Shoehorning the Roman Doctrines into Scripture: More arguments to address 2

More points for me to address. This had previously been left alone for a while so here is the paper. For some reason the release date of this article is wrong. I think it was due to the fact I uploaded it before it was finished and then turned it back into a draft.

Here it is uploaded on the 28th of June 2015
"But what of the Sacred Scripture? We also have an abundance of evidence from therein. Jeremiah and Onias pray to God on behalf of Israel. (2 Macc 15) Tobit chapter 12 tells of the 7 great Angels who pray to Yahweh on behalf of the Men on earth. Those same 7 Angels give grace and intercede on our behalf according to Revelation 1:4. Revelation 5 speaks of the elders delivering the prayers of the saints up to God himself. In Jeremiah 15:1 God speaks of the possibility of Moses and Samuel standing before him and interceding on Israel's behalf, but God himself even says this is not good enough, presupposing a precedent already set (as proven via Scriptures & Tradition) of saintly intercession. There is simply no escaping the evidence for Bobo and he grasps at desperate arguments to justify his unbiblical presuppositions. For I go off of the greatest Protestant scholars when I affirm the following:

1) The "dead" are prayed for and biblical authors themselves attempt to intercede on their behalf. ( 2 Tim 1:16-18)
2) Angels can intercede on behalf of mortal men, and the 7 Spirits offering offering prayers and graces are the 7 Angels mentioned in Jewish literature. (Tobit 12, Rev 1:4)
3) Great men of the biblical world can plead on Israel's (or believers) behalf (Jeremiah 15:1, Revelation 5, 2 Macc 15)"

1) 2 Timothy 1:16-18 as nothing to do with the dead being prayed for but rather mercy is to be granted to the house of Onesiphrous for the good he did to Paul and that Onesiphrous may have mercy from the Lord when he comes and judges the world.
"15 You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.

16 May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18 May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus."

2) How does intercession of angels on behalf of men justify praying to saints to carry your message to God? It doesn't prove such.

3) Moses and Samuel pleading on Israel's behalf in their day is fine, but again doesn't justify to praying to the saints who have passed on and gone into the presence of the Lord. In Jeremiah 15, The people of Israel's wickedness was so grievous that even if Moses or Samuel were there, he would not deter his anger from Israel, that is the point being made:

"Jeremiah 15:1 Then the Lord said to me: “Even if Moses and Samuel were to stand before me, my heart would not go out to this people. Send them away from my presence! Let them go! 2 And if they ask you, ‘Where shall we go?’ tell them, ‘This is what the Lord says:

“‘Those destined for death, to death;
those for the sword, to the sword;
those for starvation, to starvation;
those for captivity, to captivity.’"

This text cannot justify the Romanist position at all, it is simply not there.

Revelation 5 says:

"5 Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits[a] of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll
    and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
    and with your blood you purchased for God
    persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
    and they will reign[b] on the earth.”"

An interesting observation has been made by.... Well, he needs no introduction, I have mentioned him many times.
"Revelation 5:8. Catholics often appeal to Revelation 5:8 (and 8:3-4 which basically says the same thing) as supposed proof for saints being prayed to as well as them presenting these prayers to God. The text says, “And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (Revelation 5:8; cf. 8:3-4). Arguing from this passage is Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch in theirIgnatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament: “The saints in heaven mediate the praises and petitions of the saints on earth (8:3)” (Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament, [Ignatius Press, 2010], p. 499). The Catholics are guilty of distorting this text. First, the “twenty-four elders” who possess and present these prayers before God are not “saints” who are prayed to by believers. In fact, in 5:8-10 their song of praise differentiates them from people (i.e., saints) who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. They are also differentiated from the saints in 11:16-18 and 19:1-4. Instead of beings saints they are, as Robert Mounce notes, “an angelic order who serve and adore God as the heavenly counterpart to the twenty-four priestly and twenty-four Levitical orders (1 Chron 24:4; 25:9-13)” (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation: Revised, ed. Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997], pp. 121-122). In agreement are New Testament scholars Alan F. Johnson and N. B. Stonehouse. Second, the evidence shows these twenty-four elders do not have prayers because they were prayed to, as Roman writers suggest. Instead, they have prayers which people offer to God alone, and they bring them to God because of His transcendence. As Mounce further observes,

“The idea of angels acting as intermediaries and presenting the prayers of saints to God is common in later Jewish thought. In Tobit 12:15 an angel says, ‘I am Rafael, one of the seven holy angels, who present the prayers of the saints, and who go in  and out before the glory of the Holy One.’ In 3Baruch 11 it is Michael the Archangel who descends to the fifth heaven to receive the prayers of people. It was the increasing emphasis in Jewish thought on the transcendence of God that made such intermediaries appropriate. In Revelation the twenty-four elders perform this function” (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation: Revised, ed. Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997], p. 135).

Revelation 5:8-10 and 8:3-4 do not support the Roman practice of believers praying to saints and Mary and then them in turn presenting them to God. There is absolutely no biblical basis for this teaching whatsoever, and hence must be rejected by the believer. We go to God directly." Keith Thompson, Mary is not Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces, and Advocate: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/mary-is-not-co-redemptrix-mediatrix-of.html

Revelation 1:4 needs to be looked into another time. The issue of the apocrypha shall not be tackled here.

Answering Judaism.

Tackling Rabbinic Objections 2

I thought I would spend this article responding to more arguments with have been raised, specifically one's that were raised in DACON9's room on the 4th of January 2015 and I hope to address the arguments here to the best of my ability by God's grace.

Rabbi Akiva and why Jesus died on the cross?
The question raised in the room asked why Jesus said what he said on the cross if he was God and pointed out there were Jews that went to their deaths singing or listening to music.

Jesus' death however was not just physical death, but possible spiritual death when he was on the cross. For a time, Christ bore the wrath of God on the cross when he took our sins. He was quoting from Psalm 22 when he said, "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?" Psalm 22 is addressed here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by.html

This isn't to say that the Jews, Rabbi Akiva included, never went through a horrible experience, but physical death of ANYONE, pales in comparison to what Jesus had to suffer, namely the bearing of our sins on the cross and God the Father pouring out his wrath on him, The sinless Son of God dying in our place so we don't have to go to hell and pay for our sin there, Again, Jesus never went to hell just to make clear.

(The Word Faith preachers teach the evil heresy that Jesus went to hell, which didn't happen. Jesus went to Sheol, NOT to Hell.)

How could Jesus be God and Son of God when he was cut off?
When we say Jesus was God, we do NOT mean he is the Father in heaven. You have God the Son on the cross dying for our sins, appeasing the wrath of the Father.
Read the following paper "Classical Anti-Trinitarian Objections": http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/classical-trinitarian-objections.html

For more information on Jesus death and Deity, watch Sam Shamoun's teaching on this issue here: DoctorTauheed's Painful Exposure by Sam Shamoun part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWBgZ8BXRwg&list=PLF7qgivEmRdfrdM5Tmkk4rbfnOg_LvXQZ

Where was Jesus from the ages of 10-12 to 33.
Jews would of taken up the trade of their father in those days. Jesus himself would of spent most of his life as a carpenter up until the age of 30, when he was called for his ministry. He dies at the age of 33 and rises from the dead.

We don't need to know where he went considering most of his life focused on his carpentry and not his ministry.

Where did Jesus say he died for your sins?
Jesus in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 states that he came as a RANSOM for many. He indicated throughout his ministry that the Son of Man must suffer many things, die and be raised to life.

Jesus doesn't have explicitly say such, he just simply has to make the point clear.

Read the following on the "Pauline" Conspiracy:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_30.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_31.html

Read also Contra Blumenthal on the issue of Acts 21:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/contra-blumenthal-examination-of-contra.html

Does the NT tell us to seek a carnal lifestyle
The answer is a no.

"1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father[d] is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever."

Pleasure is not the highest calling of the Christian life. While there may be debates about certain issues such as hobbies, sports, movies etc as to whether or not a Christian can do these things or not, Regardless of such, they are NOT the highest calling of Christian people. Any supposed "Romans" who tell the Jews to seek pleasure rather than spirituality and holiness, to put it mildly have no idea what they are talking about.

For that matter, THE WHOLE of life is to be sanctified to the LORD, Not just the religious part. For example. Any hobby you have, you may need to ask yourself if it pleases God and to make sure it doesn't violate your conscience.

Bottom line, HOLINESS IS VITAL to the Christian.

See the documentary called "Joel Osteen: Origins & Errors of His Teaching (a Film by Keith Thompson)": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_CRWZNUkrk

Who wrote the Gospels
The authors were who they said they were and may have dictated to others to write their gospels down. Can anyone be sure that the TANAKH itself was written by the prophets or dictated by them to others if we hold to TANAKH AND the NT to the same standard which we should?

I recommend all to read this article by Keith Thompson on this issue:
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2012/02/who-wrote-gospels-internal-and-external.html

Was Mary considered a prostitute? Gynecology report?
There were Gossip mongerers recorded in the NT that claimed Mary was a prostitute or a woman of not so noble stock because of the pregnancy. However, no evidence exists to demonstrate that she was a whore.

Let's look at the context of Matthew 1 and Luke 1:
"18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

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

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

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

Joseph was fully aware of Mary's immaculate conception but others around them may not be so understanding and thus he intended to seek a quiet divorce rather than needlessly shame and embarrass Mary. The angel came to him and told him not to worry and marry her.

"Luke 1:26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her."

Mary was approached by the angel and comforted despite what had transpired. Here we see Mary herself was not guilty of the very charge of prostitution here. The angel's words to here are not "I know you are not a virgin, don't lie, this child was conceived because of your prostitution but God will use him for a purpose", he instead says that she will give birth to a son, WITH NO SEXUAL CONTACT WHATSOEVER. Just read verse 35-37 to see how the angel responded.

Some may claim Mary was lying, But for what reason would she lie? Also, How would one assert ONLY Mary saw it, Joseph witnessed it as well. But certainly I am happy to set up a page where many people can talk this issue out. There are two options, Either the angel who came to her was telling the truth, or he set up a satanic deception. I am inclined to think it was the former.

As for providing a gynecology report, that is nothing more than a facetious comment, a case of throwing sand in the air and to be honest is a red herring.

500 people together
A supposed claim was made that Jews could not meet together in groups higher than five in the days of the Romans or something of that nature. What document says this? and even if this was the case, Jesus appeared over the course of 6 weeks, spotted 12 times by 500, not spotted by 500 at the same time. This argument against the resurrection really has no weight.

Now before anyone claims the resurrection doesn't validate Jesus' claims and that he stands condemned by Deuteronomy 13, read the following papers on this topic:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication-2.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/spiritual-experiences-what-can-they.html

Keith Thompson in response to Muslim Apologist Ibn Anwar, makes a strong case regarding the 500 that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:6:
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2012/09/the-historicity-of-appearance-to-500-in.html

What is Satan
One of beliefs found in Rabbinic Judaism about Satan and other angels is the fact they do not possess free will. Satan himself in Rabbinic Judaism is not considered to be an enemy, but as a matter of fact is actually considered a helper, by that I mean he actually helps others not to sin and not only this, the concept of a fallen angel is a foreign concept. Whether this is a widespread Rabbinic belief I would need to check and you would need to check also.

First, God gives free will not only to the human race, but also to the angels themselves. An angel turning against God doesn't make God weak or anything like that. The angels that fell had a choice and to put it a certain way. They chose.... poorly, as did Adam and Eve, with the main difference being humans are given a chance to repent, whereas salvation is not available to the fallen angels, who were perfectly aware of the glory of God and spurned it anyway. There is no salvation for demons.

Satan did have the job of reporting sins in the book of Job, hence why he appeared before God but by the time that Job occured, Satan had become so cynical that he cannot believe man would love God for his own sake.

If Satan was going to be kicked out of heaven, he would drag humanity down with him and he appeared as a serpent in the garden, tempting Eve.

Read the following for more information:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/gods-sovereignty-and-mans-free-will-do.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/adam-eve-and-fall-response-to-sophiee.html

I hope these objections have been addressed adequately, thanks for reading.

Answering Judaism.

Ps, Edit 8th of January 2015: I meant to say that the "This isn't to say the Jews never went through a horrible experience" but forgot to add the never.

The error has been corrected.

Edit 15th of April 2015. I thought Immanuel Schochet was arguing the same as DACON9, but after listening to the recording, He wasn't. My apologies I misheard and my apologies to anyone who was mislead.

Anti-Person? What does it mean?

When one responds to Roman Catholic arguments, they are called Anti-Catholic.
When one responds to Rabbinical Jewish arguments, they are called Anti-Semites
When one refutes the lies of those who propound the falsehood that homosexuality as biblically good, they are called homophobes
When one raises a concern about Islam, they are called Islamophobes.

These are often the phrases used either to irrationally dismiss the arguments of an individual or it's an emotional response when one doesn't have an answer. (Or if an answer can be given but still tries to get an emotional response from the audience.)

But in all seriousness, there is a difference between doing a response to these groups on a particular issue and just being plain nasty.

There is hateful bigotry out there toward these people and I don't deny this, but not everyone is guilty of this.

If one responds to an argument presented by any of the groups above and even presents a thorough refutation to the points made, Is the person inciting hateful bigotry towards these individuals? No.

Hateful bigotry would be simply just having a detestation for them without recognizing that not all individuals in a group are exactly the same.

There are individuals who from a human perspective (I say this due to the fact man is depraved by nature) who just simply want to live out there lives, not hurt a single individual and even display acts of kindness and charity, but, there are people who give a bad name to some of these groups to be sure.

If I say someone is giving a group a bad name, Am I demonstrating hate toward that person? No, I am simply pointing out that there are rotten apples in every basket.

You get bad eggs in every group, it's a fact, but responding to the arguments of a particular group does not mean you are "Anti-Catholic" or "Anti-Semitic" or "Islamophobic" or "homophobic" or whatever you want to throw at someone to envoke a particular reaction from your audience.

The next time either me or another person is responding to a heretic group in a paper, ask yourself. Are we actually promoting "hate speech"? or getting both sides to think.

Answering Judaism.

Shoehorning the Roman Doctrines into Scripture: More arguments to address

Here is the article that was promised responding to QuinQue Viae once again. The first few points have been covered here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/clearing-air-once-again-2.html

Now onto the doctrinal arguments.
"The first claim is a peculiar one and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Bobo has an unfounded assertion that Catholics have to believe Mary is both omnipresent or omniscient. Why does he come to this bizarre conclusion? Because Mary can hear multiple prayers at the same time from different parts of the world. Bobo then makes the argument that only God can have these attributes so Catholics applying them to Mary is a form of idolatry. The argument has a few fundamental problems with it. For one, a being that is able to hear multiple prayers and be at different places at the same time does not make said being either omnipresent or omniscient. Far from it. If I were somehow able to be present in Spain and America at the same time, does that make me omnipresent? No, it would make me a being that had the ability of bilocation."

There is no human entity in scripture that possesses the ability of bilocation. If Mary could hear multiple prayers at once, then she has to be omnipresent to begin with, not simply have bilocation.

For those who are unaware, Bilocation is defined here:

"I. The question whether the same finite being (especially a body) can be at once in two (bilocation) or more (replication, multilocation) totally different places grew out of the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist. According to this Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in every consecrated Host wheresoever located. In the endeavour to connect this fact of faith with the other conceptions of the Catholic mind theologians make the following distinctions:"
and

"II. That bilocation (multilocation) is physically impossible, that is, contrary to all the conditions of matter at present known to us, is the practically unanimous teaching of Catholic philosophers in accordance with universalexperience and natural science. As to the absolute or metaphysical impossibility, that is, whether bilocation involves an intrinsic contradiction, so that by no exertion even of Omnipotence could the same body be at once in wholly different places — to this question the foregoing distinctions are pertinent."

Read here for more information: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02568a.htm

"Now what if I were a 100 places at once? Or a million places at once? I'm still infinitely distant from being omnipresent. Rather, the term one would use is multipresent. Meaning, many places at once. There is nothing unbiblical, theologically absurd, or philosophically illogical about God granting an exalted being the ability to be at more places than one at the same time. In fact this is exactly what I would expect from an entity that dwells beyond the three-dimensional understanding of things. Ironically enough, in common Protestant theology (and I would also argue this is in the biblical worldview) Satan has the ability to be multipresent and multiscient. He is described by St. Peter as a roaring lion, threatening every believer at all times. He is given the title of "God of this world" and seen to be the ultimate tempter among christians. In the dialogue with Christ, Satan is able to present all the nations of the Earth to Jesus seemingly at the same time. So Satan has the ability to be multipresent and multiscient yet Saints who are exalted by God in Christian theology actually lack this ability? The view Bobo presents makes absolutely no sense and is debunked by basic logic. Saying a being (in this case Mary) can be in my house and on some island off the coast of Asia isn't showing the attribute of omnipresence but rather multipresence."

Satan and his demons are a threat to all Christians, Satan is not the only threat. Satan cannot be in more than one place at one and even granting multipresence as an argument for Mary and the saints being prayed to, nothing from scripture has been offered and Satan being the God of this world in 2 Corinthians 4:4 refers to Satan simply having dominion and power over the whole world, that's it, it isn't suggesting he has multipresence.

"Likewise, Mary being "multiscient" (to know many things) does not infer that she is omniscient like God. For example, I have no problem with Mary being able to be consciously aware of one's sins and subconsciously aware of many more things. Does this mean she knows the inner workings and chemical mixture found in the depths of an ocean in Europas, one of the many Moons of Jupiter? Of course not! The problem with Bobo and these other low-brow anti-catholic apologists is that they do not even attempt to properly express the Catholic understanding of these dogmas, rather they just work off of their own inner [mis]representation of Scripture & Tradition alike, and then proceed from there. Suffice to say it's a rather annoying habit of theirs and it's almost impossible to have an honest dialogue with men like this. ""

Can you show me biblically speaking where Mary has this attribute granted to her, NO, Quin cannot show you such thinking. Mary is in heaven with the believers in Jesus, she is not going to be aware of what is transpiring on the earth since she is in heaven with Lord. Even if she possessed multipresence, she wouldn't hear the prayers of men since to this world, she is dead and cannot communicate with us.

"The next point of his is to bring up Saintly Intercession as some hideous unbiblical doctrine that has no precedence in Judaism or Jewish literature. A peculiar statement by somehow that is some self-professed "missionary" to the Jews. What an embarrassment this is to Christianity! We have someone who is basing their ministry off of preaching to Jews that doesn't even know Saintly Intercession is a Rabbinic belief and found in many orthodox circles. How can a joker like this even be taken seriously in these Jewish-Christian dialogues of his? Like I said, he is not a good representative of the faith and based upon my private judgement I would say the guy clearly has deep-seated theological issues that he has not quite worked out yet. But now onto the topic of saintly intercession."

The issue of saintly intercession was something I wasn't aware of until I looked into it and here's why,
1. No idea it existed until I looked.
2. It wasn't relevant to the responses to Rabbinic Judaism that I was doing.

Why bother raising a point to someone when it is NOT relevant to the topic itself? If you look at my papers on Judaism, not once does the issue of Saintly intercession ever arise, it wasn't important at the time and still isn't important to speak about with respect to proving Jesus to be the Messiah and YHWH God.

"Bobo's point is that Saints interceding and men praying to Saints would have warranted a death penalty among old testament Jews. The problem is that the modern day Jews, who still read the scripture in Hebrew and preserve a tradition that stems from the early Christian period, actually do practice saintly intercession and saintly veneration. From Chabad: 
"Rabbi Chaim Joseph David Azulai died at the ripe old age of 83, in Leghorn, Italy. His memory continued to live in the hearts of his people. Many Jews used to make pilgrimages to his grave or send letters to be deposited there, praying that the saintly Rabbi be an intercessor for them in the Heavenly Court."

This is the view of many modern Orthodox Jews, ones who read the texts in the original Hebrew and do not see prayers to saints and intercession before God as being a fundamental violation of monotheism. Nor do they make the bizarre connection that heretic Bobo makes and associate saintly intercession with "necromancy." Necromancy in the Jewish world view means to contact the dead for wisdom or to use in witchcraft, usually it is associated with Mediums. It doesn't have anything to do with the dead being "exalted" to the status of a saint and being able to pray on behalf of your soul to Yahweh himself. The latter is not a controversial idea at all, and goes back to pre-christian canonical, Deutero-canonical, and Apocryphal Jewish literature. "

If you pray to a saint and ask for their intercession, it is necromancy. No matter how you want to try and get around it, communication with the dead for ANY reason is necromancy and no the transfiguration is not a counter example: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/mary-greatest-woman-who-ever-lived.html

There is nothing wrong with those being exalted to sainthood, that's not disputable, but that is no justification to pray to them or seek intercession. The Rabbinic Jews have no biblical basis for it. I wouldn't mind seeing the OT justification for it. To be honest, so far not a lot has been said.*

There is more to say but that shall be saved for another time.

Answering Judaism.

Addendum: To the Rabbinic Jews reading this, if you have any points, let me know if you think the understanding presented by the Roman Catholics are the same as yours or not.

*25th or March 2015. I have recently come across a video by Rabbi Tovia Singer on why Jews go to the grave of their forefathers or great saintly men. This video by him should clarify some misunderstandings on the issue:
Rabbi Tovia Singer discusses the Jewish tradition of praying at a gravesite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUEuj0p6eUI

Clearing the air: Language and Understanding

In this article I desire to address two major points that two apostates have brought to me and I wish to put these objections to rest here on this article.

How can you answer Judaism when you don't understand Christianity?

This comment is often made by CT West Coast, a Roman Catholic who has denied the Trinity. When he started to I do not know but have been aware of his anti trinitarian stance for some time.

CT (assuming he is still part of the Roman system) is assuming the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church which Jesus founded, however it can be demonstrated forcefully that modern day Romanism has no root or foundation in the early Church Fathers or even the New Testament scriptures.

 Taking the New Testament documents as historical documents alone, you still have a high christology, such as Trinitarian belief rooted implicitly in the thinking of Jesus and the apostles, baptism and other beliefs I could list.

Case and point, the New Testament gives us an early picture of the Messianic Jews (Christians from Jewish backgrounds) and the Gentile Christians and what they believed. They certainly did not told to the teachings of Romanism that plague us today.

But by CT's own logic, he does not understand biblical Christianity since he even admits that he doesn't believe in the Trinity itself. The Roman catholic will agree that The Trinity is a vital doctrine to hold and if they are going to be honest, will have to admit those who deny the Trinity are outside Rome's flock.

How can you address someone if you don't know the language?

This objection is raised by Guard of Gold (he has several nics).

First, if one isn't an expert in a language, they can look into the language by reliable lexical material, they can get an understanding of syntax and other things a language contains or better yet attempt to learn the language from someone who himself is an expert on the language.

The argument that somehow a translation is not the true book, be it the claims "If it's not in Hebrew, its not TANAKH" or "If it's not in Arabic, its not Quran" is just a pointless argument.

"Nehemiah 8:5 Ezra opened the book. All the people could see him because he was standing above them; and as he opened it, the people all stood up. 6 Ezra praised the Lord, the great God; and all the people lifted their hands and responded, “Amen! Amen!” Then they bowed down and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground.

7 The Levites—Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan and Pelaiah—instructed the people in the Law while the people were standing there. 8 They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear[a] and giving the meaning so that the people understood what was being read."*

Some of the individuals who came back from Babylon could not even speak their native Hebrew, does this mean they themselves didn't have the TANAKH? No, that reasoning about any book in another language is absurd.

Be sensitive to the fact that not everyone can speak the original languages. As long the translation conveys the original meaning of the original language, the translation has done its job.

This isn't to disparage learning the language itself, it can be very helpful to learn it yourself and even having a reliable lexicon itself can be of great value.

Hopefully these two objections have been addressed and if some are offended by me referring to the two I have addressed here as apostates, I am just simply calling a spade a spade.

If you hear these two points from these men, direct others to this paper.

Answering Judaism.

*26th of March 2015. PS. It is quite possible that some individuals did have the Hebrew language, namely thanks to the teachers preserving it to them, or the individuals remembered their Hebrew after coming back from exile.

What can the Old Testament teach us about worship?

While much of the Old Testament law itself doesn't apply to Christians, it nevertheless has value to us today, since the Old Testament is described to us as God Breathed, amongst other true things.

To see what applies to us today, read the following article: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/observance-of-torah-demanded-of-gentiles.html

The Old Testament in its context shows God as one who wants worship to be conducted in an orderly manner HE decreed it. I put the emphasis on he because on many occasions, churches will often say "Well scripture doesn't condemn it but whose to say its wrong?".

Here are some examples:
"Deuteronomy 5:1 Moses summoned all Israel and said:

Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors[a] that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. 4 The Lord spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain."

"Deuteronomy 10:12 And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?"

"Deuteronomy 6:17 Be sure to keep the commands of the Lord your God and the stipulations and decrees he has given you. 18 Do what is right and good in the Lord’s sight, so that it may go well with you and you may go in and take over the good land the Lord promised on oath to your ancestors, 19 thrusting out all your enemies before you, as the Lord said."

"Exodus 40:12 “Bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance to the tent of meeting and wash them with water. 13 Then dress Aaron in the sacred garments, anoint him and consecrate him so he may serve me as priest. 14 Bring his sons and dress them in tunics. 15 Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve me as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue throughout their generations.” 16 Moses did everything just as the Lord commanded him."

But that's my point, Shouldn't man be asking God of guidance through his word, or even consulting him directly what his will is?

Yes, there are things not directly addressed in scripture, but you must ask yourself if they are truly God honouring, otherwise you'll end up reducing church leadership to something that is a play thing or let's say removing from the parents responsibility to raise their children up in the way of the Lord.

It must be determined if something is an acceptable practice and not simply because it seems good or fits our thinking, but whether or not the practice is something that is right in the Lord's sight.

David Pawson once posed an interesting question that has relevance here namely "What does God feel about it?" That question should resonate with every Christian hears or reads the question itself.

Think on this.

Answering Judaism.

Comments on "4 Teachings of Jesus That His Followers (Almost) Never Take Seriously"

The original article written by Brandon Robertson can be found here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandan-robertson/4-teachings-of-jesus-that_b_6343320.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I thought I would spend time commenting on the article itself and see if his points do stand up to scrutiny.

"It's no secret that those of us who claim to follow Jesus Christ consistently fall short of living up to the way of life of our Rabbi. Being a disciple of Jesus is a lifelong journey towards conforming ourselves to the image and way of life that Jesus taught. However, so often, followers of Jesus chose to blatantly ignore some of the clearest instruction of our Rabbi and obscure it with vague theology so that we can get off the hook. Other times, followers of Jesus are taught something explicitly contradictory to the plain words of Jesus and then spend their lives obeying the instruction they received instead of the commands of Jesus."

This is something that is correct, there are Christians who do say "Lord Lord" but do not do what he says. There really isn't much for me to say on this point since so far, it's legit.

"However we end up at the place of disobedience, all of us who claim to be followers of Jesus struggle to obey the commands of our Lord. One of the most transformative periods in my faith was when I took time to re-read the Gospels of the New Testament and get reacquainted with Jesus' himself, in his own words. As I studied the words of Jesus, I discovered that so much of what he asks of us as his disciples is incredibly clear and yet so much of it was new to me. I had never heard it in church or Sunday school or actually heard someone teach the exact opposite of the words of Christ. It was during that season of my life where I took inventory of how I lived and what I believed and aligned to the person and teachings of Christ that my faith was radically transformed for the better.
Below I have compiled a short list of 4 clear teachings of Jesus that most of us who exist within Evangelicalism have either never heard, refuse to acknowledge, or believe the exact opposite of. It's my hope that by rereading these teachings of Christ, you will be inspired, like I have been, to return to the Gospels and begin to reshape your faith and life around the way and teachings of our Master, Jesus. Get ready and buckle up, because most of what Jesus says is pretty bold and potent. It'll shake up your faith!"

Well Sunday school to be honest really isn't going to give man a solid foundation regarding the word of God and in some cases in church, there is more tickling of the ears rather than actually preaching the truth, no matter how much it hurts. There are things I have concluded that I wouldn't find in Sunday School.

"1. Jesus, not the Bible, is God's living and active Word that brings life.

"You don't have His word living in you, because you don't believe the One He sent. You study the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about Me. And you are not willing to come to Me so that you may have life."- John 5:39-40 HCSB

The Christian life is one that is fundamentally rooted in the reality that Jesus Christ is living and active. He interacts with us on a day to day basis and desires that we cultivate an intimate relationship with him. The more we commune with the Spirit of Christ, the more life and truth we are exposed to and are able to comprehend. However, for many Evangelicals, we rely more on the Bible than we do on the living and active Spirit of God within us. We fear that following the Spirit could lead to confusion and subjectivity and so we root our faith in the Bible. The problem is that a faith that is rooted in the Scripture alone is not sustainable. It will dry up and wither on the vine. While the Bible is an important and authoritative guide for Christian faith and practice, it isn't the foundation or center of our faith- Jesus is. And if we truly believe that he is alive, we should also have faith that communing with him will produce spiritual life within us. He is the living Word that we can ask anything to and expect, in faith, to receive and answer. Sometimes he will speak through Scripture. Other times he will speak through our friends and family. Other times he will find unique and special ways to reveal himself to us. But in order to maintain a vibrant and living faith, we must not make the Bible our substitute for communion with the living Word of God. Studying Scripture is valuable, but nowhere near as valuable as cultivating a day to day relationship with the God incarnate."

Sola Scriptura itself doesn't deny Jesus is the word of God, nor does it hinder the work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who himself can help Christians understand the scriptures. A belief in Sola Scriptura and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit points to Jesus as the center. In fact a Sola Scripturist is concerned with what Jesus himself said rather than the teachings of men.

Sola Scripturists like myself acknowledge that God himself can use other people to convict us, judge us, HOWEVER, We need to test what is of the Spirit and what isn't. You cannot assume every voice in your mind is of the Spirit, you need to discern what is of the Spirit and what isn't and God will not lead a man into disobeying his commands.

There are individuals who look at say the actions of heretics like the Kansas City Prophets and the Word Faith movements and say that the Spirit is with them, which is something those groups claim. You here this "I have this word from the LORD" and yet their word contradicts the Bible.

In the function of the church today, The Spirit and scripture work in unison, they don't contradict each other. We need to be careful whose words we hear in out mind.

Sam Shamoun highlights the following in his paper on Sola Scriptura:
"2. Does not deny the ultimate importance of the Holy Spirit.

It is only by the Holy Spirit’s illumination that a person is able to understand and believe in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the one who enables a person to accept the inspiration, sufficiency, infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures: 

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14:26

“This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:13-14

“Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus be cursed,’ and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:3

“I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,” Ephesians 1:17-18

“But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth… I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit-just as it has taught you, remain in him.” 1 John 2:20, 26-27" Sam Shamoun, A Brief Articulation of Sola Scriptura.

As you can see, Sola Scriptura doesn't leave the Holy Spirit out of the equation. Some individuals do, but not all.

"2. The only way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is through DOING the will of God. 

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 ESV

"An expert in the law stood up to test Him, saying, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?""What is written in the law?" He asked him. "How do you read it?"He answered: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."You've answered correctly," He told him. "Do this and you will live."- Luke 10: 25-28 HCSB

"We are saved by faith alone, apart from works!" This is a very popular Protestant catch phrase. The doctrine of sola fide (faith alone) was developed by the Reformers in response to the Roman Catholic Churches corrupted teachings that emerged in the 16th Century teaching that one could gain favor with God and shave off years in Hell and Purgatory by giving money to the church or doing acts of penance. The intention of the doctrine of faith alone was very good- to correct the error that our salvation could be earned or that God's grace could be manipulated. But like most doctrines that are formulated in response to another group's doctrine, it often goes too far. One of the clearest teachings throughout all four Gospel accounts is that the way to enter the Kingdom of God is through living in obedience to the Law of Christ. Time and time again, Jesus makes very clear statements that condemn those who think that they will be saved because they believe the right things or do the right religious rituals. Jesus responds to people who believe they are religious and deserve heaven by saying that their outward religiosity is detestable to God and the only thing God desires is that they would exercise their faith by obeying the command of God- to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly. (Micah 6:8) Jesus says if anyone claims to be right with God but doesn't serve the poor, needy, oppressed, marginalized, sick, diseased, and sinful, then they do not have a relationship with God. No matter what they proclaim with their lips. No matter how religious they may appear. Jesus says those who don't obey will have no part in his Kingdom. He makes very clear that the way to "inherit eternal life" is through loving God and loving our neighbor. Isn't it astonishing, then, how many Christians today have been taught that salvation comes through right believing instead of right practice- a message that is fundamentally contrary to the words of Jesus. (And even more to his little brother James who says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24 ESV)"

What is seen here to me is an abysmal understanding of the doctrine of faith alone.

Justification by faith alone is a legal declaration. It is saying that those who have come to Jesus in repentant faith are washed clean from their sins. They are born again, they do not earn their salvation and good works that they do are something done in gratitude to Jesus, NOT to earn salvation. It is trusting in his finished work on the cross rather than relying on our good deeds.
"Romans 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

Good deeds are something the Christian himself is prepared for, not something that gains them entry into heaven:

"Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Those who have been justified and truly root themselves in Christ, don't do good works to get saved, but do them because they have been saved. If your faith is really there, then your works will demonstrate it and prove it to others.

Read the following article I have written on James 2 for more information the passage:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/james-2-does-it-refute-justification-by.html

Keith Thompson makes the following observation in his article:
"Now, the other argument is that since James 2:21 says Abraham was justified by works when he offered up Isaac on the alter in Genesis 22, this must mean Abraham was justified more than once in the same way in which Paul describes in Genesis 15:6. However, the problem with this argument is that James and Paul are talking about two different things. Paul is talking about Abraham being declared righteous or acquitted by faith apart from works based on righteousness being credited or imputed to Abraham’s account. This is not what James is talking about. As New Testament scholar Robert Reymond observes, “Whereas Paul intends by ‘justified’ the actual act on God’s part whereby he pardons and imputes righteousness to the ungodly, James intends by ‘justified’ the verdict which God declares when the actually (previously) justified man has demonstrated his actual righteous state by obedience and good works” (Robert Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, [Christian Focus Publications, 2000], p. 442). To demonstrate the existence of this concept Reymond further notes, “That a distinction must be drawn between God’s actual act of justification whereby he pardons and constitutes the sinner righteous and his subsequent declaring act of justification whereby he openly acquits the justified sinner before others is verified by our Lord’s actions in connection with the woman who washed his feet in Luke 7:36-50. He openly declares to Simon the Pharisee and to the woman herself that her many sins were forgiven (vss 47-48) ‘because she loved much [ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ]’ (47). But it is apparent that she had already been actually forgiven on some previous occasion because her acts of devotion toward him – the fruit and evidence of a lively faith – were due, he states, to her having already had ‘her debt cancelled’ (41-43). The chain of events then is as follows: On some previous occasion Jesus had forgiven her (her actualjustification). This provoked in her both love for him and acts of devotion toward him. This outward evidence of her justified state evoked from Christ his open declaration that she was forgiven (herdeclared justification)” (Robert Reymond, Paul: Missionary Theologian, [Christian Focus Publications, 2000], p. 442 n. 27). Indeed, James is teaching by doing works Abraham was declared to have already been justified by faith (James 2:23), that is his "declared justification," not that he was made right with God through works. Paul is clear that comes by faith apart from works so that no one can boast (Romans 4:2-8). James is affirming, then, works are the evidence of being declared righteous or justified by faith and they result in God openly declaring the person to be justified. Every true believer will exhibit these works, not because they merit right standing with God or contribute to actual acquittal, but because they are the evidence of justification, or the completion of faith (James 2:22)." Keith Thompson, Justification is by Faith Alone: Issues and Evidence: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/justification-is-by-faith-alone-issues.html

"3. Condemnation isn't Jesus' style.

"I have not come to condemn the world, but to save it." John 3:17 ESV

"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."- John 8:11 ESV

Many modern day Evangelical preachers spend a lot of time talking about the kinds of people that God is opposed to and who he condemns. They spend time talking about how to transition from a position of condemnation before God to a position of Grace through believing the right things about Jesus. They often talk about those who disagree or live contrary to their understanding of what is "righteous" as those who are under condemnation from God. But what's funny is that as one examines the teachings and life of Jesus, we find him not only befriending, loving, and affirming some of his societies most despised and vile people, but chastising the religious leaders who condemned them for their sin. Whether it is Jesus' conversation with Rabbi Niccodemus in John 3 where Christ explains that it is his mission to redeem the world and not to condemn it or the instance where a woman is caught in the act of adultery and is taken outside to be stoned by the religious officials (as the law required) and Jesus steps in to stop the condemnation and proclaim freedom and forgiveness to the broken woman, it is clear that Jesus is not in the condemning business. Instead, it seems Christ is in the business of restoring humanity to the most broken and wicked of people. It seems that his passion is to see the weak, sick, and broken become strong, healthy, and whole in his Kingdom. It seems that he spends very little time (almost none) telling sinners why they're wrong or speaking words of condemnation over them, but rather practically loving and extending grace to the most screwed up of individuals. Maybe we Evangelicals, who are known for our condemnation of entire people groups with whom we disagree, could learn something from Jesus on this point."

Jesus himself did indeed love unbelievers, no question about that, but that doesn't mean he himself approved of their sin., which Robertson would agree with me on.

There isn't much for me to say, but definitely the harshest words should reserved for heretics misleading the church.

Jesus makes it clear in the context of John 3 that those who refuse to believe on him and obey, will receive condemnation. Any warning of hell that is given in the New Testament is given to the apostles and the believers in Jesus, not to those who don't believe.

Unbelievers should be warned of the dangers of rejecting Jesus to be sure, but the church must remember these warnings as a reminder to abide in Christ.

"4. You're supposed to sacrifice yourself and speak words of blessings for those you disagree with the most.

"Love Your Enemies and Bless Those Who Persecute You" Matthew 5:44 ESV

It seems like every week there is a new major controversy taking place within the Church. Most of the time, the situation revolves around one group of Christians disagreeing with another and then taking to the internet to write slanderous posts about the other. If it's not infighting, then it is Christians engaging in culture wars, working to defeat those whom we disagree with politically and socially by painting them as soul-less monsters. But that response is absolutely contrary to the way of Jesus. Jesus calls his followers to love the people they disagree with most and to speak blessings over them when all we really want to do is curse them out. No matter what the situation is or what kind of enemy we have, Christians are called to bless the people who hurt us the most. This includes in theological battles, political disagreements, national wars, and personal conflicts. Christians are called to a radical position of nonviolence and forgiveness, grace, and even blessing of our enemies. There is no way around it. And when Christians chose to ignore these clear teachings, our hypocrisy is glaringly obvious to the watching world. Want some proof? Take a couple minutes to watch this clip of the famous Agnostic Comedian, Bill Maher, talk about Christian's refusal to obey the teaching of Jesus. (Contains explicit language)"

Over neutral issues, like what food Christians eat are a matter of conscience and Christians shouldn't bind us in that regard. However, when heresy creeps into the church, there has to be division in order to sift the good from the bad. Jesus did not say "Oh don't bother with theological battle, just simply love your enemies", He called his followers to BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHERS, namely those who sought to misrepresent his teaching and lead them astray. Christians have a responsibility to the wolves away from the sheep lest they be mislead.

Praying for those persecute you and loving your enemies is not a form of pacifism and Robertson forgets that Jesus himself did have harsh things to say to the false teachers own faces, He even called the Pharisees a brood of vipers. Does this mean Jesus was being a hypocrite, no. Even Paul himself and the other writers of the NT wrote about  It's about balance.

Furthermore, Peter warns about ignorant and unstable people who distort the scriptures (referring to the OT and possibly the Gospels) to their own destruction, as well as Paul's letters. While Jesus did have harsh things to say about his enemies, but that is not a contradiction with love your enemies. You need to pray for them to repent of their sin and witness to them.

Here are some examples
"Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

11 “I baptize you with[b] water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with[c] the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”"

"Matthew 12:33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”"

Read also Matthew 23:13-36.

Here are also examples from the epistles
"Galatians 5:10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

"2nd Peter 2:2 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them in chains of darkness[b] to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6 if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless 8 (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. 10 This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh[c] and despise authority.

Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; 11 yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from[d] the Lord. 12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.

13 They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.[e] 14 With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! 15 They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer,[f] who loved the wages of wickedness. 16 But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—an animal without speech—who spoke with a human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness."

Is one going to say the apostles are guilty of being unkind, I think not.

Ignatius, an early church Father and a student of the apostle John himself in his letter even exhorted the Smyrneans to pray for the heretics to repent:
"Chapter 4. Beware of these heretics

I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you 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 in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, Romans 8:17 He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me. Philippians 4:13" The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

Even Ignatius of Antioch did have harsh words for heretics. This is the early church, not our modern day 21st century thinking.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying we should deliberately go out of our way to hurt people and be malicious and nasty, there is a difference between speaking harsh words to a false teacher and just being a git to them. It is again balance that is required.

One example of an extreme which Robertson is RIGHTLY concerned about I can think of is the heretic Steven Anderson, who has suggested that the government should put homosexuals to death or we will have an aids free Christmas if they die.

Homosexuality is a sin indeed, but Anderson is taking the wrong approach. he should be speaking to the homosexual and bringing the Gospel to them, NOT calling for their death.

These is indeed one example of an extreme that Robertson is rightly concerned about as said before.

"That video may be hard to stomach but Bill Maher is 100% correct. "If you ignore every single thing Jesus commanded you to do, you're not a Christian."
The point of this post is to encourage those of us who claim to be followers of Jesus to reexamine how we are living our lives and practicing our faith. It is so easy to get so caught up in the flow that we fail to recognize just how far away from shore we have been carried. The words of Jesus are pretty darn clear, but oftentimes in our zealousness for our faith, we often get pulled away from the basics and eventually end up living in a way that we believe is honoring to God, but is actually contradictory to everything he has taught us."

Well Christians should obey Jesus. Some do fall into extremes and need to correct their thinking and line it up with biblical thinking.

That is all I have to say on this article for now. Thanks for reading.

Answering Judaism.

Edit: I put "but that doesn't mean he himself did not approve of sin" by mistake. I meant to say Jesus did not approve of their sin.