"Exodus 20:12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you."
Of the moral commands that apply to us today, this one certainly does and is often overlooked.
Let us get one thing out of the way that Jesus said before we press on:
"Matthew 10:37 Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
Jesus says that we are to love him more than our parents. Jesus DOES NOT mean that you are to hate, disparage or hurt your parents, but what he does expect is for all of his followers to love him more than them, but NOT to the exclusion of them. See here on Matthew 10:34: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/did-jesus-dishonour-his-parents-and.html
What do I mean by not to the exclusion of them? Simple, Jesus himself said the following to the Pharisees:
"Mark 7:6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[b]
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”"
The Pharisee's tradition caused them to serve God at the EXPENSE of their parents, essentially trying to deny that they had responsibility to help their parents when they are old. This is an extreme position to take and Jesus denounced the Pharisees for it.
Jesus doesn't expect you to NEVER care for your parents period, otherwise he wouldn't of condemned the Pharisee's tradition and he would of simply let them be if that was the case.
Mosaic Law called for your death with respect to not honoring your parents.
"Exodus 21:15 “Anyone who attacks[c] their father or mother is to be put to death."
"Leviticus 20:9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head."
While Christians are not under the Old Testament law and the death penalty is not applicable to the Christian church, it does stress and express how seriously God takes honoring one's parents.
If you think about it, being banned from using your PS3 or XBOX (or whatever game console you use) or being banned from hanging out with your friends via being grounded is a mercy compared to being put to death eh?
Paul himself even stresses the importance of obeying one's parents:
"Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3 “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”[a]
4 Fathers,[b] do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord."
"Colossians 3:20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
21 Fathers,[c] do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged."
This exhortation is carried through the NT, Just reading Romans 1 we see the following:
"Romans 1:28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
This is indeed quite serious.
Is there a time where disobedience to your parents is allowed, Yes, but only ONE context. If your parents tell you to violate what God has said in his word, Only then can you disobey, but if your parents tell you to do something that is good in God's sight, like help them out, tidy your room or something like that, then carry out what they say. Disobedience to parents is only allowed IF they tell you to disobey God, that's it.
Be bereans and let me know what you think.
Answering Judaism.
PS. Jesus even tells John to look after his mother, which is honouring your parents biblically, but not in the Romanist sense of praying to her or asking her to go to God and other blasphemous doctrines of Rome. See my articles on Mary here:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/shoehorning-roman-doctrines-into.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/mary-greatest-woman-who-ever-lived.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/mary-greatest-woman-who-ever-lived-2.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/catholic-dogmas-three-things-worthy-of.html
Saturday, 27 June 2015
Difference between propaganda and fact
Propaganda is defined here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda
Engaging in propaganda, information used to harm a person or a group, was very common in WW2 in Nazi Germany and many others also engage in it today.
If one is seeking expose a ministry or an individual that is spreading falsehood, they must be able to back their points up and demonstrate such. If they are incorrect on a certain point, they need to be honest enough to correct themselves and instead refute what the person ACTUALLY says, not a caricature of what that person is saying. We all mistakes in haste and need to be willing to admit them.
A propagandist will usually twist facts to sway people to their cause, which is despicable to say the least. This includes defaming a persons character with lies and deception, rather than establish facts about the person, drawn from the individuals actions.
If the person you respond to in question responds, read carefully what they have said and engage the argument. False ministers of the word need to be brought down via the truth, not brought down via lies and propaganda.
Jesus Christ is not honoured when he seeks Christians engage in lies, thus if you are an apologist for a biblical ministry, seek to uphold the truth when you respond to the person, do not engage in deceiving your audience about a person, for that is a wicked way of the world.
Sometimes, but not always, a person can check the claims of the propagandist and realise they have been led astray, when they actually find out what the position of the defamed individual actually is.
Let us be called to a higher standard in all matters of faith and conduct.
Answering Judaism.
Engaging in propaganda, information used to harm a person or a group, was very common in WW2 in Nazi Germany and many others also engage in it today.
If one is seeking expose a ministry or an individual that is spreading falsehood, they must be able to back their points up and demonstrate such. If they are incorrect on a certain point, they need to be honest enough to correct themselves and instead refute what the person ACTUALLY says, not a caricature of what that person is saying. We all mistakes in haste and need to be willing to admit them.
A propagandist will usually twist facts to sway people to their cause, which is despicable to say the least. This includes defaming a persons character with lies and deception, rather than establish facts about the person, drawn from the individuals actions.
If the person you respond to in question responds, read carefully what they have said and engage the argument. False ministers of the word need to be brought down via the truth, not brought down via lies and propaganda.
Jesus Christ is not honoured when he seeks Christians engage in lies, thus if you are an apologist for a biblical ministry, seek to uphold the truth when you respond to the person, do not engage in deceiving your audience about a person, for that is a wicked way of the world.
Sometimes, but not always, a person can check the claims of the propagandist and realise they have been led astray, when they actually find out what the position of the defamed individual actually is.
Let us be called to a higher standard in all matters of faith and conduct.
Answering Judaism.
Thursday, 25 June 2015
Trinity: A response to David Brainerd
What it says on the tin. I'll just dive in this time.
Now here are the points in question by David
I comment on the point on neuter in this article here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/challenge-from-facebook-unitarian.html
Being is what you are, person is who you are, they are not equivalent terms. It's not that hard. Furthermore the comment given is an ad homenim rather than an actual point.
Instead of attacking Sam Shamoun and Athanasius, why don't you actually address what they are saying? Philosophy has it's time and place and using certain terms to explain the Trinity doesn't mean Trintarians are accepting Satan's definition of terms.
What is wrong with trying to explain the Trinity biblically by using "philosophical" terms? Just because a term is not in the Bible, doesn't make it so. Not to mention even the average man would and could use terms to distinguish between person and being.
Robert M. Bowman makes the following observation regarding Colossians 2:9 and 1:19:
"Some argue that Colossians 2:19 ("and you have come to fullness in him") shows the "fullness" of verse 9 doesn't not mean that Jesus has God's very nature. The reasoning seems simple enough: Paul says that we have the fullness, not that we're God by nature; therefore, saying that Jesus has fullness doesn't make him God by nature, either. But this argument misconstrues the relationship between the two statements. Paul is not saying that believers have the fullness of deity dwelling in them bodily as well! Rather, he is saying that God's fullness is found in Christ personally, those who are united to Christ (who are "in him") have the fullness of God's power and love working in their lives. In both cases it is God's fullness, but in the case of Christ it resides in him personally and bodily, whereas in our case that fullness is meditated to us through our relationship with Christ"
and
"Finally we should comment on the argument that Paul's statement in Colossians 1:19- that God "was pleased" for all his fullness to dwell in Christ-proves Christ was not always deity. In context, Paul i referring to the incarnation. He is saying that God was pleased to be fully incarnated in the human Jesus of Nazareth. "It is the same Jesus, crucified and buried but risen again, and now alive for everyone as Christ the Lord, in whom the totality resides." Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 on their own do not address directly the question of the nature of the Son prior to his incarnation."
(Robert Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in his Place: A Case for the Deity of Christ).
Also regarding John 3:34:
"31 The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33 Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[i] gives the Spirit without limit. 35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."
John 3:34 is not even talking about the same subject of Colossians 2:9, it is talking about Jesus being sent by the Father and that the Holy Spirit can be given to individuals without a limit to who he may give it to. This is NOT the same context as Colossians 2:9.
Answering Judaism.
David Brainerd 4 days ago
Now here are the points in question by David
I comment on the point on neuter in this article here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/challenge-from-facebook-unitarian.html
Being is what you are, person is who you are, they are not equivalent terms. It's not that hard. Furthermore the comment given is an ad homenim rather than an actual point.
Instead of attacking Sam Shamoun and Athanasius, why don't you actually address what they are saying? Philosophy has it's time and place and using certain terms to explain the Trinity doesn't mean Trintarians are accepting Satan's definition of terms.
What is wrong with trying to explain the Trinity biblically by using "philosophical" terms? Just because a term is not in the Bible, doesn't make it so. Not to mention even the average man would and could use terms to distinguish between person and being.
Robert M. Bowman makes the following observation regarding Colossians 2:9 and 1:19:
"Some argue that Colossians 2:19 ("and you have come to fullness in him") shows the "fullness" of verse 9 doesn't not mean that Jesus has God's very nature. The reasoning seems simple enough: Paul says that we have the fullness, not that we're God by nature; therefore, saying that Jesus has fullness doesn't make him God by nature, either. But this argument misconstrues the relationship between the two statements. Paul is not saying that believers have the fullness of deity dwelling in them bodily as well! Rather, he is saying that God's fullness is found in Christ personally, those who are united to Christ (who are "in him") have the fullness of God's power and love working in their lives. In both cases it is God's fullness, but in the case of Christ it resides in him personally and bodily, whereas in our case that fullness is meditated to us through our relationship with Christ"
and
"Finally we should comment on the argument that Paul's statement in Colossians 1:19- that God "was pleased" for all his fullness to dwell in Christ-proves Christ was not always deity. In context, Paul i referring to the incarnation. He is saying that God was pleased to be fully incarnated in the human Jesus of Nazareth. "It is the same Jesus, crucified and buried but risen again, and now alive for everyone as Christ the Lord, in whom the totality resides." Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 on their own do not address directly the question of the nature of the Son prior to his incarnation."
(Robert Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in his Place: A Case for the Deity of Christ).
Also regarding John 3:34:
"31 The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33 Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[i] gives the Spirit without limit. 35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."
John 3:34 is not even talking about the same subject of Colossians 2:9, it is talking about Jesus being sent by the Father and that the Holy Spirit can be given to individuals without a limit to who he may give it to. This is NOT the same context as Colossians 2:9.
Answering Judaism.
Friday, 12 June 2015
3 points of interest, Quick response to cbd94
This is only going to be a quick response to cbd94 to three points raised in an article.
Point #1: This individual is not a Catholic, however he has come to accept certain Catholic beliefs after his own studying of the evidence. I pray he will convert to the Catholic faith as God has decreed that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. There will not be exception this individual or any other individuals. God does not compromise on this issue.
God didn't decree anything about the Roman Catholic Church being the instrument of salvation. Quite to the contrary, If anything, the Roman Catholic Church is a puppet used to decieve people and keep many away from salvation. I'll at least commend cbd94 for not saying "Oh you guys are just separated brethren" and recognize these are salvation issues.
Point #2: Bobo577 is not a spokesperson for Christianity nor is he even a Christian. He has told me that he belongs to the Anglican "Church", which is a false institution that was solely created to allow a 16th century mass-murdering king to engage in adultery. Anglicans, along with all other Protestants, are members of a false religion and are not Christians in any sense.
I plan to leave the Anglican Church soon, not sure when, but soon. Having said that, there are Anglicans who are saved and ones who are not. Plus what about all the evil popes in history?
As for the subject of the Anglican history. I would need to look into it.
The subject of the origins of Anglicanism need looking into.
Point #3: I advise all Jews and other people who are seeking information on the Christian religion to avoid the blog of "Answering Judaism" because it doesn't teach authentic Christianity and instead teaches the Anglican and Protestant version of Christianity. Do you want to learn about Christianity or about the Protestant version? I advise people of good will to read Catholic blogs only on this issue.
Yeah because going to Roman Catholicism will work SO well for the Jews and they will be guilty of the same things Catholics are guilty of, necromancy, idolatry, etc, things in the OT they were chastised for and were EXILED for. I won't talk about the issues here and now, I have other papers on this:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/mary-greatest-woman-who-ever-lived.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/biblical-and-manmade-tradition.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/forced-celibacy-doctrine-of-demons.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/more-roman-catholic-and-eastern.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/more-roman-catholic-and-eastern_7.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/catholic-dogmas-three-things-worthy-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/shoehorning-roman-doctrines-into.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/sola-scriptura-response-to-quinque-viae.html
That's all I have to say. To all readers, just study, pray and look into these things.
Answering Judaism.
Addendum 13th of July 2015: Yesterday I came across this link and I am surprised I found it so quickly.
Go here regarding the history of Anglicanism: http://anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html
One of the points in the article, is this:
"There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before."
This is isn't to defend Henry the VIII's issue on divorce, but hopefully it will bring to light certain issues regarding him. I would suggest cbd94 actually carefully looks into the issue before rashly making claims.
Point #1: This individual is not a Catholic, however he has come to accept certain Catholic beliefs after his own studying of the evidence. I pray he will convert to the Catholic faith as God has decreed that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. There will not be exception this individual or any other individuals. God does not compromise on this issue.
God didn't decree anything about the Roman Catholic Church being the instrument of salvation. Quite to the contrary, If anything, the Roman Catholic Church is a puppet used to decieve people and keep many away from salvation. I'll at least commend cbd94 for not saying "Oh you guys are just separated brethren" and recognize these are salvation issues.
Point #2: Bobo577 is not a spokesperson for Christianity nor is he even a Christian. He has told me that he belongs to the Anglican "Church", which is a false institution that was solely created to allow a 16th century mass-murdering king to engage in adultery. Anglicans, along with all other Protestants, are members of a false religion and are not Christians in any sense.
I plan to leave the Anglican Church soon, not sure when, but soon. Having said that, there are Anglicans who are saved and ones who are not. Plus what about all the evil popes in history?
As for the subject of the Anglican history. I would need to look into it.
The subject of the origins of Anglicanism need looking into.
Point #3: I advise all Jews and other people who are seeking information on the Christian religion to avoid the blog of "Answering Judaism" because it doesn't teach authentic Christianity and instead teaches the Anglican and Protestant version of Christianity. Do you want to learn about Christianity or about the Protestant version? I advise people of good will to read Catholic blogs only on this issue.
Yeah because going to Roman Catholicism will work SO well for the Jews and they will be guilty of the same things Catholics are guilty of, necromancy, idolatry, etc, things in the OT they were chastised for and were EXILED for. I won't talk about the issues here and now, I have other papers on this:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/mary-greatest-woman-who-ever-lived.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/biblical-and-manmade-tradition.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/forced-celibacy-doctrine-of-demons.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/more-roman-catholic-and-eastern.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/more-roman-catholic-and-eastern_7.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/catholic-dogmas-three-things-worthy-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/shoehorning-roman-doctrines-into.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/sola-scriptura-response-to-quinque-viae.html
That's all I have to say. To all readers, just study, pray and look into these things.
Answering Judaism.
Addendum 13th of July 2015: Yesterday I came across this link and I am surprised I found it so quickly.
Go here regarding the history of Anglicanism: http://anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html
One of the points in the article, is this:
"There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before."
This is isn't to defend Henry the VIII's issue on divorce, but hopefully it will bring to light certain issues regarding him. I would suggest cbd94 actually carefully looks into the issue before rashly making claims.
Saturday, 6 June 2015
Heresy of Mormonism: How many Gods exist?
It is very important to know that Christianity and Mormonism are not cut from the same cloth and believe very different things about the Gospel and one of the aspects of Mormonism is polytheism, something that indeed separates it from true Biblical Christianity, ONE of many things.
The Bible makes it abundantly clear over and over that there are NO other Gods besides YHWH. Here are many of the texts affirming this:
"Deuteronomy 4:35
You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other."
"Deuteronomy 32:39
"See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand."
"Psalm 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?"
"Isaiah 43:10
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."
"Isaiah 44:6
"This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."
"Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.""
"Isaiah 45:6
so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other."
"Isaiah 45:18
For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited-- he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other."
"Isaiah 45:21
Declare what is to be, present it-- let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."
"Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me."
"Joel 2:27
Then you will know that I am in Israel, that I am the LORD your God, and that there is no other; never again will my people be shamed."
It is very clear from the scripture that there are NO other Gods. What you have are emphatic statements.
Now here are some possible objections to respond to:
"Oh but it means the only God of this planet in those contexts?"
The statements don't imply such a thing, In fact it demonstrates that there is only ONE, period. Other gods are called demons in the scriptures, both the Old Testament and the New Testaments:
"Deuteronomy 32:17
17 They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God—
gods they had not known,
gods that recently appeared,
gods your ancestors did not fear."
"Psalm 106:37 They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to false gods."
"Revelation 9:20
20 The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk."
Several more texts could be cited to bring home the point that the other gods of the nations or even the hypothetical scenario that there are supposed gods on other worlds, they would all be worthless idols or even demonic entities. Although the Mormons do not worship these entities, To say that there are other gods that exist, is certainly not a biblical thing to say.
The Old Testament even goes as far as telling us not to invoke deities in and oath or even, not uttering the names of false gods on your lips. This is quite serious.
"What about 1 Corinthians 8:6?"
Let's read:
"1 Corinthians 8:4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
The text is not saying that polytheism is acceptable or is even something Paul acknowledges. What is actually being talked about is that while the world claims that there are many gods, Paul and the Christians affirm and know that there is only ONE God and ONE Lord. See my comments on 1 Corinthians 8:6 here in this article:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-savedbybaptisms-arguments.html
"What about Psalm 82:6?"
The text in question doesn't teach that men can become Gods or that they are Gods. As I have said before, What Jesus is using in the context is an a fortiori argument or an argument from a yet stronger reason to further demonstrate his deity, which most anti-Trinitarians overlook. Keith Thompson, CEO of Reformed Apologetics Ministries explains this point better than I do in his documentary "Word of Faith Teachers: Origins & Errors of Their Teaching" which can be found here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KIA06kDRw4 Watch from position 56:51-1:00:28).
Watch the section in question if you want to understand what the text itself means.
"If we are polytheists, What about you? don't you believe in the Trinity?"
The Trinity is not polytheistic at all. It teaches that in the very being or essence of God, there exist Three Distinct persons, Not three beings in one being or three persons in one person . There are not three separate Gods, but one Eternal God which the TANAKH and the NT make very clear. Hence the Trinity isn't polytheistic in the slightest.
"Why don't you pray like in James 1:5 to see if the Book of Mormon is true?"
Let's see what James 1:5 saying:
"James 1:2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters,[a] whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. 4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do."
The context has nothing to do with asking if a certain book is true, what it is talking about is if you are uncertain about something and you need the wisdom, God will grant it if you ask. This text cannot be used to prove the book of Mormon or other.
(I have asked God if the Book of Mormon is true and he said NO if any one is curious.).
"I feel in my hear that Mormonism is true"
A feeling in the heart doesn't make something true, in fact, the heart is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9). Our hearts must never be used as the criteria of truth, many can make this claim that they believe that their religion is true because their heart says so. See the following paper: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/spiritual-experiences-what-can-they.html
"You need the Book of Mormon to understand the Bible"
Says who, Some fellow who never knew the apostles directly but claimed revelation? I am sorry, The Bible is what is to be used as a witness for or against the book of Mormon, you don't need the book of Mormon to supplement the Bible, nor can it supplement the Bible.
More objections may be looked into if the Lord Wills
Answering Judaism.
The Bible makes it abundantly clear over and over that there are NO other Gods besides YHWH. Here are many of the texts affirming this:
"Deuteronomy 4:35
You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other."
"Deuteronomy 32:39
"See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand."
"Psalm 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?"
"Isaiah 43:10
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."
"Isaiah 44:6
"This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."
"Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.""
"Isaiah 45:6
so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other."
"Isaiah 45:18
For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited-- he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other."
"Isaiah 45:21
Declare what is to be, present it-- let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."
"Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me."
"Joel 2:27
Then you will know that I am in Israel, that I am the LORD your God, and that there is no other; never again will my people be shamed."
It is very clear from the scripture that there are NO other Gods. What you have are emphatic statements.
Now here are some possible objections to respond to:
"Oh but it means the only God of this planet in those contexts?"
The statements don't imply such a thing, In fact it demonstrates that there is only ONE, period. Other gods are called demons in the scriptures, both the Old Testament and the New Testaments:
"Deuteronomy 32:17
17 They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God—
gods they had not known,
gods that recently appeared,
gods your ancestors did not fear."
"Psalm 106:37 They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to false gods."
"Revelation 9:20
20 The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk."
Several more texts could be cited to bring home the point that the other gods of the nations or even the hypothetical scenario that there are supposed gods on other worlds, they would all be worthless idols or even demonic entities. Although the Mormons do not worship these entities, To say that there are other gods that exist, is certainly not a biblical thing to say.
The Old Testament even goes as far as telling us not to invoke deities in and oath or even, not uttering the names of false gods on your lips. This is quite serious.
"What about 1 Corinthians 8:6?"
Let's read:
"1 Corinthians 8:4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."
The text is not saying that polytheism is acceptable or is even something Paul acknowledges. What is actually being talked about is that while the world claims that there are many gods, Paul and the Christians affirm and know that there is only ONE God and ONE Lord. See my comments on 1 Corinthians 8:6 here in this article:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-savedbybaptisms-arguments.html
"What about Psalm 82:6?"
The text in question doesn't teach that men can become Gods or that they are Gods. As I have said before, What Jesus is using in the context is an a fortiori argument or an argument from a yet stronger reason to further demonstrate his deity, which most anti-Trinitarians overlook. Keith Thompson, CEO of Reformed Apologetics Ministries explains this point better than I do in his documentary "Word of Faith Teachers: Origins & Errors of Their Teaching" which can be found here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KIA06kDRw4 Watch from position 56:51-1:00:28).
Watch the section in question if you want to understand what the text itself means.
"If we are polytheists, What about you? don't you believe in the Trinity?"
The Trinity is not polytheistic at all. It teaches that in the very being or essence of God, there exist Three Distinct persons, Not three beings in one being or three persons in one person . There are not three separate Gods, but one Eternal God which the TANAKH and the NT make very clear. Hence the Trinity isn't polytheistic in the slightest.
"Why don't you pray like in James 1:5 to see if the Book of Mormon is true?"
Let's see what James 1:5 saying:
"James 1:2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters,[a] whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. 4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do."
The context has nothing to do with asking if a certain book is true, what it is talking about is if you are uncertain about something and you need the wisdom, God will grant it if you ask. This text cannot be used to prove the book of Mormon or other.
(I have asked God if the Book of Mormon is true and he said NO if any one is curious.).
"I feel in my hear that Mormonism is true"
A feeling in the heart doesn't make something true, in fact, the heart is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9). Our hearts must never be used as the criteria of truth, many can make this claim that they believe that their religion is true because their heart says so. See the following paper: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/spiritual-experiences-what-can-they.html
"You need the Book of Mormon to understand the Bible"
Says who, Some fellow who never knew the apostles directly but claimed revelation? I am sorry, The Bible is what is to be used as a witness for or against the book of Mormon, you don't need the book of Mormon to supplement the Bible, nor can it supplement the Bible.
More objections may be looked into if the Lord Wills
Answering Judaism.
Vindication
While browsing on the internet, I came across something unusual.
As you guys may or may not be aware, I went to the Paltalk Help Lobby to check if I had been hacked, because I was convinced my bobo577 nic had been hacked into and stolen.
However, I came across something strange.
I came across two images that were present on Answering Abraham (The link had been deleted).
It was really weird and these are the images:
And
I was quite suspicious of the supposed claim that the nic was me, especially when mysty_mysty had said it was a clone and it turns out, It was so.
How it was done I don't know, but somehow the screenshot or whatever was used was edited in a bid to frame me. What is weird is that the screenshots were not present on the site and yet, these two images were present on the site before the deletion of the link.
It would seem very odd for mysty to say it was a clone when my name was supposedly there. I had expressed concerns that I had been hacked and that there someone who hijacked my nic. I was told that there was a possibility that the text had been edited. As it turns out, it had been edited in a bid to frame me. Whoever edited it to claim it was me, I do not know and frankly, I do not care.
What matters is God has vindicated me of the lies about me.
What we have in front of us on this page is the original screenshot before it was edited. If this is so, I am glad I have proof of my innocence. However, it is worth being cautious in case there is a risk of having the bobo577 account being hacked again.
If you see anyone claiming to be me. Call them to the mic and test them. if they refuse, BOUNCE them. Engage in a conversation with them in the room when they get on the mic to test if it is a recording or actual person.
I praise YHWH of hosts for vindicating and answering me.
Answering Judaism.
PS. The Paltalk Lobby didn't say that the text had been edited just to clarify. The images were also present in a Google image search despite the links removal.
As you guys may or may not be aware, I went to the Paltalk Help Lobby to check if I had been hacked, because I was convinced my bobo577 nic had been hacked into and stolen.
However, I came across something strange.
I came across two images that were present on Answering Abraham (The link had been deleted).
It was really weird and these are the images:
How it was done I don't know, but somehow the screenshot or whatever was used was edited in a bid to frame me. What is weird is that the screenshots were not present on the site and yet, these two images were present on the site before the deletion of the link.
It would seem very odd for mysty to say it was a clone when my name was supposedly there. I had expressed concerns that I had been hacked and that there someone who hijacked my nic. I was told that there was a possibility that the text had been edited. As it turns out, it had been edited in a bid to frame me. Whoever edited it to claim it was me, I do not know and frankly, I do not care.
What matters is God has vindicated me of the lies about me.
What we have in front of us on this page is the original screenshot before it was edited. If this is so, I am glad I have proof of my innocence. However, it is worth being cautious in case there is a risk of having the bobo577 account being hacked again.
If you see anyone claiming to be me. Call them to the mic and test them. if they refuse, BOUNCE them. Engage in a conversation with them in the room when they get on the mic to test if it is a recording or actual person.
I praise YHWH of hosts for vindicating and answering me.
Answering Judaism.
PS. The Paltalk Lobby didn't say that the text had been edited just to clarify. The images were also present in a Google image search despite the links removal.
Pros and Cons of Written and Oral debates
Both forms of debates have their own advantages and disadvantages. Neither approach is wrong, but there are things that need to be explained regarding these different styles. Let's first look at Oral.
Oral
Oral debates themselves can convey significant amounts of information to the public in a setting where many can gather round to hear what is being said and test it. There is indeed no question that this kind of debating can be useful in a given context, same with ANY form of debating. Plus, there are audience members that learn quite well through a presentation, it makes it a more personal interaction.
The biggest problem with oral debates and yes there are a few, are these:
1. While there is plenty of information to convey, not all the issues relevant to the debate topic can be fit within a small timescale and making a debate too long can wear out an audience.
2. Not every single debater is suited for this kind of debating, this requires one to be a very good speaker, articulate and not ramble. It also requires one to be constantly alert and on their toes, not to mention they must listen attentively and not lose focus.
3. The audience will not have time to check sources UNLESS the debate is conducted on Paltalk, or any media that is similar.
While I have engaged in a dialogue with NITEMARE'S DEN and DACON9, I admit I wasn't 100% prepared for the conversation with them. A written debate is my personal preference.
Written
Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal of yourphariseefriend.com explains that with written debates, you can have all the arguments on the table and spend time putting out an argument. You can find his video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BtgWdU6vKw
A written debate allows one to think about what the other side is saying and then provide a satisfactory response. There is no limit to the arguments that you can present to the table in this context.
As cbd94 recently pointed out to me, there are disadvantages to this as well and yes, he is correct on this.
1. There is a risk of an individual just skimming through the article rather than taking the time to read
2. Not everyone can read an article for a long time and it is can be quite tiring.
3. There is no verbal communication, only written, hence there is almost a less personal interaction. Even on an open discussion forum there isn't that. (This is a point I myself concluded.)
Conclusion
Depending on the person, I say each to his own with respect to the issue of written or oral. To those who don't debate but like to observe them, I let you come to your own conclusion on the debate style you prefer.
Answering Judaism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)