their evil ways, homosexuals included.

Also, adultery was rife in Israel and yet Jesus did not call for their deaths, he told the woman in adultery to sin no more, he did not condone adultery obviously. I am aware there was more to that context that the people were hypocrites when they tried to get Jesus to stone the adulteress and they did not bring the other partner.

"Dr. Michael Brown (they call them doctors these days when they are really the disease) thinks his Christian milk-chockolate flavor has a monopoly wherein the entire Christian world should heed to his modern interpretation of Scripture. Listen to how a “lazy servant” ignores centuries of well tried and attested sets of laws and ethics that has worked succeeding in fighting this evil as we see in nations with apostolic-succession churches in Russia and Poland. Had his brand of modern Americanized Christianity been in effect when the Maccabees killed heretical Jews for burning incense to Jupiter, Brown would have blasted the Maccabees and defended the rights of the evil Antichrist, Antiochus. To Brown, centuries of the best theologians, Church fathers, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon’s Wisdom, Elijah And Jehu  is ‘out the window’ and Jesus all of the sudden instead of defending the rights of the sheep, would simply love pedophiles, zoophiles, human traffickers, drug traffickers … you name it … without first considering the rights of the victims. Notice how this lazy servant never once mentions the victims. It is the signs of the times. I thought during the dialogue, if this guy could only shut his trap for a moment. If this man’s speech was made of rust, his silence would be made of gold. All Brown asks throughout is that “why doesn’t Jesus Himself punish the sodomites?” as if God did not command in both Old and New Testament we have the authorities carry out justice. It is the sign of the “lazy servant” we see plaguing the church in the ends of days. "

Firstly, Brown does NOT throw the Old Testament prophets out the window, or even Jesus himself. I don't know the extent of his view on the church fathers, but I can assume he has found both enlightening and horrific things in their writings. Ultimately what Brown is concerned about is what the scripture says. And why do you bring up the fact that Brown doesn't mention victims? How does that justify your position? I am sure Brown has his concern about the victims of those attacks, but how does his silence on them indicate that he is in the wrong and you are in the right?

Brown's point is, you don't kill the homosexual or any of the sinners under the New Covenant, you reach out to then in love (not love that accepts sin) but what do I mean by love. I mean love that wants the person to be set free from that sin or rather I should say, love and compassion on the person doing these evil things to the extent that you want to bring them to repentance and the feet of Jesus so they may be washed, cleansed and made holy in the sight of God. Brown has never said that sin should be tolerated, homosexuality included, You Mr Shoebat completely misrepresented Brown at the end of the discussion.

It was acceptable for the Old Testament saints and prophets to put sinners and rebels to death, but where are Christians called to put them to death? Also, there is NO such thing as a Christian nation.

How a government rules a nation will be judged by God to be sure and I also want to comment on where Paul speaks on the government in Romans 13, let's look:

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

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

In the context, Paul is giving an exhortation to obey the government, for it is right so do to. The only allowance for disobedience to the government is if they give a command that causes you to disobey God, that's it.

God has instituted governments for nations to have, but that does not mean that a government is going to follow God's standard 100% or remove their evil. God will hold a nation accountable for how their government rules their people. Christians can have influence on the government like Daniel did in the days of Babylon, but by in large, there is no such thing as a Christian nation. In one such example, Justin Martyr in his First Apology, holds a government accountable for the treatment of Christians, thus showing that the early church did not have a nation to govern. They had a nation to influence and change, but not to rule:

That's not to say they couldn't be a ruler, it would however be very difficult. Plus, Shoebat doesn't take into consideration that fallen man HATES the true God, so of course a government is not going to be up to his standard. It's not an excuse, but that doesn't justify your beliefs Shoebat either.

If one spits in the face of God, They will get a government they deserve (And other points). See James White's comments on the Dividing Line here. Watch from 2:15-12:25 for the comments but hear at the points about the government specifically:

"Protect your children. It is not difficult for an apostolic succession Christian well grounded from wonderful church history to spot the leaven which is simple: this modern theology presumes that someone changed the interpretation of Scripture. They always love to blame two: Constantine and Augustine. It seems that someone with the last sounding name “teen” is their devil."

Say what you will about Augustine, I don't believe Constantine should be held accountable for any theology. Roman Catholicism would be false for biblical reasons, not because of Constantine. Constantine was no theologian in a biblical sense at all and it would be unfair to use him as an argument against the Roman Catholic Church. The burden on you Theodore is to show the Roman Catholic Church dates back to the time of the apostles.

Answering Judaism.

Friday 11 March 2016

The Abomination of Desolation: A response to Walid Shoebat 9

Let's continue the response. I left the comments on the church fathers and the two senses for another time if the Lord Wills. I am holding it off for now. But I will look at the rest of his points that come after that section.

"In Bethlehem, dare you ask for a lady’s hand without using the matchmaker, go to the governor without a dignitary or buy a home without an agent. Only a fool negotiates his sentence, the marriage dowry or the price of his home. Such are thrown out of the Kingdom even including the one who does not come dressed properly to the wedding:
But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless. “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ (Matthew 22:11-13)
In this, Christ addresses the modern trickster who tells the congregants “come as you are”. Christ speaks prophetically on the condition of the falling away that we so clearly see, coming unprepared to the wedding. The lazy servant is one who comes to God’s wedding, improperly dressed, while for the politician, they dress as if they are entering Christ’s banquet."

Who said anything about coming as you are? This is an irrelevant point to your comments on the Abomination of Desolation, Oh that's right, your condemning all who don't follow your interpretation of end times amongst other things. Protestants (If they actually read their Bible) do NOT say, come as you are and live in sin, only anti-nomians say this. There are many I could list who repudiate sin, but I digress.

"I heard the empty arguments: “Rome insists that the Mass is the very same sacrifice as that of Calvary” (James White) “The whole concept of re-enacting and re-presenting Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is contrary to the clear teaching of Hebrews that this sacrifice occurred once for all time (Heb. 10:12-14)” (Norman Geisler)
But these are only assumptions. No Christian believes in re-sacrificing Christ. The Eucharist is a re-sacrifice if you will, but the same ‘once and for all’ sacrifice being madepresent to us now.
The argument can easily be countered in a Jesus-style question: John wrote his Gospel between 90-100 A.D., while early church documents at the time make it crystal clear, the Eucharist was being celebrated as the literal Flesh and Blood of Christ across the entire Roman Empire, so why didn’t John have made an explanation to clarify as he always did (see John 1:42; John 21:19) since the entire church was in error telling all Christians that the Eucharist was a re-sacrifice?
And if one insists on using scripture, the other Jesus-style question would be this: why is it that in each Gospel the mention of Satan entering Judas is in the context of the Last Supper that Jesus had this discourse on “eating his flesh” and is when Judas rejected the notion of Christ being the Eucharist? 
God allowed controversies, even Christ spoke in parables, in order to separate sheep from goats.
The goats will never get it."

White's point still stands I'm afraid, The Lord's Supper was a memorial for what Christ had done, Plus, John 6 already explains what Jesus is saying and what Jesus says in context refutes Shoebat's interpretation of John 6 as well as the other Roman Catholic apologists who abuse this text. Also, Satan entering Judas and Judas leaving has nothing to do with the rejection of transubstantiation. Why should John have to clarify to his audience what Jesus is saying, plus again, the church fathers did not hold to the modern Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. 

See the articles on John 6:

"Purgatory is taking a shower before you could jump in the pool (heaven) and it is in Maccabees. One needs to knock, seek and find, even ask, why seven books that Jesus used were removed from holy scriptures?
I don’t have a problem with taking showers. That shower, indeed is not for pigs, it is not even designed for humans who behave like pigs either. It is designed to remove whatever crud is left for Christians after living so long in a pig farm we call the world. I am not sure why so much fuss. Even the shower stall they go after to the point I am beginning to believe that such behavior is more fitting for Muslims rather than Christians. What else is left, the confession booth, the altar, the priest … until like locusts the swarm consumes everything and what is left is a bare naked Jesus huddled in the corner of every church.
Even that Jesus, these will insist to remove, barking daily that Jesus cannot be expressed in a statue, but only in a paper-thin photo as thin as their spirit that cannot fathom a trinitarian theology with trinitarian interpretation where Scriptures has so many facets that we could spend a lifetime never being able to fathom."

Won't be dwelling on Purgatory too much, though I will direct all to Keith Thompson's documentary refuting Purgatory:

For that matter, bowing a statue in a religious context is an act of Idolatry. Protestants have been telling Rome this for years, but Rome of course in their mind knows best and ignore the exhortation. You tell people to bow before a graven image, which is what many Catholics do, That is called an act of Idolatry and you know it. 

Furthermore, we don't know what Jesus looked like, so a statue is not even an accurate representation of him.

"Even His crucifix, instead of being like Simon of Cyrene, we should be honored to carry the Cross around our necks as the Copts do in Egypt, instead, we would be like the Roman torturer, going after Jesus, flogging Him by tormenting and taunting the saints who like taking daily showers, confessing directly to a priest, to the living saints on earth as they are also in heaven…"

A cross worn around our necks is not the same as purgatory, confession to a priest and calling on the saints in heaven.

See my articles on the saints below:

Seriously, It amazes me you are using your eschatology to conclude the Roman Church is true. 

"Every day I approve comments and see and I am beginning to be convinced 100% that so many are a miserable bunch who go after any sin. Even the infiltrators in the Catholic Church are blamed on every Catholic, Copt, Serbian, Greek, Russian Orthodox … so many are simply the accusers. These roam round about like devils using whatever few verses they remember to thwart the volumes of history and other books of the Bible they so much hate calling these “Apocrypha”. They prefer to feed from smelly cheese crumbs spilled by a glutton named Martin Luther who was an anti-Semite-devil in disguise.
Even exposing this devil, instead, they would rather attack Catholics, never-mind that this devil wrote a treatises titled The Jews and Their Lies. This one, just like these scoffers, taunted the people, begging them to go after poor Jews and requesting they burn their farms and annihilate the people in a holocaust while Pope Pius XII rescued more Jews than any man in history while gaining the title from scoffers as “Hitler’s Pope”.
Slander is key to recognizing the saint. Isn’t that what Jesus taught?"

This is nothing more than a tu quoque fallacy, Martin Luther (Not to excuse his actions against the Jews at all) didn't claim to be part of an infallible church. Rome however claims that when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra statements, he is making an infallible decoration. It doesn't surprise me that Shoebat went after Luther, after all, Theodore did the same thing in his debate with Keith Thompson. Like Father, Like Son.

I would need to look more into what Martin Luther actually did to Jews, but I will challenge Shoebat on this, Can you give me a source or quotation that backs up what your saying, or in the very least, link to something that backs up your claims. For that matter, Rome can be refuted not by just "using whatever few verses", the Bible itself, taking it as a historical document and not just a theological one, shows that the early church did NOT resemble the modern papal system.

Jesus said you will know them by the fruits and Rome demonstrates how much of a vile tree it is.

"Such holocaust was finally fulfilled from Luther’s instruction to be carried out by Hitler himself. And what is left of Germany today after stripping all the icons, seven books of the Bible, altars and confessional booths? Nothing but the flood of Muslim hordes issued forth from the mouth of the beast after the woman, a bloody river with multitudes from nations, tribes and different tongues raping and molesting as it was in the days of the Maccabees. Soon, Hagia Sophia will be desecrated, the Vatican and the “synagogues of God” where this horde will put their ensigns and hammer and chisel the stones of the Temple of God (Psalm 74). Soon we all will pray:
O God, why have You rejected us forever?
Why does Your anger smoke against the sheep of Your pasture?
Remember Your congregation, which You have purchased of old,
Which You have redeemed to be the tribe of Your inheritance;
And this Mount Zion, where You have dwelt.
Turn Your footsteps toward the perpetual ruins;
The enemy has damaged everything within the sanctuary.
Your adversaries have roared in the midst of Your meeting place;
They have set up their own standards for signs.
It seems as if one had lifted up
His axe in a forest of trees.
And now all its carved work
They smash with hatchet and hammers.
They have burned Your sanctuary to the ground;
They have defiled the dwelling place of Your name.
They said in their heart, “Let us completely subdue them.”
They have burned all the meeting places of God in the land.
We do not see our signs;
There is no longer any prophet,
Nor is there any among us who knows how long.
How long, O God, will the adversary revile,
And the enemy spurn Your name forever?
Why do You withdraw Your hand, even Your right hand?
From within Your bosom, destroy them!
Yet God is my king from of old,
Who works deeds of deliverance in the midst of the earth.
You divided the sea by Your strength;
You broke the heads of the sea monsters in the waters.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
You gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.
You broke open springs and torrents;
You dried up ever-flowing streams.
Yours is the day, Yours also is the night;
You have prepared the light and the sun.
You have established all the boundaries of the earth;
You have made summer and winter.
Remember this, O Lord, that the enemy has reviled,
And a foolish people has spurned Your name.
Do not deliver the soul of Your turtledove to the wild beast;
Do not forget the life of Your afflicted forever.
Consider the covenant;
For the dark places of the land are full of the habitations of violence.
Let not the oppressed return dishonored;
Let the afflicted and needy praise Your name.
Arise, O God, and plead Your own cause;
Remember how the foolish man reproaches You all day long.
Do not forget the voice of Your adversaries,
The uproar of those who rise against You which ascends continually. (Psalm 74)
To the trickster and the scoffer I ask: where are your “carved work”? “And now all its carved work
They smash with hatchet and hammers..” Can you interpret through the spirit and see the many meanings of all this?
Trickster, the clown and the gymnast, the devil will not only pass to you what he himself does not believe is true, but he will pass through you whatever falsity that youbelieve through him. You say: “and what use do we have for church fathers when we have Scriptures”? But I say to you: “Why do we deal treacherously each against his brother so as to profane the covenant of our fathers?” (Malachi 2:10) and did He not also say “He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse”?
Has God created a church, or a void that was empty for entire twenty centuries until a trickster named Zwingli showed up fifteen centuries later?
No. I will shun away the trickster and the politician. I will cause an earthquake, shatter myths and take the Grain Offering."

Protestants (Biblical ones) stripping away Catholic idols and evil papal practices did not cause the Muslims to come in and take Germany over. What you have in Europe are liberals and people falling away and letting paganism and atheism come into the culture. THAT is why the Muslims are being let into a country and are taking over. Plus Malachi 2:10 and that section in chapter 4 about striking the land with a curse have NOTHING to do with the church or the church fathers. The passages in question are talking about Israel:

"Malachi 2:10 Do we not all have one Father[b]? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?

11 Judah has been unfaithful. A detestable thing has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem: Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the Lord loves by marrying women who worship a foreign god. 12 As for the man who does this, whoever he may be, may the Lord remove him from the tents of Jacob[c]—even though he brings an offering to the Lord Almighty.

13 Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

15 Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.[d] So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.

16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”[e] says the Lord Almighty.

So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful."

The people of Israel in Malachi were sinning greatly against YHWH and such can be found in the context. In particular in chapter 2, the people of Judah were guilty of intermarrying with Gentiles, something that the Torah forbad the Israelites from doing. The fathers that are mentioned in verse 10 are the ancestors of the Israelite people.

God has always preserved a remnant throughout history, even before the Protestant Reformation took place. You don't have to be a Roman Catholic to be a Christian, in fact it would make you the opposite.

Also, Malachi 4, let's read it:
"4 [a]“Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the Lord Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. 2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. 3 Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act,” says the Lord Almighty.

4 “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.

5 “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.”"

This is warning to the Jews not to fall away from the Torah, but to keep it and to wait for the coming Elijah. 

Finally, It is abundantly clear in his material that Walid Shoebat does not understand what Sola Scriptura teaches. Sola Scriptura is the sole infallible rule of faith of the church, It does NOT mean that the church fathers are useless. It does not mean that you cannot appeal to history. The church fathers can be of great benefit to people. There are certainly a lot very enlightening things that can be found in their writings and certainly can be very helpful. HOWEVER..... They do not replace the scripture or become infallible authorities. You, Me and other apologists are to be judged by scripture, for that is the infallible rule of faith and the ULTIMATE rule of faith, NOT the only rule, but the ULTIMATE rule.

See my articles on Sola Scriptura:

Answering Judaism

Monday 7 March 2016

The Abomination of Desolation: A response to Walid Shoebat 8

If the Lord Wills, I may consider looking at 1 and 2 Maccabees. For now, they will be skipped and dealt with if again the Lord Wills. With that out the way, let's continue.

"It is impossible to be pleasing to the Lord without an altar of sacrifice, without the grain offering and a drink offering (wine) where we consume the blood and the host. This is why Islam prohibits alcohol and with such prohibition, Antichrist will stop “drink offering” as Joel also predicted. How can one confess sins and partake in the sacrifice without these elements become unimaginable."

I have said what I need to say on Joel, that has already been covered:

"Everything I have written here became clear to me only after I, last week, prayerfully decided to examine this “sacrifice” for myself having never believed since I joined the Baptist church which said that apostolic-succession are “harlot” and “Antichrist”. It bothered my inner temple deep within my soul. So I decided to walk into the confessional booth, I must say, the one they told me never to enter, to try this apostolic succession sacrificial flavor if you will.
After my confession, the priest asked: “Why do you allow such intrusive thoughts enter the gates of your temple knowing that they, like the leaven, fester and grow, sin is destructive and destroys the temple, and only leads into more sin?”
Sin starts by a thought which settles in the mind and festers like leaven, it grows, swells, and corrupts and leads to venial or even mortal sin where the temple is completely destroyed and such unclean vessel cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
The priest addressed the root not just the symptom. It was a free gift. I was the one who got a free offering. I paid no money, no offering, no indulgences, and nothing of what the slanderers claim."

This statement needs relooking at in a future article. All I can say regarding the subject of "apostolic succession" as Shoebat keeps phrasing it, It's not present in Rome, As James White said: "Apostolic succession is a matter of fidelity to the truth, not historical genealogy. It is more important to stand in theteaching of the Apostles than to trust in an alleged historical procession that casts truth out into the cold.

"How can this sin be healed if I just go directly to Christ without gaining the proper instruction given by Christ to His first priests, the apostles, and from there onward to the priests to the end of the age? How could Christ only instruct His apostles only during their lifetime when He told them “I will be with you until the end of the age”? He will be with His church forever."

Not sure what he is getting that. If you go to Jesus and ask for his forgiveness and repent, naturally you should want to go and recieve instructions and to know the biblical Gospel from them.

"Scriptures throughout, described the church, not the Scriptures, as Christ’s body: “the Church [not just Scripture] is the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) which without the Church no one can interpret Scriptures correctly. So where was this “pillar and bulwark” for fifteen centuries since the apostles?"

See my paper on the 1 Timothy 3:15 for information:

What makes Shoebat assume that Roman Catholicism is right when he asks where the pillar and foundation of the truth are?

"Christ is the temple, we need no sun, He mirrors His reflection upon ordained men stemming all the way back from when He gave instruction to His apostles shedding His light in the darkness of our hearts and offers forgiveness.
It is one thing to go in and pray in the closet, but confession in Scripture, was never intended to exclusively be in the closet, and it is another experience when one has to give detail of what they have done to a priest “confess your sins to one another that you may be healed” (James 5:16).
One sins much less if they have to confront the accountant. If Christ ever intended to forgive sin exclusively through Him without priests, why then does the Scriptures make clear: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shallretain, they are retained” (John 20:23)."

I'll link to these again:

Also the confession with James has nothing to do with confession to a priest, Let's look

"James 5:13 Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

17 Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. 18 Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops.

19 My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins."

It is to do with men and women in the church holding each other accountable, acknowledging their faults to each other so that they can pray for one another to be repentant and holy. Sometimes sickness can be associated with unrepentant sin, with requirements to pray for the person to turn from their evil and back to God and for the individual in question to ask God for forgiveness and repent toward him. It has nothing to do with confession to a priest to absolve you from sins.

"“sins that you [the apostle/priest] shall forgive”?
I was told at the non-apostolic-succession church that all of our sins—past, present, and future were forgiven once we became Christian.
Then I find the disciples having the authority to continually forgive or even retain sins in John 20. I found nothing in Scripture that says “I forgive your sins, past, present and future”.
Indeed, it is the tradition of men which has become Scripture, traditions instituted by men, who only condemned God’s traditions, while all these verses I shared so far from Scripture here were thrown out the window."

Putting aside the debate as to whether or not a Christian can lose their salvation, What does John 20:23 have to do with Catholic priests being able to pronounce forgiveness to the guilty party?

Personally, the only time future sins are forgiven and covered is if they have been repented of, but even in the context of those who believe in Perseverence of the Saints, they will argue and point out that those who are truly saved will repent of their sins and persevere in holiness to the end. The only people that would argue future sins are forgiven in the way Shoebat presents in the paper as supposedly a belief that all Protestants hold to are anti-nomians, something which Protestantism, both OSAS or NON-OSAS condemn.

"If sins are forgiven, past, present and future, why would Jesus teach: “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12)? Why then can’t we just once and for all say “thank you for forgiving us our debts, past, present and future and from this day forward, I will ask and pray no more”.
Jesus was teaching us how to pray and this prayer of Our Father, is central in the apostolic-succession church and is to remain with us including asking for the forgiveness of sins."

Putting aside his caricature and have covered what the point about past, present and future sins being forgiven, The Lord's Supper a Protestant would gladly confess.

"Does He forgive our sins, past present and future the moment we invite Jesus? No, We are told “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). How this was understood in the early church, in 70 AD, way before the claim that ‘Constantine changed everything’, the earliest of Christians taught that the believer should:
“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that yoursacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
Sacrifice? Do this “confession” before taking communion, never after? In the earliest record of the church, in 70 AD, there was order, not chaos."

I honestly don't take issue with the statement in the Didache. You SHOULD confess your sins before taking communion, not because of pagan transubstantiation, but because by not confessing sin and taking the Lord's Supper, you eat and drink judgement to yourself, either risking illness or death for profaning the Lord's Supper.

Granting confession as important (which it is), it would not bolster the Romanist abuse of confession. Also I thought the article that Shoebat was about the Abomination of Desolation?

"In the non-apostolic-succession churches, they even told us that “Genesis 14 indicates that as Abraham arrived with his troops and came before Melchizedek, Melchizedek brought out some food (bread and wine) to feed all these hungry guys” (see Ron Rhodes).
What utter nonsense. The text says: “And Mel-chiz’edek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.” The very bringing of the bread and wine was because he was a priest and it was done by a priest.
And Malachi 1:11, again, “My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty.”
Only the priesthood can fulfill this with literal incense keeping in mind that this “incense” is not allegoric incense since if there is any smoke or incense on earth, it is always synonymous with sacrifice. Again, keep in mind that this is no old testament sacrifice since just one verse before, in Malachi. 1:10, it says that when this period comes, God would not be accepting the Jewish sacrifices: “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the LORD Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands”."

I have already commented on Malachi 1 in the previous paper so I need not go over that again:

It amazes me that Shoebat disregards the interpretation of "Genesis 14 indicates that as Abraham arrived with his troops and came before Melchizedek, Melchizedek brought out some food (bread and wine) to feed all these hungry guys". That it is PARTIALLY what happened in Genesis 14, Melchizedek brought them food and blessed them. with Abraham giving a tenth of everything. Melchizedek was a priest and a king, No Protestant denies this.

"And if Melchizedek was simply feeding “hungry guys” why would the Psalmist in Psalm 110:4 declare “The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek“?

He permanently offers sacrifice (offering). Ever wonder why in Ezekiel a grain offering was made including a meat offering? That the grain is the bread and the meat is theflesh (Gen. 4:3-5, Num. 16:15, 1 Sam. 2:17, 29:26:19 Isa. 1:13). Even the protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly confirms:
The Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi’s prediction that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have a ‘pure offering’ made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist.
Salvation is a process. So many verses are ignored and are rarely if ever studied by the simpleton who quickly jots a comment with no depth."

I have commented on the grain offering not referring to the Lord's Supper already:

Neither Daniel nor Ezekiel have the Lord's Supper. The biblical texts above I would need to look into if the Lord Wills.

"It is the devil, through his trickster, institutes disorder. Christ broke the bread and gave it and said “this is my body”.
The trickster will quickly switch from literal into allegory. He also knows that he cannot answer the Jesus-style question: how could the church have for twenty centuries (not just since the sixteenth century) practiced and believed in the Eucharist? Was this all wrongly done and these could not correctly understand what Christ meant by “this is my body”?"

I have no time to go into why it is not referring to his literal body and blood, I have already written an article on transubstantiation:

He'll use the two senses excuse and go into the church fathers but that will be saved for another time if the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism.