Thursday 26 May 2016

Why Jesus is blamed for evil when he isn't

There is a simple explanation.

Imagine yourself working for a corporation, large or small (Hopefully you do have a job so this would immediately strike a cord).

When you are part of a corporation or organization, you are essentially a representative of the company, You are responsible for providing good service, whether it be customer interaction or simply giving a customer an item though you have not met them in person or spoken on the phone.

Customers will also judge your decorum, your knowledge and everything, even your body language. So how you act is very important, as it would leave an impact on them, either good or bad.

If you provide a satisfactory to outstanding service, the people are going to return to the company and recommend it to others, but the opposite will happen if poor service is provided, causing potential customers to head elsewhere for their goods.

If something goes wrong because of you, it is often the manager and the owner who get held accountable for YOUR mistake, which doesn't reflect well on the company when it goes wrong.

You as an employee for a company are the representative of the executives in charge and thus an audience's perception of the employee is going to be placed on the employer in question. This is a tremendous problem and repentance has to be undertaken to ensure this doesn't happen again. It won't change the customer's perception of the company but you will at least learn from the mistake you made and not to repeat it.

Likewise, you see why the world is quick to judge Christianity and ultimately Jesus when a Christian slips up. I am not saying this happens ALL the time but it is common.

Why is Jesus blamed for the terrible suffering of Jews, even though he never hated his people but had compassion for them? Why are homosexuals blaming religion for the persecution of them, when Christians should have had compassion on them and brought them to repentance?

How a Christian acts toward an unbeliever may either enhance or damage the witness of Jesus Christ in their lives, the latter of which causes unbelievers to see Jesus as a moral monster. of course sinful man sees YHWH and the Bible as reprehensible anyway but you catch my drift? We have to ensure there isn't a failure to let our light shine before men so that they may say our good works and glorify our Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16). Plus as Jesus pointed out "If salt looses it's saltiness, how shall it's saltiness be restored?" It is rendered garbage to be thrown away (Mark 9:50, Matthew 5:13 and Luke 14:34).

Remember that how we live in the Christian life, an unbeliever can see who is and who isn't in some cases, but there are other cases where Christianity or Jesus is blamed for an atrocity. It doesn't reflect well on the employer and his company when the employee behaves badly, so keep that in mind with Jesus and his company and do not do him disservice.

May we all be loyal to him and may he forgive us our faults and trespasses.

Answering Judaism.

Thursday 19 May 2016

Jesus: The First Transgenderism man? Response to lies of the Huffington Post

I came across a horrific and offensive article, which is a testament to how theologically bankrupt the Huffington Post is.

The original can be found here and I hope by God's grace it will be dissected and refuted:

Let us take a look.

"The current flap in conservative Christian circles about bathroom access is a bit baffling. They shout about God not making mistakes, as if God only works in binaries and anything falling outside of black and white cannot be from him. But we don’t have a black and white God; creation is so full of color and variation that it’s incomprehensible how we Christians struggle to pare him down to the limited palette of our individual expectations."

What has our claim that God doesn't make mistakes got to do with supposed claiming he is black or white or full of colour and variation? Don't you think it is a problem that there are transgender men who are trying to share a bathroom, thus there would be a risk of young women being attacked, groped or even raped? Is this not a legitimate concern for anyone who has any moral decency?

"The worst offenders are the Christian’s who claim to take the Bible literally. Of course they don’t actually do that; they impose their own filters on stories and phrases to fit their particular ideology. If they really did as they claim to do, they would quickly see that Jesus must be, by their own exegetical rules, the first transgender male."

A claim to be disputed and debunked.

"Let’s take a look at what the Bible and Christianity tell us.
The teaching of the church from ancient days through today is that Jesus received his fleshly self from Mary. The church also teaches that Jesus is the new Adam, born of the new Eve.
Now Eve is a fascinating creature for many reasons. The Bible tells us she is the first example of human cloning, which I touched on in this post. But the fun doesn’t stop there. If we take the Genesis account in it’s literal meaning, as conservative Christians demand that we do, she is also the first case of a transgender woman. God reached into Adam, pulled out a bit of rib bone, and grew Eve from that XY DNA into Adam’s companion. She was created genetically male, and yet trans-formed into woman.
Then along comes Jesus and the whole pattern is both repeated and reversed. The first couple’s refusal to cooperate is turned around by Mary’s yes, and the second act of cloning occurs. The Holy Spirit comes upon the second Eve, and the child takes flesh from her and is born. Born of her flesh. Born with XX chromosome pairing. Born genetically female, and yet trans-formed into man."

It is incorrect to say that Eve was cloned, but even if she were "cloned", This is flawed reasoning. Changing the chromosome of Adam's rib has nothing to do with transgenderism endorsement. Considering the fact that God created chromosomes, do you honestly think he cannot change the chromosomes of a rib into the appropriate gender? If he did do with Eve, would not give credence to transgenderism. For that matter, it is nothing but speculation and speculation that is in vain at that.

Also, God is quite capable of giving Jesus the correct chromosomes without causing his gender to be changed in the process. Putting aside the issue of a fetus being male or female upon conception, the biological system God set up to determine our sex is not to be used to support any idea of transgenderism. It completely disarms the point of chromosomes in the first place. Even if it was a gender change (which it wasn't) it is God who is changing the gender BECAUSE OF HIM BEING THE CREATOR AND NOT BECAUSE WE SAY SO!!!! This is a case of reading into the text something that isn't there on the part of the Huffington Post. The human writer, Moses, who was inspired to write Genesis, would never of had transgenderism cross his mind when recording Adam and Eve's existence.

"States that do not support trans persons’ right to choose the restroom that fits their identity demand that bathroom usage be based on a person’s “biological sex.” One can imagine a future in which state licences require not only a vision test, but also a genetic test so that bouncers proofing at bathroom doors have something tangible to review. And that means that if Jesus and Eve were walking around today, perhaps shopping at the mall for a Father’s Day gift, they’d have to swap restrooms. Now Jesus could surely manage to finesse his way around a woman’s room, but poor Eve...
A quick look at the dictionary for the prefix “trans” tells us that it means “across,” “beyond,” “through,” and “changing thoroughly,” all of which are great terms for the person of Christ. He cuts across all boundaries. He is beyond our understanding. He is through all and in all. He changes us thoroughly into new creations.
In his person, and in his salvific actions, Jesus is truly the first and forever trans man."

What the word trans means in the dictionary is irrelevant, not in the sense that the word doesn't mean any of those things, but in the sense that even if it meant those words, this still wouldn't validate transgenderism and Deuteronomy 22:5 would not have been written to safeguard the differences between men and women:

The meaning of the word in question doesn't prove Jesus to be a trans human. This is ridiculous and perverse to suggest that he is the first and forever trans man. Saying regarding Jesus "He cuts across all boundaries. He is beyond our understanding. He is through all and in all. He changes us thoroughly into new creations" does nothing to bolster transgenderism when Jesus himself quotes the book of Genesis, establishing that there is only male and female, not trans:
"Matthew 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”[a]"

Genesis (since the Huffington Post speaks of those who take the Bible literally) clearly says this:
"5:1This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man[a] when they were created."

The Huffington Post are doing nothing but babbling and are not really saying anything. Give the Huffington Post no credence or credit at all, they are not trustworthy when it comes to scripture.

Answering Judaism.

Saturday 14 May 2016

4 questions on the Trinity: A response to Believer VS Beliefs

Here I hope by God's grace to answer 4 questions given to me on a video called "Pros and Cons of Messianic Judaism":
"1. In the doctrine of the Trinity, are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit three separate, independent "persons" capable of knowing, saying, and doing things apart from the others?"
They are distinct persons, but they do not act independently from one another. The Son only does what the Father commands and the Spirit only does what is commanded of the Father and the Son. They do not act independently from one another but act in unity and purpose with one another.

"2. Is each one considered a god separate of the others?"
A distinct person yes, another God, no. One being in three persons. Being is what you are, Person is who you are.

"3. If they are all gods, please explain the events in Mt. 3:13-17. If each of them is God, that's three gods at one baptism; and, what did Jesus need with the "Spirit of God" if he was a god."
No, one God in three persons.

Furthermore, you comment shows some ignorance on the Trinity itself.

Jesus (see Philippians 2:5-11) took on himself a human nature. He didn't cease being God, but laid aside his divine prerogatives and depended on the Spirit for source and sustenance. It was also a demonstration to Christians to be dependent on the Spirit which in turn would help us to obey the Father (And in turn also obeying Jesus). See James White's comments in his debate with Jalal Abularub from 3:51-4:27:

"4. Why call yourself a Trinitarian if you don't mean that each is a god? Everyone already accepts the existence of the three, so why even bring it up, and, why have so many people been murdered over the issue if it was all just semantics? You deceive yourself, not me."

The term Trinitarian refers to the person who believes in the Trinity ie. One God in three persons. What is your question even about? I wasn't saying the Unitarians deny the existence of the three, that wasn't my point to begin with. People have died for theology on both sides or killed on both sides, Why is that even brought up as an objection?

Answering Judaism.