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, 26 May 2016
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: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/jesus-the-first-transgend_b_10006134.html
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.
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...
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: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2016/02/deuteronomy-225-comments.html
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.
The original can be found here and I hope by God's grace it will be dissected and refuted: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/jesus-the-first-transgend_b_10006134.html
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.
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.
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: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2016/02/deuteronomy-225-comments.html
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": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7ww6OLzFE8
"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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yTlx943q28
"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.
"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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yTlx943q28
"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.
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Is there a Trinity or Functional Godhead? Response to Menashe Walsh 2
There was an article I had looked at a while back by Menashe Walsh.
I have done an article commenting on part of it but there was more that needed to be looked at in context and it is long overdue.
First, take a look at Menashe's blog first:
https://menashedovid1.wordpress.com/godhead/
Here's my article which responds to part of it:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/is-there-trinity-or-functional-godhead.html
"A typical position taken by ‘Jewish’ (?) Adventists is given below:
We'll get to Zechariah 12 momentarily.
"The 12th Chapter in the Book of Zechariah describes a war of nations against Jerusalem, in which Judeans fought on the side of the enemy for a while and, when they realized that G-d was with the people of Jerusalem, they “turned around” and joined the battle against the enemy, which led to the deliverance of Jerusalem and the restoration of its status. The victory will, however, be followed by grievous mourning over those who fell in the battle. The passage Zechariah 12:8-14, when read in the original Hebrew text, or in a correct translation thereof, clearly shows that the prophet could not possibly have spoken of Jesus. For example, the prophet makes the promise that Jerusalem and its inhabitants will be protected:
Naturally, a Christian, including myself would acknowledge a second coming, but in any case, I will not dispute that the chapter does refer to the protection of Jerusalem and God joining Israel in the battle to turn the tide against the Gentiles who are attacking them.
The point is, what the passage referring to? Does it refer to a battle that took place after the writing of Zechariah a little while afterward, or is it a future event that is going to happen? It would be a possible reference to both.
But putting that aside, considering the events taking place to this day in Israel and the Jews receiving the protection, it is plausible that they have that protection from God now despite belief or unbelief. But does Zechariah 12 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem 40 years after Jesus came? I'll agree it doesn't.
A question I would ask the Jews, regarding the ones or one who are pierced, When were they or when was he pierced? Was it during a battle or before a battle someone had been pierced? One way to look at the passage is that all the events transpire in Zechariah 12 in the end of days, then finally the
Jews see Jesus face to face and mourn because they pierced him, the very one who can offer redemption and protection. In other words the piercing had already taken place before a major battle itself.
Would it be possible that Jesus' death is actually a catalyst for these events in Zechariah 12 and then the Jews coming to grips with what they did to the Messiah are possibly reconciled to him? I'll leave you the reader to decide.
"The prophet also foretells the destruction of those nations that attacked Jerusalem:
Exodus 32:31-33, Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18 are easy to address. They do not refer to vicarious atonement. The latter two simply point out that we are responsible to God for our own sins. I touch upon Exodus briefly in my response to Eli Cohen: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html
Although not mentioned in my article, Jeremiah 31:29 follows the same principle, as does Ezekiel 18:4.
As for Psalm 49, let's read it.
"Psalm 49:1 Hear this, all you peoples;
listen, all who live in this world,
2 both low and high,
rich and poor alike:
3 My mouth will speak words of wisdom;
the meditation of my heart will give you understanding.
4 I will turn my ear to a proverb;
with the harp I will expound my riddle:
5 Why should I fear when evil days come,
when wicked deceivers surround me—
6 those who trust in their wealth
and boast of their great riches?
7 No one can redeem the life of another
or give to God a ransom for them—
8 the ransom for a life is costly,
no payment is ever enough—
9 so that they should live on forever
and not see decay.
10 For all can see that the wise die,
that the foolish and the senseless also perish,
leaving their wealth to others.
11 Their tombs will remain their houses[b] forever,
their dwellings for endless generations,
though they had[c] named lands after themselves."
The subject of the ransom here in the initial context is in reference to wealth, rather than dealing with the subject of vicarious atonement, However if it were to do with a man ransoming another by his death, the Psalm would not pose a problem. Psalm 47:9 shows that one is incapable of ransoming another, I can't and Menashe can't. Yet Jesus claims to be able to ransom MANY lives, because if he is righteous, which I am convinced he is, then he is able to redeem us because he is the God-Man.
Also, In what way would Jesus' death would be considered a pagan sacrifice much like the heathen nations? This was something that both the Father and the Son agreed to in eternity past. I don't have time here to go into the nitty gritty however but Jesus' death would not be a violation of the Torah.
"Analyzing the necessary functional nature of the ‘godhead’ further, is an example using a typology. The typology used by Messianics and Christians, attempts to create a correlation between the “Binding of Isaac” (Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac) and God’s sacrifice of Jesus. Unfortunately the correlation breaks down practically before it ever begins. The typology says that God sacrificed His own son just as Abraham would have sacrificed his own son, had God allowed the act to be completed. However, Abraham was sacrificing his son to God, which showed Abraham loved God more than he loved his son Isaac, something that even God acknowledges in the text:
The reason why Christians makes the connection to Isaac's sacrifice and Jesus' sacrifice is this, God will provide a substitute in the future to deal with our sin. Isaac is about to be sacrificed and God stops him, providing instead a ram for him to be sacrificed in Isaac's place.
Jesus is provided in the place of the lamb and our own lives are not required. People who have repented and turned to Jesus, have him as the substitute.
The death of Jesus appeased the wrath of the Father, as the Father poured out his wrath on his Son when Jesus took our sins upon himself. I am not sure if any Christian (grounded in their faith) would say "God sacrifice Jesus to mankind in order to show mankind that He loved mankind more than he loved Jesus". It's a very strange explanation.
"A puzzling feature of the binding of Issac is the opening statement that God tested Abraham, as if the purpose were to provide God with information about Abraham’s trust He did not previously possess. Nachmanides (also known as the Ramban, a 13th century Spanish rabbi), states that God did indeed know beforehand how Abraham would behave but, from Abraham’s point of view, the test was real since he had to be rewarded not only for his potential willingness to obey the divine command but for actually complying with it. The implications of the binding of Issac are that, despite what appears to be a contradiction, divine foreknowledge is compatible with human free will."
"Another puzzling feature of the binding of Issac are the previous statements of the Jewish scriptures which forbid human sacrifice. According to a mistaken understanding of Gen 26:5; Abraham was aware of “and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” and so one might ask why didn’t Abraham just turn around and say to God that the Torah forbids human sacrifice? Rashi on Gen 26:5 points to “Abraham obeyed My voice”, which refers to the test (binding of Issac) Hashem gave to Abraham, since the test was a direct command from Hashem, as opposed to laws of the Torah, which were not directly commanded to Abraham but Abraham followed the laws of the Torah anyway."
"Yet another aspect of the binding of Issac, is the Talmud’s reference to Jeremiah. The Talmud (Ta’anit 4a)3 quotes Jeremiah 19:5 (see also Jer 32:35), in which God is reported as saying of child-sacrifice ‘which I have not commanded, nor spoken, nor did it enter My mind’. The Talmud links each of the three expressions, ‘not commanded’, ‘nor spoken’ and ‘nor did it enter My mind’ to a different biblical episode involving or apparently involving child-sacrifice, and explicitly applies the third phrase to ‘Isaac, son of Abraham’. Rashi (ad loc., s.v. ukhetiv asher lo tziviti) explains: ‘That is to say, even though I commanded him, it never entered my mind that he should slaughter his son’. In this passage, then, the Talmud explicitly morally neutralizes God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac."
There isn't too much for me to say on the subject of the binding of Isaac being a test of Abraham's loyalty, There is no need for me to be contentious on that particular point. Interesting points from the Rabbis though. But how this refutes the Christian typological usage of the binding of Isaac I do not really get. It appears to miss the point that Christians make about the passage in the first place.
Answering Judaism.
I have done an article commenting on part of it but there was more that needed to be looked at in context and it is long overdue.
First, take a look at Menashe's blog first:
https://menashedovid1.wordpress.com/godhead/
Here's my article which responds to part of it:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/is-there-trinity-or-functional-godhead.html
"A typical position taken by ‘Jewish’ (?) Adventists is given below:
According to ‘Jewish’ Adventists, Zachariah 12 gives an example of the necessary functional nature of the ‘godhead’. The example insists on a physical/ divine ‘Messiah’ (Jesus) fulfilling the necessary role/ purpose of being pierced [2] and killed for people’s sins so as to bring about a substitutionary atonement. The argument for the necessary functional nature of the substitutionary atonement comes about as a result of a spiritual being (god) not having a physical body to be pierced. So the ‘godhead’ taking on a human form, which is described as a unique and ‘unexplainable mystery of godliness’, allows for this necessary functional nature of the ‘god head’. A problem with the use of Zechariah 12 is that contextually; Zechariah does not match up to Jesus and his crucifixion."“Adventism does not embrace a plurality of deities, rather a single Deity who has chosen different means of inter-personally communication and relating with His greatest creation, hence the term Persons. We must remember that man’s dimension is not G-d’s dimension. Depending on who you ask, man lives in 3 or 4 dimensions – Height, Width, Depth and “Time”. G-d resides in neither of these nor is He bound by them. It was not until His corporeal manifestation (Jesus), that He was “literally” able to walk with man (unlike the terms “and G-d walked with Enoch” which was not literal), “literally” speak face to face (unlike the term “And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, ” which was not literal). It was not until that unexplainable mystery of godliness, that G-d was able to be pierced through and bare our iniquities. – Zech. 12:10 (from a ‘Jewish’ Adventist discussion board, Feb 2011) (Permission to quote the above quote from the Facebook page “Jewish Adventist Friendship Center” is granted by the owners of said Facebook page. The quote may be found in the second of the two links: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=61418912603&topic=31199 http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=61418912603&topic=31204, these links have been re-hashed from the original discussion thread (original feedback comments have been removed).
We'll get to Zechariah 12 momentarily.
"The 12th Chapter in the Book of Zechariah describes a war of nations against Jerusalem, in which Judeans fought on the side of the enemy for a while and, when they realized that G-d was with the people of Jerusalem, they “turned around” and joined the battle against the enemy, which led to the deliverance of Jerusalem and the restoration of its status. The victory will, however, be followed by grievous mourning over those who fell in the battle. The passage Zechariah 12:8-14, when read in the original Hebrew text, or in a correct translation thereof, clearly shows that the prophet could not possibly have spoken of Jesus. For example, the prophet makes the promise that Jerusalem and its inhabitants will be protected:
The historical record testifies that, less than 40 years after Jesus died, Jerusalem was torched and destroyed by the Romans, and its people were expelled and exiled. So, this is yet another prophecy that Jesus did not fulfill. "Zechariah 12:7, 8 — (7) And the Lord will save the tents of Judah first, so that the splendor of the House of David and the splendor of the inhabitants of Jerusalem should not overwhelm Judah. (8) On that day, the lord shall protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and it shall come to pass on that day that even the weakest among them shall be like David: and the House of David shall be as angels, like an angel of the Lord before them.
Naturally, a Christian, including myself would acknowledge a second coming, but in any case, I will not dispute that the chapter does refer to the protection of Jerusalem and God joining Israel in the battle to turn the tide against the Gentiles who are attacking them.
The point is, what the passage referring to? Does it refer to a battle that took place after the writing of Zechariah a little while afterward, or is it a future event that is going to happen? It would be a possible reference to both.
But putting that aside, considering the events taking place to this day in Israel and the Jews receiving the protection, it is plausible that they have that protection from God now despite belief or unbelief. But does Zechariah 12 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem 40 years after Jesus came? I'll agree it doesn't.
A question I would ask the Jews, regarding the ones or one who are pierced, When were they or when was he pierced? Was it during a battle or before a battle someone had been pierced? One way to look at the passage is that all the events transpire in Zechariah 12 in the end of days, then finally the
Jews see Jesus face to face and mourn because they pierced him, the very one who can offer redemption and protection. In other words the piercing had already taken place before a major battle itself.
Would it be possible that Jesus' death is actually a catalyst for these events in Zechariah 12 and then the Jews coming to grips with what they did to the Messiah are possibly reconciled to him? I'll leave you the reader to decide.
"The prophet also foretells the destruction of those nations that attacked Jerusalem:
Zechariah 12:9 — And it shall come to pass on that day, [that] I will seek to destroy all the nations that have come upon Jerusalem.
However, according to the historical record, none of these nations were destroyed in the days of Jesus. This, too, remains a prophecy not yet fulfilled.
On Judgement Day, The nations that have treated Israel cruelly will be judged and destroyed and even today before that day, many nations have suffered destruction or are crippled for their attack on Israel. It will happen in the future at the second coming, which would only occur if the resurrection is true, because the claims of Jesus will be validated.
See the following papers:
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
See the following papers:
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
Moreover, another problem is the Torah specifically forbidding human sacrifice. The nature of the necessary substitutionary divine/ human atonement (Jesus) says by the New Testament:
Romans 8:3(KJV) – For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [See also 1 Tm 3:1-6; 1 Jo 4:2.]18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 1 Peter 3:18 (New International Version)
Characterizing the death of Jesus on the cross as any kind of sacrifice would render it to be a human sacrifice and a clear violation of Torah. Heathen Semitic worship was cruel, often requiring human victims. In absolute contrast, the Torah forbids human sacrifice:
2 Kings 14:6 – And the sons of the assassins he did not execute, as it is written in the book of the Torah of Moses, which the L-rd commanded saying: “Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor shall sons be put to death for fathers, but each man shall be put to death for his own sin.” [See also Jer 31:29{30 in Christian Bibles}; Ezek 18:4, 20; Ps 49:7-8.]"Leviticus 18:21 – And you shall not give any of your offspring to pass through the fire for Molech, and shall not profane the name of your G-d; I am the L-rd. [See also Deut 18:10, Jer 7:31, Ezek 23:37-39.]Deuteronomy 24:16 – Fathers shall not be put to death because of children, nor shall children be put to death for fathers; each person shall be put to death for his own sin. [See also Exod 32:31-33; Num 35:33.]
Exodus 32:31-33, Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18 are easy to address. They do not refer to vicarious atonement. The latter two simply point out that we are responsible to God for our own sins. I touch upon Exodus briefly in my response to Eli Cohen: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-rabbi-eli-cohen-on-blood.html
Although not mentioned in my article, Jeremiah 31:29 follows the same principle, as does Ezekiel 18:4.
As for Psalm 49, let's read it.
"Psalm 49:1 Hear this, all you peoples;
listen, all who live in this world,
2 both low and high,
rich and poor alike:
3 My mouth will speak words of wisdom;
the meditation of my heart will give you understanding.
4 I will turn my ear to a proverb;
with the harp I will expound my riddle:
5 Why should I fear when evil days come,
when wicked deceivers surround me—
6 those who trust in their wealth
and boast of their great riches?
7 No one can redeem the life of another
or give to God a ransom for them—
8 the ransom for a life is costly,
no payment is ever enough—
9 so that they should live on forever
and not see decay.
10 For all can see that the wise die,
that the foolish and the senseless also perish,
leaving their wealth to others.
11 Their tombs will remain their houses[b] forever,
their dwellings for endless generations,
though they had[c] named lands after themselves."
The subject of the ransom here in the initial context is in reference to wealth, rather than dealing with the subject of vicarious atonement, However if it were to do with a man ransoming another by his death, the Psalm would not pose a problem. Psalm 47:9 shows that one is incapable of ransoming another, I can't and Menashe can't. Yet Jesus claims to be able to ransom MANY lives, because if he is righteous, which I am convinced he is, then he is able to redeem us because he is the God-Man.
Also, In what way would Jesus' death would be considered a pagan sacrifice much like the heathen nations? This was something that both the Father and the Son agreed to in eternity past. I don't have time here to go into the nitty gritty however but Jesus' death would not be a violation of the Torah.
"Analyzing the necessary functional nature of the ‘godhead’ further, is an example using a typology. The typology used by Messianics and Christians, attempts to create a correlation between the “Binding of Isaac” (Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac) and God’s sacrifice of Jesus. Unfortunately the correlation breaks down practically before it ever begins. The typology says that God sacrificed His own son just as Abraham would have sacrificed his own son, had God allowed the act to be completed. However, Abraham was sacrificing his son to God, which showed Abraham loved God more than he loved his son Isaac, something that even God acknowledges in the text:
So who did God sacrifice Jesus to? Did God sacrifice Jesus to mankind in order to show mankind that He loved mankind more than he loved Jesus? Is mankind God’s god? God needs mankind’s approval in order to be God? Does this make sense?"“He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.” (Gen 22:2)
The reason why Christians makes the connection to Isaac's sacrifice and Jesus' sacrifice is this, God will provide a substitute in the future to deal with our sin. Isaac is about to be sacrificed and God stops him, providing instead a ram for him to be sacrificed in Isaac's place.
Jesus is provided in the place of the lamb and our own lives are not required. People who have repented and turned to Jesus, have him as the substitute.
The death of Jesus appeased the wrath of the Father, as the Father poured out his wrath on his Son when Jesus took our sins upon himself. I am not sure if any Christian (grounded in their faith) would say "God sacrifice Jesus to mankind in order to show mankind that He loved mankind more than he loved Jesus". It's a very strange explanation.
"A puzzling feature of the binding of Issac is the opening statement that God tested Abraham, as if the purpose were to provide God with information about Abraham’s trust He did not previously possess. Nachmanides (also known as the Ramban, a 13th century Spanish rabbi), states that God did indeed know beforehand how Abraham would behave but, from Abraham’s point of view, the test was real since he had to be rewarded not only for his potential willingness to obey the divine command but for actually complying with it. The implications of the binding of Issac are that, despite what appears to be a contradiction, divine foreknowledge is compatible with human free will."
"Another puzzling feature of the binding of Issac are the previous statements of the Jewish scriptures which forbid human sacrifice. According to a mistaken understanding of Gen 26:5; Abraham was aware of “and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” and so one might ask why didn’t Abraham just turn around and say to God that the Torah forbids human sacrifice? Rashi on Gen 26:5 points to “Abraham obeyed My voice”, which refers to the test (binding of Issac) Hashem gave to Abraham, since the test was a direct command from Hashem, as opposed to laws of the Torah, which were not directly commanded to Abraham but Abraham followed the laws of the Torah anyway."
"Yet another aspect of the binding of Issac, is the Talmud’s reference to Jeremiah. The Talmud (Ta’anit 4a)3 quotes Jeremiah 19:5 (see also Jer 32:35), in which God is reported as saying of child-sacrifice ‘which I have not commanded, nor spoken, nor did it enter My mind’. The Talmud links each of the three expressions, ‘not commanded’, ‘nor spoken’ and ‘nor did it enter My mind’ to a different biblical episode involving or apparently involving child-sacrifice, and explicitly applies the third phrase to ‘Isaac, son of Abraham’. Rashi (ad loc., s.v. ukhetiv asher lo tziviti) explains: ‘That is to say, even though I commanded him, it never entered my mind that he should slaughter his son’. In this passage, then, the Talmud explicitly morally neutralizes God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac."
There isn't too much for me to say on the subject of the binding of Isaac being a test of Abraham's loyalty, There is no need for me to be contentious on that particular point. Interesting points from the Rabbis though. But how this refutes the Christian typological usage of the binding of Isaac I do not really get. It appears to miss the point that Christians make about the passage in the first place.
Answering Judaism.
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: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/christian-work-ethics-how-to-behave-in.html
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: http://conservativetribune.com/man-makes-up-insane-addiction/
Mohammed Salim: http://conservativetribune.com/muslim-welfare-abuser-milks/
Check these videos out too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8AYh7QWb_Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeXWT18C-K8 (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.
Conclusion
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.
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: http://conservativetribune.com/man-makes-up-insane-addiction/
Mohammed Salim: http://conservativetribune.com/muslim-welfare-abuser-milks/
Check these videos out too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8AYh7QWb_Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeXWT18C-K8 (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.
Conclusion
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:
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
The Mt Sinai revelation doesn't refute him either:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/deuteronomy-415-20-re-examined.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/anointed-ones-and-strange-gods.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by.html
Not to mention there is plenty of evidence to show that Jesus is the Messiah and predicted in the Old Testament:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/response-to-uri-yosef-on-isaiah-53.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/response-to-uri-yosef-on-isaiah-53-2.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/response-to-uri-yosef-on-isaiah-53-3.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/response-to-uri-yosef-on-isaiah-53-4.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/taken-out-of-context.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/seed-of-isaiah-5310.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/contra-blumenthal-examination-of-contra.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/addendum-to-contra-blumenthal-daniel.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/addendum-to-contra-blumenthal-isaiah-53.html
So how and what way does Amos 3:7 refute Jesus? That is my question to you.
Answering Judaism.
"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:
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
The Mt Sinai revelation doesn't refute him either:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/deuteronomy-415-20-re-examined.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/anointed-ones-and-strange-gods.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/examination-of-some-arguments-raised-by.html
Not to mention there is plenty of evidence to show that Jesus is the Messiah and predicted in the Old Testament:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/response-to-uri-yosef-on-isaiah-53.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/response-to-uri-yosef-on-isaiah-53-2.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/response-to-uri-yosef-on-isaiah-53-3.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/response-to-uri-yosef-on-isaiah-53-4.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/taken-out-of-context.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/seed-of-isaiah-5310.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/contra-blumenthal-examination-of-contra.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/addendum-to-contra-blumenthal-daniel.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/addendum-to-contra-blumenthal-isaiah-53.html
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:"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/smear-campaign
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:
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:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/false-witnessing-what-is-it.html
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.
"a planned attempt to harm the reputation of a person or company by telling lies about them:"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/smear-campaign
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
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:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/false-witnessing-what-is-it.html
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)