I found this an interesting article from Dr. Phil Fernandes. He is a Christian Apologist who has obtained a doctorate, and is a professor of Theology, Apologetics and Philosophy. I will share this with you because I don't believe I could have written a better critique. See here -
The Failure of Other Non-Theistic Worldviews
Gabe Ginorioby Gabe Ginorio -->
by Dr. Phil FernandesA chapter from his doctoral dissertation© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All Rights Reserved
Theism is the view of reality which holds to the existence of a personal God who is separate (transcendent) from the universe though involved (immanent) with it. 1 Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three main theistic religions. 2
It has been shown that atheism, the world view that there is no God, has failed to prove its case. This means that theism may be true. It is therefore possible that God exists. However, before looking into arguments for the existence of the theistic God, discussion of other non-theistic world views is necessary to show that they have also failed to prove their cases.
The non-theistic world views (other than atheism) include pantheism, panentheism, deism, finite godism, and polytheism. If these world views fail as atheism has failed, then the case for theism will become more probable since it is the only remaining major world view. Of course, the case for theism will reach a high degree of probability only if strong arguments can be advanced in its favor.
PANTHEISM
Pantheism is the world view that teaches that God is the universe. 3 Pantheism is based upon monism, the belief that all reality is one being. 4 Hinduism and some adherents of Buddhism are pantheistic in their thought. 5 The New Age Movement (the invasion of Western Society with Hindu thought) is also pantheistic. 6
Pantheism teaches that God is not a personal being. Instead, God is an impersonal force. 7 Since pantheists believe that all reality is one being and that God is this one reality, they believe that each individual is God. 8 In fact, individual existence is merely an illusion since all reality is one being. 9
There are several problems for pantheism which cause it to fail as a world view. First, many beings exist, not just one. 10 As Christian philosopher Norman Geisler has pointed out, it is actually undeniable that I exist. 11 For if I attempt to deny my existence, I must first exist to make the denial. 12 For nothing can deny nothing. Only an existent being can deny its own existence. Therefore, I exist. However, if I try to convince others that I alone exist, I must first affirm their own individual and separate existence by communicating with them. 13 In other words, to argue for pantheism is to admit that pantheism is false. To argue with others is to affirm the existence of others, and if more than one being exists, then pantheism cannot be true.
A second problem with pantheism is that there is strong evidence that the universe had a beginning. Both the big bang model and the second law of thermodynamics reveal this. 14 Also, if the universe is eternal, the present moment could never have arrived. But since the present moment has arrived, only a finite number of events could have occurred in the past. 15 Therefore, there was a first event. The universe had a beginning. Since from nothing, nothing comes, everything that had a beginning needs a cause. Hence, the universe needs a cause. 16 But, for pantheism to be true, the universe would have to be eternal and uncaused.
Third, pantheism claims that reality is ultimately impersonal. This is the same as saying that reality is non-intelligent and non-moral. 17 But for someone to deny the reality of intelligence, he must first assume he has the intelligence to make the denial. 18 Even pantheists pass moral judgments on others. In fact, many pantheists have been known to protest violence and the production of nuclear weapons. 19 They have fought for stricter anti-pollution legislation and campaigned for animal rights. 20 It is hard to find a pantheist who is not vocal about his or her moral beliefs. Pantheists must explain where intelligence and morality come from. Could intelligence and morality have been caused by a non-intelligent and non-moral being? It appears more probable that the Ultimate Cause of intelligence and morality must Himself be an intelligent and moral Being. 21
Fourth, why should anyone accept the pantheistic claim that the world is an illusion? Does not common sense and experience favor the reality of the physical world? Why should anyone embrace pantheism without any evidence when common sense and experience teach otherwise? 22
For these four reasons it appears that pantheism, as a world view, has failed. If an alternative to theism is to be accepted, one must look elsewhere.
PANENTHEISM
Panentheism has been described as the belief that the universe is God’s body. 23 In this world view, God is conceived of as having two poles to His existence. In His potential pole, He is infinite, unchanging, and eternal. In His actual pole, He is finite, changing, and temporal. 24 Unlike pantheism, panentheism views God as personal. 25
Panentheism fails for several reasons. First, God cannot be both infinite and finite. This would be the same as saying that God is both unlimited and limited, 26 and this is an obvious contradiction. The Christian concept of God is one of an infinite God in His basic nature. 27 Panentheism, on the other hand, holds the contradictory concept of a God who is both infinite and finite in His basic nature.
Second, panentheism is again contradictory when it declares God to be both eternal (without a beginning) and temporal (with a beginning). 28 One cannot have it both ways. Either God is eternal or God is temporal. In the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, the eternal God added a temporal nature to his eternal nature. 29 This involves no contradiction, but, in the case of panentheism, a contradiction is evident. If the eternal pole of God caused the temporal pole of God to come into existence, then it would make more sense for the panentheist to refer to the temporal pole not as God, but as God’s creation. But then the panentheist would cease to be a panentheist. In fact, he would then be a theist. 30
Third, panentheism teaches that God actualizes His own potentialities. However, this is impossible. No potentiality can actualize itself. For instance, empty cups cannot fill themselves. For a potentiality to become actual, something actual must actualize it. As a result, the panentheistic god, if it existed, would need the theistic God to actualize its potential to exist. 31 Therefore, Panentheism fails as a world view.
DEISM
Deism is the world view that promotes the belief in a God who created the universe but no longer has any dealings with it. 32 The deist believes that God allows the world to operate on its own in accordance with natural laws that He has set in motion. 33 God does not perform miracles or interrupt the natural course of events. 34
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine were deists of the eighteenth century. 35 Though deism is not as popular as it once was, similar views are held today by many Unitarians and religious humanists. 36
Several objections to deism deserve mention. First, deists deny a miracle-working God. Yet, they admit one of God’s greatest supernatural works when they affirm His work of creation. If God could create the entire universe out of nothing, then could he not perform lesser miracles? 37
Second, if God cared enough to create the universe, then why doesn’t He care enough to be involved with it? 38 And, third, the deistic view of natural laws is outdated. Natural laws are now considered by scientists to be descriptive of the general way nature acts. No longer are natural laws thought to prescribe what can and cannot happen in nature. 39 Natural laws cannot automatically rule out miracles, just as the occurrence of usual events does not disprove the possibility of unusual events occurring. 40
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, deism was a strong movement. 41 Much of its popularity was due to the belief that the science of that day had proven miracles to be impossible. 42 However, now that this misconception has been overturned, deism is no longer the attractive world view that it once was.
FINITE GODISM
Finite Godism is a world view that accepts the existence of a god. However, it believes He is limited. 43 Adherents differ as to how God is limited. Some believe He is limited in His power. 44 Others consider Him limited in His knowledge or His goodness. 45
Devotees of Finite Godism usually promote their world view as the answer to the problem of evil. 46 They reason that an all-good and all-powerful God would not allow evil and innocent humans to suffer in the world. 47 Rabbi Harold Kushner, author of When Bad Things Happen to Good People, holds this view. He believes that evil proves God is not perfect and that He is limited in power. 48 For if God could prevent it, reasons Kushner, God would not allow the innocent to suffer. 49 Kushner asks others to forgive God for His failures. 50
Several responses have been given to those who believe in the existence of a finite God. First, all finite existence needs a cause for its continuing existence. 51 Finite beings are, by definition, limited beings. And limited beings, precisely because of their limitations, must depend on other beings to keep them in existence. In fact, if everything that exists is limited and dependent, then nothing would now exist. For there must exist an infinite Being that is the cause of the continuing existence of all finite and dependent beings. In other words, a finite God would depend on an infinite God for its existence. However, a finite God would not be God after all. Only the infinite Being is God. 52
Second, a finite God doesn’t deserve worship. 53 Only a being that is ultimately worthy is deserving of worship. A God with limitations is surely not ultimately worthy. Only an infinite Being is deserving of worship.
Third, evil does not prove that God must be limited. 54 An all-good and all-powerful God may choose to allow evil and human suffering for the purpose of a greater good. What exactly this greater good may entail in specific cases may remain a mystery to finite beings, but, the wisdom of an infinite Being far transcends the wisdom of finite beings (Isaiah 55:8-9). A child may question the decision of his parents to allow him to receive surgery. But he does not have access to the amount of information that his parents have, and he does not see that the present pain he is enduring is for the purpose of future healing. The relationship of mankind to God is analogous to the relationship of this child to his parents. Also, God may defeat evil in the future (as the Bible teaches). In fact, only an infinite God can guarantee the ultimate defeat of evil. A finite God cannot. 55
In short, finite godism leaves one with a god who is no God at all. For he, like the rest of the universe, needs a cause. He is not worthy of worship, and he cannot guarantee the defeat of evil. A god who needs help and forgiveness deserves only sympathy, not worship.
POLYTHEISM
Polytheism is the world view that teaches the existence of more than one god. 56 Many Eastern religions accept the existence of many gods. This includes certain forms of Hinduism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Taoism, and Jainism. 57 Western thought is itself not without polytheistic belief systems. Ancient Greek mythology expressed polytheistic themes. 58 Several cult groups such as Mormonism, Scientology, and the Unification Church spread polytheism in the West today. 59
Polytheism fails for the following reasons. Either all the gods are finite or at least one of them is infinite. They cannot all be finite. If they are all finite beings, then they would need an infinite Being to ground their existence, but, then this infinite Being would be God. 60
So there must exist at least one infinite Being. It is not possible that there exist more than one infinite Being. If more than one infinite Being existed, they would limit one another’s existence. One infinite Being could prevent the other infinite Being(s) from accomplishing its goals. But then these beings would not be infinite since they would be limited by another’s power. Therefore, there must exist one, and only one, infinite Being. 61 This one infinite Being would alone be God. Therefore, Polytheism fails in its attempt to explain reality.
SKEPTICISM NOT A VIABLE OPTION
All world views, except for theism, have been shown to be failures. They are self-contradictory and fail to explain the available evidence. If theism, the only remaining world view, also fails, then skepticism would be the only possible alternative. However, skepticism also fails.
If one decides to be a skeptic, then he has chosen to suspend judgment on all things. He has failed to suspend judgment on his choice to be a skeptic. 62 This, of course, is contradictory. Also, no one can consistently live like a skeptic. For example, if someone suspended judgment on what he should eat, then he would eventually starve to death. 63
CONCLUSION
Therefore, since skepticism fails as all non-theistic world views have failed, then, due to the process of elimination, theism must be true. Still, the following chapters will include a positive defense of theism.
ENDNOTES
1 Norman L. Geisler and William D. Watkins, Worlds Apart (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 38.
2 Geisler, Apologetics, 263.
3 Geisler and Watkins, 98-99.
4 Geisler, Apologetics, 173-174.
5 Geisler and Watkins, 78-79.
6 Ibid., 94.
7 Ibid., 98.
8 Ibid., 96.
9 Ibid., 99.
10 Geisler, Apologetics, 187.
11 Ibid., 239.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid., 241.
14 Craig, 81-93.
15 Ibid., 81.
16 Ibid., 93.
17 Geisler, Apologetics, 247-249.
18 Ibid., 247-248.
19 Walter Martin, The New Age Cult (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1989), 65.
20 Ibid.
21 Geisler, Apologetics, 247-248.
22 Geisler and Watkins, 102.
23 Ibid., 108.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., 136.
26 Ibid.
27 Erickson, Christian Theology, 272.
28 Geisler and Watkins, 139.
29 Erickson, 735.
30 Geisler and Watkins, 21.
31 Geisler, Apologetics, 208-209.
32 Ibid., 147-148.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid., 148.
36 Ibid., 181.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid., 182.
39 Ibid., 181.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid., 148.
42 Ibid., 181.
43 Ibid., 188.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid., 189-190.
46 Ibid., 188.
47 Ibid.
48 Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York: Avon Books, 1981), 148.
49 Ibid., 134.
50 Ibid., 147-148.
51 Geisler and Watkins, 211-212.
52 Ibid., 212.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid., 212-213.
55 Ibid., 212.
56 Ibid., 217.
57 Ibid., 218.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Geisler, Thomas Aquinas, 130.
61 Ibid.
62 Geisler and Feinberg, 93-94.
63 Ibid., 94.
http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/tag/nontheistic/
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
On Mormonism, the Truth behind it all
I have been involved in Apologetics for many years. One of the things I have failed to do is discuss matters of different types of Theology. So in addition to my other projects, one thing I have decided by the grace of God to infiltrate into my research is sound reporting on other religious movements.
I suppose we should start with cultish religions that have come out of Christianity. We can proceed from there and then move towards larger religious movements. Today what I want to talk about is Mormonism.
It will be of keen interest to readers to keep in mind Galatians 1:8 when discoursing about the Mormons. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
These are strong words. Lets talk about the Mormons now. This movement was begun by Joseph Smith Jr., who began the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. At the age of around 15, he allegedly received a vision that became the foundation of this church. He declared "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the most vital importance to the entire world. No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he can not enter the Kingdom of God." Thus with this one dogmatic assertion here, Joseph Smith declared everybody to be wrong as it pertained to Yeshua. The Mormons thus, claim they are the restored church of Yeshua.
The four works of vital importance to the Mormons are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The alleged "prophet's" words are also a source of authority.
The Mormons tend to be more reliant on the Book of Mormon, and their other books than the Bible however. It is not foreign to ask of a Mormon whether they have read the Bible, and for this answer to be no.
Now we have to keep in mind Deuteronomy 13 when we're discussing any prophet. This declares "1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. " Shall we purge the evil from amongst Joseph Smith? Let us see.
What does the Mormon doctrine teach with accord of its traditions vs. what the Bible teaches? One of the Mormon's doctrines is Baptism for the Dead. But, this is an addition to scripture. This is never mentioned anywhere in either the Tanakh or the Brit Hadashah. We have already gone over the dangers of adding to scripture. The Mormon basis for using this is in fact, no basis at all. 1 Corinthains 15: 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
What the context is talking about here has to do with the resurrection of Yeshua. That is the subject. Paul is not condoning the belief that people should be baptized for the dead when this is read in context. In fact, Paul is merely stating that those who are baptized with the resurrection of Yeshua have done so in vain (Judaism and Christianity are both wrong and we can all go home and enjoy our day). See what Paul states earlier in this passage for the context - 1 Corinthians 15:14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. Thus Baptism for the dead, as according to the Biblical basis for doing so, seems to be done if taken in a literal sense, in vanity.
Celestial Marriage is also an addition to the scripture. This is taught in the book Doctrine and Covenants."
The Book of Mormon's foundational level is predicated on Yeshua going to the original inhabitants of America after his resurrection. But again, nothing is mentioned about this in scripture. As a matter of fact, this took place in Galilee. This is another addition to scripture.
Now it is within the nature of a Mormon to point this particular scrpture out - 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
This comes from the KJV. We will touch base on this later, and why I am not a fan of this particular version of the Bible. (One point I have alluded to is the change of the name of Ya'akov to James as the brother of Yeshua). Nevertheless, an earlier translation from the Wycleffe version declares " 11 I am a good shepherd; a good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
12 But an hired hind, and that is not the shepherd, whose be not the sheep his own [whose the sheep be not his own], seeth a wolf coming, and he leaveth the sheep, and fleeth; and the wolf snatcheth, and scattereth the sheep.
13 And the hired hind fleeth, for he is an hired hind, and it pertaineth not to him of the sheep.
14 I am a good shepherd, and I know my sheep, and my sheep know me.
15 As the Father hath known me, I know the Father; and I put my life for my sheep.
16 [And] I have other sheep, that be not of this fold, and it behooveth me to bring them together, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be made one fold and one shepherd. " Even in the KJV, there is not an issue when this verse is taken in its context. There are Jewish believers of the flock, and there are non-Jewish believers of the flock. In its context, that is what this means. It goes back to Numbers 15:13-16. Continuing further.
The Pearl of Great Price contains the first 6 chapters of Genesis and the Book of Abraham, which has been proven to be a fraudulent Egyptian Papyrus from an Archaeological perspective.
The Living Prophet, or the head of the church is said to be "more vital to us than the standard works." Here we can also see manipulation of thought by the ward teachers of 1945. "Any Latter-Day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, and revelators of the church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy....Lucier....wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking....When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan, it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of the controversy."
Ah, but obviously, a Torah observant Jew would draw exception to this if he followed the entirety of the Torah. Exodus 23:2 declares " 2 "Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd," This would also be so if the leaders were wrong.
Secondly, the Bible encourages us to think for ourselves, but not to follow apostasy that turns away from what the Bible declares...such as Colossians 2:8 " 8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." It also encourages us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 "21Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22Avoid every kind of evil." By setting up these standards, we are creating philosophy that opposes the will of God.
We have seen two strikes against the Mormon faith, but lets continue for the sake of discussion. This gets even more interesting.
What does Joseph Smith state? "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil so that you may see. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ did. Here then is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priest to God, the same as all Gods have done before you (The King Follett Discourse pp8-10)."
Whats the problem with this? A small...tiny problem when we read Alma 11:26-29 of the Book of Mormon. "And Zeezrom said unto him: "Thou sayest that there is a true and living God?" And Amulek said :"Yea there is a true and living God." Now Zeezrom said :"Is there more than one God?" And he answered, "No!"
The plural discoursed by Joseph Smith "all Gods" refutes this. We therefore have a contradiction within the very sources of the Mormon doctrine.
Another rather problematic area for the Book of Mormon is Archaeological discoveries, which we should have a slew of them by now if the Book of Mormon were true.
Some of these are:
1) None of the cities have been located.
2) No names have been found in the New World Inscriptions.
3) Nothing has corresponded to Joseph Smith's ideology of "reformed Egyptian" since nothing has been located in America that has been written in Egyptian.
4) No ancient extracts of the Book of Mormon have been found
5) No artifacts have been found which demonstrate the Book of Mormon to be true. Furthermore, nothing from the Americas has demonstrated that the ancient inhabitants held to Jewish or Christian beliefs.
These are all unexplained problems, which extend to the point that scholars of the Mormon faith have twisted their own scriptures to leave traditional understandings behind Mormonism.
Other contradictions include 1 Nephi 2:5-8 which states that there is a river called Laman which emptied into the Red Sea, but this has never been discovered, no river has ever emptied into the Red Sea from Arabia. Alma 7:10 declares that Yeshua would be born in Jerusalem, but the Bible clearly confirms it would be Bethlehem.
However with these problems alone it is easy to see that the Mormons have their share of problems and contradictions to work with. Our God is not the author of confusion, and as such, these resources do not appear to be coming from God.
I suppose we should start with cultish religions that have come out of Christianity. We can proceed from there and then move towards larger religious movements. Today what I want to talk about is Mormonism.
It will be of keen interest to readers to keep in mind Galatians 1:8 when discoursing about the Mormons. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
These are strong words. Lets talk about the Mormons now. This movement was begun by Joseph Smith Jr., who began the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. At the age of around 15, he allegedly received a vision that became the foundation of this church. He declared "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the most vital importance to the entire world. No man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he can not enter the Kingdom of God." Thus with this one dogmatic assertion here, Joseph Smith declared everybody to be wrong as it pertained to Yeshua. The Mormons thus, claim they are the restored church of Yeshua.
The four works of vital importance to the Mormons are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The alleged "prophet's" words are also a source of authority.
The Mormons tend to be more reliant on the Book of Mormon, and their other books than the Bible however. It is not foreign to ask of a Mormon whether they have read the Bible, and for this answer to be no.
Now we have to keep in mind Deuteronomy 13 when we're discussing any prophet. This declares "1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. " Shall we purge the evil from amongst Joseph Smith? Let us see.
What does the Mormon doctrine teach with accord of its traditions vs. what the Bible teaches? One of the Mormon's doctrines is Baptism for the Dead. But, this is an addition to scripture. This is never mentioned anywhere in either the Tanakh or the Brit Hadashah. We have already gone over the dangers of adding to scripture. The Mormon basis for using this is in fact, no basis at all. 1 Corinthains 15: 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
What the context is talking about here has to do with the resurrection of Yeshua. That is the subject. Paul is not condoning the belief that people should be baptized for the dead when this is read in context. In fact, Paul is merely stating that those who are baptized with the resurrection of Yeshua have done so in vain (Judaism and Christianity are both wrong and we can all go home and enjoy our day). See what Paul states earlier in this passage for the context - 1 Corinthians 15:14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. Thus Baptism for the dead, as according to the Biblical basis for doing so, seems to be done if taken in a literal sense, in vanity.
Celestial Marriage is also an addition to the scripture. This is taught in the book Doctrine and Covenants."
The Book of Mormon's foundational level is predicated on Yeshua going to the original inhabitants of America after his resurrection. But again, nothing is mentioned about this in scripture. As a matter of fact, this took place in Galilee. This is another addition to scripture.
Now it is within the nature of a Mormon to point this particular scrpture out - 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
This comes from the KJV. We will touch base on this later, and why I am not a fan of this particular version of the Bible. (One point I have alluded to is the change of the name of Ya'akov to James as the brother of Yeshua). Nevertheless, an earlier translation from the Wycleffe version declares " 11 I am a good shepherd; a good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
12 But an hired hind, and that is not the shepherd, whose be not the sheep his own [whose the sheep be not his own], seeth a wolf coming, and he leaveth the sheep, and fleeth; and the wolf snatcheth, and scattereth the sheep.
13 And the hired hind fleeth, for he is an hired hind, and it pertaineth not to him of the sheep.
14 I am a good shepherd, and I know my sheep, and my sheep know me.
15 As the Father hath known me, I know the Father; and I put my life for my sheep.
16 [And] I have other sheep, that be not of this fold, and it behooveth me to bring them together, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be made one fold and one shepherd. " Even in the KJV, there is not an issue when this verse is taken in its context. There are Jewish believers of the flock, and there are non-Jewish believers of the flock. In its context, that is what this means. It goes back to Numbers 15:13-16. Continuing further.
The Pearl of Great Price contains the first 6 chapters of Genesis and the Book of Abraham, which has been proven to be a fraudulent Egyptian Papyrus from an Archaeological perspective.
The Living Prophet, or the head of the church is said to be "more vital to us than the standard works." Here we can also see manipulation of thought by the ward teachers of 1945. "Any Latter-Day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, and revelators of the church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy....Lucier....wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking....When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan, it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of the controversy."
Ah, but obviously, a Torah observant Jew would draw exception to this if he followed the entirety of the Torah. Exodus 23:2 declares " 2 "Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd," This would also be so if the leaders were wrong.
Secondly, the Bible encourages us to think for ourselves, but not to follow apostasy that turns away from what the Bible declares...such as Colossians 2:8 " 8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." It also encourages us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 "21Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22Avoid every kind of evil." By setting up these standards, we are creating philosophy that opposes the will of God.
We have seen two strikes against the Mormon faith, but lets continue for the sake of discussion. This gets even more interesting.
What does Joseph Smith state? "I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil so that you may see. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ did. Here then is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priest to God, the same as all Gods have done before you (The King Follett Discourse pp8-10)."
Whats the problem with this? A small...tiny problem when we read Alma 11:26-29 of the Book of Mormon. "And Zeezrom said unto him: "Thou sayest that there is a true and living God?" And Amulek said :"Yea there is a true and living God." Now Zeezrom said :"Is there more than one God?" And he answered, "No!"
The plural discoursed by Joseph Smith "all Gods" refutes this. We therefore have a contradiction within the very sources of the Mormon doctrine.
Another rather problematic area for the Book of Mormon is Archaeological discoveries, which we should have a slew of them by now if the Book of Mormon were true.
Some of these are:
1) None of the cities have been located.
2) No names have been found in the New World Inscriptions.
3) Nothing has corresponded to Joseph Smith's ideology of "reformed Egyptian" since nothing has been located in America that has been written in Egyptian.
4) No ancient extracts of the Book of Mormon have been found
5) No artifacts have been found which demonstrate the Book of Mormon to be true. Furthermore, nothing from the Americas has demonstrated that the ancient inhabitants held to Jewish or Christian beliefs.
These are all unexplained problems, which extend to the point that scholars of the Mormon faith have twisted their own scriptures to leave traditional understandings behind Mormonism.
Other contradictions include 1 Nephi 2:5-8 which states that there is a river called Laman which emptied into the Red Sea, but this has never been discovered, no river has ever emptied into the Red Sea from Arabia. Alma 7:10 declares that Yeshua would be born in Jerusalem, but the Bible clearly confirms it would be Bethlehem.
However with these problems alone it is easy to see that the Mormons have their share of problems and contradictions to work with. Our God is not the author of confusion, and as such, these resources do not appear to be coming from God.
What do the Rabbis have to say about Isaiah 53?
It is quite incredible as to what you will find stated by the community of the ancient rabbinical resources of the Ancient Jews. While the very Hebrewic language of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is enough to dismiss the notion that Isaiah 53 is about Israel as a nation, what is even more incredible is that every ancient Jewish resources confirms this explanation as we will see.
Here is a listing of these ancient rabbinical commentaries.
"“Then he (my servant Messiah) will become despised, and will cut off the glory of all the Kingdoms; they will be prostrate and mourning, like a man of pains, and like One destined for sickness; and as though the presence of the Shekinah had been withdrawn from us, they will be despised, and esteemed not.”Targum JonathanBabylonian Talmud states "The Rabanan say that Messiah’s name is The Suffering Scholar of Rabbi’s House (or The Leper Scholar) for it is written, “Surely He hath born our grief and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.”[3] "The Messiah—what is his name?…The Rabbis say, The leprous one; those of the house of Rabbi [4] say, The sick one, as it is said, “Surely he hath borne our sicknesses.”[5]Midrash Siphre says "R. Yosé the Galilaean said, Come forth and learn the righteousness of the King Messiah and the reward of the just from the first man who received but one commandment, a prohibition, and transgressed it: consider how many deaths were inflicted upon himself, upon his own generations, and upon those that followed them, till the end of all generations. Which attribute is greater, the attribute of goodness, or the attribute of vengeance? He answered, The attribute of goodness is the greater, and the attribute of vengeance is less; how much more, then will the King Messiah, who endures affliction and pains for the transgressors (as it is written, “He was wounded,” etc.) justify all generations! And this is what is meant when it is said, “And the Lord made the iniquity of us all meet upon him.”[6]Midrash Thanhuma " R. Nahman say, The word “man” in the passage, every man a head of the house of his fathers (Num. i. 4), refers to the Messiah the son of David, as it is written, “Behold the man whose name is Zemah” (the branch); where Yonathan interprets, Behold the man Messiah (Zech. Vi. 12): and so it is said, “A man of pains and known to sickness.”[7]"Midrash P'siqtha "The Holy One brought forth the soul of the Messiah, and said to him…Art thou willing to…redeem my sons…? He replied, I am. God replied, If so, thou must take upon thyself chastisements in order to wipe away their iniquity, as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.” The Messiah answered, I will take them upon me gladly."Midrash Konen "The fifth mansion in Paradise…there dwell Messiah son of David, and Elijah, and Messiah son of Ephraim. There also is the “litter of the wood of Lebanon”…and within it Messiah son of David who loveth Jerusalem. Elijah takes him by the head, lays him down in his bosom, holds him, and says, “Bear thou sufferings and wounds wherewith the Almighty doth chastise thee for Israel’s sin;” and so it is written, He was wounded for our transgression, bruised for our iniquities, until the time when the end should come.[8] "
The Musaf Prayer states from the 7th century A.D. "Our righteous anointed[11] is departed from us; horror hath seized us, and we have none to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our iniquities, and our transgressions, and was wounded because of our transgressions. He beareth our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the time the Eternal will create Him (the Messiah) as a new creature. O bring Him up from the circle of the earth. Raise him up from Seir, to assemble us the second time by the power of Yinon.[12] "The Zohar declares "There is in the garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the sons of sickness: this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for transgressions of the law: and this is that which is written, “Surely our sickness he hath carried.”[13] "Rabbi Moshe had-Darshan "This is that which is written, “I will lift mine eyes unto the hills: O whence cometh my help” (Ps. Cxxi. I)? and, “Who art thou, O great mountain” (Zech. iv. 7)? The great mountain means the Messiah, and why does he speak of him thus? Because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, “Behold my servant shall prosper.” I have learnt it from the words of R. Mosheh had-Darshan: The redeemer whom I shall raise up from among you will have no father, as it is written, “Behold the man whose name is Zemah [branch], and he shall branch up out of his place” (Zech. vi. 12); and so Isaiah says, “And he came up like a sucker,” etc.Says R. B’rckhyah, The Holy One said to Israel…the redeemer whom I shall raise up out of your midst will have no father also, as it is said, “Behold the man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch up out of his place” (Zech. vi. 12); and similarly by Isaiah, “And he came up as a sucker before him.”The Holy One said…O Messiah, my righteousness, said he, the iniquities of those who are hidden beside thee will cause thee to enter into a hard yoke: thine eyes shall see no light, and thine ears shall hear great reproaches from the nations of the world; thy nostrils shall smell ill savours, thy mouth taste bitterness, and thy tongue cleave to thy gums; thy skin shall hang upon thy bones, and thy body grow weak in grief and sighing. Art thou willing to accept this? if so, it shall be well; but if not, behold, I drive them from me for ever. Said the Messiah, Lord of the world, I accept it joyfully and will endure these chastisements, upon the condition that thou givest life again to those who die in my days, and to those who died from the time of the first man until now; and that thou savest in my days not only these…but such as were born out of due time; nor again these only, but those also whom thou thoughtest to create but who were not created. The Holy One replied, I will do so: and forthwith the Messiah accepted the chastisements of love, as it is written, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted.”This is the King Messiah, who belonged to the generation of the wicked, but rejected them, and chose the Holy One and his holy name to serve him with all his heart, and applied himself to seek for mercy for Israel, and to fast and humble himself on their behalf, as it is said, “He was wounded for our transgressions,” etc. And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks for mercy upon them, as it is written, “By his stripes we were healed,” and “He carried the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
Every rabbi up through 800 years after the commentary of the Talmud also agrees. Until Rashi of course. But for those who are a fan of the Rashi commentary discussing that Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel, it should be paid careful attention to why this was. Rabbi ben Eliezer, a contemporary of Rashi, confirms this for us. One more point. Rabbi ben Eliezer states "15.Rashi, toward the end of the 11th century, was the first to apply Isaiah 53 to Israel. Initially, he applied it to the Messiah. (See Sanhedrin 93.) Only after the Crusades began did Rashi assert that the suffering servant was Israel.[18] However, Rashi’s new view was seen as an aberration from the traditional view (that it spoke of the Messiah). "
Thus we see, this application was solely due to the bad effect of the Crusades. This led to Rashi's argument from emotion. Isaiah 53's initial meaning to him was that it was to be applied to the Messiah, but he later reinvented the "Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel" theory. It is steeped in no historical facts, or factual details concerning the Tanakh or Talmud whatsoever.
Does this mean that the Talmudic rabbis believed Yeshua was this guy? No, and primarily because they were looking for the wrong role of the Messiah (Ben David) instead of Ben Yosef (and we will talk about the roles of the Messiah in a later article). But some very interesting information can be found on Yeshua in Sanhedrin 43a, which confirms, and does not deny, what the Brit Hadashah has to state about Yeshua. "There is a tradition (in a Barraitha): They hanged Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover[1]. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and lead them away from God[2]. Anyone who can provide evidence on his behalf should come forward to defend him." When, however, nothing favorable about him was found, he was hanged on the Sabbath of the Passover[1].Ulla[3] commented: "Do you think that he belongs among those for whom redeeming evidence is sought? Rather, he was a seducer [of whom] the All-merciful has said: 'Show them no pity... and do not shield them.' (Deut 13.8b NRSV)[4] In Yeshu's case, however, an exception was made because he was close to those who held [political/religious] authority."
So according to the Talmud, there was absolutely no reason that Yeshua (called Yeshu) should have been hung on the tree of life according to the standards of the Torah. He didn't break the Torah. What makes this more interesting is that this would have been the place within the Talmud to deny the story of Yeshua. Israel, your Messiah is crying for you (Matthew 23).
Thus we see, this application was solely due to the bad effect of the Crusades. This led to Rashi's argument from emotion. Isaiah 53's initial meaning to him was that it was to be applied to the Messiah, but he later reinvented the "Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel" theory. It is steeped in no historical facts, or factual details concerning the Tanakh or Talmud whatsoever.
Here is a listing of these ancient rabbinical commentaries.
"“Then he (my servant Messiah) will become despised, and will cut off the glory of all the Kingdoms; they will be prostrate and mourning, like a man of pains, and like One destined for sickness; and as though the presence of the Shekinah had been withdrawn from us, they will be despised, and esteemed not.”Targum JonathanBabylonian Talmud states "The Rabanan say that Messiah’s name is The Suffering Scholar of Rabbi’s House (or The Leper Scholar) for it is written, “Surely He hath born our grief and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.”[3] "The Messiah—what is his name?…The Rabbis say, The leprous one; those of the house of Rabbi [4] say, The sick one, as it is said, “Surely he hath borne our sicknesses.”[5]Midrash Siphre says "R. Yosé the Galilaean said, Come forth and learn the righteousness of the King Messiah and the reward of the just from the first man who received but one commandment, a prohibition, and transgressed it: consider how many deaths were inflicted upon himself, upon his own generations, and upon those that followed them, till the end of all generations. Which attribute is greater, the attribute of goodness, or the attribute of vengeance? He answered, The attribute of goodness is the greater, and the attribute of vengeance is less; how much more, then will the King Messiah, who endures affliction and pains for the transgressors (as it is written, “He was wounded,” etc.) justify all generations! And this is what is meant when it is said, “And the Lord made the iniquity of us all meet upon him.”[6]Midrash Thanhuma " R. Nahman say, The word “man” in the passage, every man a head of the house of his fathers (Num. i. 4), refers to the Messiah the son of David, as it is written, “Behold the man whose name is Zemah” (the branch); where Yonathan interprets, Behold the man Messiah (Zech. Vi. 12): and so it is said, “A man of pains and known to sickness.”[7]"Midrash P'siqtha "The Holy One brought forth the soul of the Messiah, and said to him…Art thou willing to…redeem my sons…? He replied, I am. God replied, If so, thou must take upon thyself chastisements in order to wipe away their iniquity, as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.” The Messiah answered, I will take them upon me gladly."Midrash Konen "The fifth mansion in Paradise…there dwell Messiah son of David, and Elijah, and Messiah son of Ephraim. There also is the “litter of the wood of Lebanon”…and within it Messiah son of David who loveth Jerusalem. Elijah takes him by the head, lays him down in his bosom, holds him, and says, “Bear thou sufferings and wounds wherewith the Almighty doth chastise thee for Israel’s sin;” and so it is written, He was wounded for our transgression, bruised for our iniquities, until the time when the end should come.[8] "
The Musaf Prayer states from the 7th century A.D. "Our righteous anointed[11] is departed from us; horror hath seized us, and we have none to justify us. He hath borne the yoke of our iniquities, and our transgressions, and was wounded because of our transgressions. He beareth our sins on his shoulder, that he may find pardon for our iniquities. We shall be healed by his wound, at the time the Eternal will create Him (the Messiah) as a new creature. O bring Him up from the circle of the earth. Raise him up from Seir, to assemble us the second time by the power of Yinon.[12] "The Zohar declares "There is in the garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the sons of sickness: this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for transgressions of the law: and this is that which is written, “Surely our sickness he hath carried.”[13] "Rabbi Moshe had-Darshan "This is that which is written, “I will lift mine eyes unto the hills: O whence cometh my help” (Ps. Cxxi. I)? and, “Who art thou, O great mountain” (Zech. iv. 7)? The great mountain means the Messiah, and why does he speak of him thus? Because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, “Behold my servant shall prosper.” I have learnt it from the words of R. Mosheh had-Darshan: The redeemer whom I shall raise up from among you will have no father, as it is written, “Behold the man whose name is Zemah [branch], and he shall branch up out of his place” (Zech. vi. 12); and so Isaiah says, “And he came up like a sucker,” etc.Says R. B’rckhyah, The Holy One said to Israel…the redeemer whom I shall raise up out of your midst will have no father also, as it is said, “Behold the man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch up out of his place” (Zech. vi. 12); and similarly by Isaiah, “And he came up as a sucker before him.”The Holy One said…O Messiah, my righteousness, said he, the iniquities of those who are hidden beside thee will cause thee to enter into a hard yoke: thine eyes shall see no light, and thine ears shall hear great reproaches from the nations of the world; thy nostrils shall smell ill savours, thy mouth taste bitterness, and thy tongue cleave to thy gums; thy skin shall hang upon thy bones, and thy body grow weak in grief and sighing. Art thou willing to accept this? if so, it shall be well; but if not, behold, I drive them from me for ever. Said the Messiah, Lord of the world, I accept it joyfully and will endure these chastisements, upon the condition that thou givest life again to those who die in my days, and to those who died from the time of the first man until now; and that thou savest in my days not only these…but such as were born out of due time; nor again these only, but those also whom thou thoughtest to create but who were not created. The Holy One replied, I will do so: and forthwith the Messiah accepted the chastisements of love, as it is written, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted.”This is the King Messiah, who belonged to the generation of the wicked, but rejected them, and chose the Holy One and his holy name to serve him with all his heart, and applied himself to seek for mercy for Israel, and to fast and humble himself on their behalf, as it is said, “He was wounded for our transgressions,” etc. And when Israel is sinful, the Messiah seeks for mercy upon them, as it is written, “By his stripes we were healed,” and “He carried the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
Every rabbi up through 800 years after the commentary of the Talmud also agrees. Until Rashi of course. But for those who are a fan of the Rashi commentary discussing that Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel, it should be paid careful attention to why this was. Rabbi ben Eliezer, a contemporary of Rashi, confirms this for us. One more point. Rabbi ben Eliezer states "15.Rashi, toward the end of the 11th century, was the first to apply Isaiah 53 to Israel. Initially, he applied it to the Messiah. (See Sanhedrin 93.) Only after the Crusades began did Rashi assert that the suffering servant was Israel.[18] However, Rashi’s new view was seen as an aberration from the traditional view (that it spoke of the Messiah). "
Thus we see, this application was solely due to the bad effect of the Crusades. This led to Rashi's argument from emotion. Isaiah 53's initial meaning to him was that it was to be applied to the Messiah, but he later reinvented the "Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel" theory. It is steeped in no historical facts, or factual details concerning the Tanakh or Talmud whatsoever.
Does this mean that the Talmudic rabbis believed Yeshua was this guy? No, and primarily because they were looking for the wrong role of the Messiah (Ben David) instead of Ben Yosef (and we will talk about the roles of the Messiah in a later article). But some very interesting information can be found on Yeshua in Sanhedrin 43a, which confirms, and does not deny, what the Brit Hadashah has to state about Yeshua. "There is a tradition (in a Barraitha): They hanged Yeshu on the Sabbath of the Passover[1]. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), "Yeshu is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and lead them away from God[2]. Anyone who can provide evidence on his behalf should come forward to defend him." When, however, nothing favorable about him was found, he was hanged on the Sabbath of the Passover[1].Ulla[3] commented: "Do you think that he belongs among those for whom redeeming evidence is sought? Rather, he was a seducer [of whom] the All-merciful has said: 'Show them no pity... and do not shield them.' (Deut 13.8b NRSV)[4] In Yeshu's case, however, an exception was made because he was close to those who held [political/religious] authority."
So according to the Talmud, there was absolutely no reason that Yeshua (called Yeshu) should have been hung on the tree of life according to the standards of the Torah. He didn't break the Torah. What makes this more interesting is that this would have been the place within the Talmud to deny the story of Yeshua. Israel, your Messiah is crying for you (Matthew 23).
Thus we see, this application was solely due to the bad effect of the Crusades. This led to Rashi's argument from emotion. Isaiah 53's initial meaning to him was that it was to be applied to the Messiah, but he later reinvented the "Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel" theory. It is steeped in no historical facts, or factual details concerning the Tanakh or Talmud whatsoever.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
A letter to Brian Simmons on a few reflections of my thoughts on Preterism
Brian,
Thanks for giving me this opportunity to speak with you about Preterism. Let me begin.
First of all, I go by the name of hamashiachagape on the internet. I do not like to disclose my name because it is a part of what I am called to do by God. The name is Hebrew and Greek combined, and I am called to share the love of the Messiah with everyone, by strictly following the meaning of what the Bible declares, and not steering from its meaning.
While getting involved in my initial stages of Christian Apologetics, I got involved with two things that were highly concerning to me. One was Neoplatonic Christianity. I was a huge admirer at one point in time of Augustine of Hippo. This has since seen a huge decline since my acceptance of Messianic Judaism and my strict adherence to the Torah. The second thing of concern to me was that I was a partial preterist. I became exposed to this by some of my fellow friends of Apologetics.
This is what I wish to write about today. Partial preterism, though not necessarily a hindrance to my Messianic Jewish faith in the form that I held it, was actually problematic once I began studying the Hebrew and Greek meaning behind words of the Bible. I basically was of the belief that everything up to the point of Revelation 20 had been fulfilled.
However, today, I'd like to give a couple of reasons why I do not believe this is the case any longer.
First of all, and I have a problem with this when I talk to anti-missionaries, how will a Jewish person, one who is well versed in Messianic prophecy, respond to Preteristic viewpoints about the Brit Hadashah? What they are going to do, and if anybody hasn't been to an Orthodox synagogue to try this out, I would encourage it, is ask you a few questions.
1) Have all of the Gentiles gone up to the holy place to celebrate Sukkot? In order to be honest, one would have to answer no.
2) Has world peace been restored to the Earth? Again, to be honest, one needs to answer no (this is fulfilled in the coming back of the Messiah, this is of great importance to some of the points I'm bringing up today).
3) Was the temple re-established when the Yeshua came the first time?
Again, the honest answer to declare is, no this has not happened yet.
We can go on and on. But the bottom line is, there are so many things within the Bible that haven't been fulfilled yet, and its very simple to see this given through just these three answers.
So why is it important to understand what a Jew understands? We're Christians right? Yes you are, but who were given the oracles according to Paul? The Jews were. Not to mention, the rabbis have a very clear and distinct understanding of the Hebraic scriptures that many Christians today take for granted, as the predicating basis for everything. You can not defend this by then wishing to get rid of this because you believe in a form of replacement theology.
Now, there are a few key words we need to look at with Revelation. First of all, we see and the given language is important to understand here, in Revelation 1:5 from the Wycleffe Brit Hadashah translation "5 and of Jesus Christ, that is a faithful witness, the first begotten of dead men [the first begotten of dead], and prince of kings of the earth; which loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood." He's still the prince. He's not the king of kings yet. He hasn't fulfilled ALL of the prophecy yet. This all needs to be fulfilled, and it needs to be literally fulfilled by him, just in the same way his role as the high priest was fulfilled (it was fulfilled literally, to the letter and to the tee - see Rico Cortez - Is Yeshua truly the Messiah lecture).
Another key word is here - 1 Apocalypse of Jesus Christ [Apocalypse, or revelation, of Jesus Christ], which God gave to him to make open to his servants, which things it behooveth to be made soon. And he signified, sending by his angel to his servant John,
2 which bare witnessing to the word of God, and witnessing of Jesus Christ, in these things, whatever things he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and he that heareth the words of this prophecy, and keepeth those things that be written in it; for the time is nigh.
A couple to mention. This is the revelation of Yeshua ha Mashiach. This is not the revelation of John. The Christian community has made this mistake far too long. Secondly, this book is a book of prophecy given to John it is presumed in 90 A.D or possibly as late as 96 A.D. This is seen by Tertullian's writing here - " we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called "Titan." We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign. 4. But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is." This has to do with the Anti-Messiah and demonstrates that the book of Revelation was written during Domitian's reign. Also Victorinus states in the 2nd century, once again closer to the events than any of the other early church fathers "
“When John said these things, he was in the Isle of Patmos,
condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse;
and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release
by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated.” So the timelines match. Both of these truths are hindrances to the position of Preterism, regarding Nero being the anti-christ, since he was the emperor in around 50 A.D. Not to mention, not only is this book a book of prophecy, its also the only book of prophecy within the Bible that lists things chronologically (and then). Because of the language given, if its truly from God, it must be completed in a sequential fashion. Lets move forward.
Why is all of this important? We're going to take a look at this now. In Matthew 24:30-36 it is declared by Yeshua himself "29"Immediately after the distress of those days " 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c] 30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[a]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[b] (another way of expressing this is race of people in the Greek) will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
Furthermore, it is stated in Acts that God's angel says Yeshua will come back to the Earth. We haven't heard the 7th shofar blow (revelation 11). None of this has happened yet.
So when is Yeshua coming back to the Earth? We can tell based off of this that it will happen after the tribulation period. This is important to understand. Why?
Essentially when Preterists see the temple in Revelation, they see the 2nd temple. Problematic with that is this specific portion in Revelation 11. "1I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. 2But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles."
This is important! The court of the Gentiles did not exist within the 2nd temple period. So, its amazing, but we can connect the temple in Ezekiel 40-46 with this picture. One is compelled to answer this with "but that temple of Ezekiel was supposed to be built soon." Soon by whose standards? God's standards. So this goes beyond man's capacity to understand when this would occur. The next objection to the re-establishment of the temple is "Ezekiel's temple was metaphorical to the picture of Yeshua." Problem with this, and we're going to see. Ezekiel 40 declares something of interest. "2 In visions of God he took me to the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, on whose south side were some buildings that looked like a city." At first glance, this doesn't look too problematic. But, when understanding the land of Israel, and to those who have actually visited there, we realize that there are not mountains in Israel. This obviously is talking about something physically fulfilled within the future. Animal sacrifices in the temple must be resumed (for what purpose, we do not know, thats God's business) and this shall come with the 2nd parousia of the Messiah. That is all we are told.
Lets move on now. We were talking about world peace earlier. Preterists have a problem when we're looking at this. Has Revelation 21 been fulfilled, where there will be no more tears or sorrows within mankind? Simple answer. Watch the 5 o'clock news.
The simple answer IMHO is that there is a whole other role to be fulfilled. When we follow the events fulfilled by Yeshua and the timeline of God's appointed times in Leviticus 23, not all of these events have been fulfilled. As a matter of fact, only 3 have been fufilled. Exodus 40 ties in perfectly with Yeshua being born on Aviv 1, or on the Graeco Roman Calendar March 20, 6 B.C. Amongst other rabbinical commentary, Hippolytus has this written on his gravestone, and admits it in his writings. Pesach, Aviv 15, has been fufilled, and in the exact same fashion that Yeshua declares it would happen. 3 days he spent in the earth. Wednesday until Saturday evening once again on the Graeco Roman calendar. His resurrection was the fulfillment of Aviv 15, another fulfillment of God's appointed times. The third was Shavuot. This was fulfilled on that very same day with the giving of the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit) to 120 believers at one time.
The best thing, and ultimate challenge to those who wish to believe in a Preteristic outline is to find when the other 3 have been fulfilled. These appointed times by God have not been fulfilled. They are going to be fulfilled in Yeshua's second coming, his parousia.
So the answer to the questions at hand can easily be seen within the language presented. Yeshua has not returned to the earth a second time, has not fulfilled all of the prophecies. Most replacement theologians do not like this because they know that they then must follow the Torah to the tee. But Yeshua declares even still his words would last forever. If he's God, that means the Torah as well. This call I make to those of understanding. Anyone who wishes to follow Preterism, read www.jewsforjudaism.org. Their attacks are levied directly at Christians of this breed. Preterism is not a sound Biblical approach to scripture. It is incorrect doctrine. It is growing within the body of believers, and its our responsibility, within our community to put a stop to it before it spreads too far.
hamashiachagape
Thanks for giving me this opportunity to speak with you about Preterism. Let me begin.
First of all, I go by the name of hamashiachagape on the internet. I do not like to disclose my name because it is a part of what I am called to do by God. The name is Hebrew and Greek combined, and I am called to share the love of the Messiah with everyone, by strictly following the meaning of what the Bible declares, and not steering from its meaning.
While getting involved in my initial stages of Christian Apologetics, I got involved with two things that were highly concerning to me. One was Neoplatonic Christianity. I was a huge admirer at one point in time of Augustine of Hippo. This has since seen a huge decline since my acceptance of Messianic Judaism and my strict adherence to the Torah. The second thing of concern to me was that I was a partial preterist. I became exposed to this by some of my fellow friends of Apologetics.
This is what I wish to write about today. Partial preterism, though not necessarily a hindrance to my Messianic Jewish faith in the form that I held it, was actually problematic once I began studying the Hebrew and Greek meaning behind words of the Bible. I basically was of the belief that everything up to the point of Revelation 20 had been fulfilled.
However, today, I'd like to give a couple of reasons why I do not believe this is the case any longer.
First of all, and I have a problem with this when I talk to anti-missionaries, how will a Jewish person, one who is well versed in Messianic prophecy, respond to Preteristic viewpoints about the Brit Hadashah? What they are going to do, and if anybody hasn't been to an Orthodox synagogue to try this out, I would encourage it, is ask you a few questions.
1) Have all of the Gentiles gone up to the holy place to celebrate Sukkot? In order to be honest, one would have to answer no.
2) Has world peace been restored to the Earth? Again, to be honest, one needs to answer no (this is fulfilled in the coming back of the Messiah, this is of great importance to some of the points I'm bringing up today).
3) Was the temple re-established when the Yeshua came the first time?
Again, the honest answer to declare is, no this has not happened yet.
We can go on and on. But the bottom line is, there are so many things within the Bible that haven't been fulfilled yet, and its very simple to see this given through just these three answers.
So why is it important to understand what a Jew understands? We're Christians right? Yes you are, but who were given the oracles according to Paul? The Jews were. Not to mention, the rabbis have a very clear and distinct understanding of the Hebraic scriptures that many Christians today take for granted, as the predicating basis for everything. You can not defend this by then wishing to get rid of this because you believe in a form of replacement theology.
Now, there are a few key words we need to look at with Revelation. First of all, we see and the given language is important to understand here, in Revelation 1:5 from the Wycleffe Brit Hadashah translation "5 and of Jesus Christ, that is a faithful witness, the first begotten of dead men [the first begotten of dead], and prince of kings of the earth; which loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood." He's still the prince. He's not the king of kings yet. He hasn't fulfilled ALL of the prophecy yet. This all needs to be fulfilled, and it needs to be literally fulfilled by him, just in the same way his role as the high priest was fulfilled (it was fulfilled literally, to the letter and to the tee - see Rico Cortez - Is Yeshua truly the Messiah lecture).
Another key word is here - 1 Apocalypse of Jesus Christ [Apocalypse, or revelation, of Jesus Christ], which God gave to him to make open to his servants, which things it behooveth to be made soon. And he signified, sending by his angel to his servant John,
2 which bare witnessing to the word of God, and witnessing of Jesus Christ, in these things, whatever things he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and he that heareth the words of this prophecy, and keepeth those things that be written in it; for the time is nigh.
A couple to mention. This is the revelation of Yeshua ha Mashiach. This is not the revelation of John. The Christian community has made this mistake far too long. Secondly, this book is a book of prophecy given to John it is presumed in 90 A.D or possibly as late as 96 A.D. This is seen by Tertullian's writing here - " we infer, that perchance he who is to come shall be called "Titan." We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign. 4. But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is." This has to do with the Anti-Messiah and demonstrates that the book of Revelation was written during Domitian's reign. Also Victorinus states in the 2nd century, once again closer to the events than any of the other early church fathers "
“When John said these things, he was in the Isle of Patmos,
condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse;
and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release
by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated.” So the timelines match. Both of these truths are hindrances to the position of Preterism, regarding Nero being the anti-christ, since he was the emperor in around 50 A.D. Not to mention, not only is this book a book of prophecy, its also the only book of prophecy within the Bible that lists things chronologically (and then). Because of the language given, if its truly from God, it must be completed in a sequential fashion. Lets move forward.
Why is all of this important? We're going to take a look at this now. In Matthew 24:30-36 it is declared by Yeshua himself "29"Immediately after the distress of those days " 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c] 30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[a]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[b] (another way of expressing this is race of people in the Greek) will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
Furthermore, it is stated in Acts that God's angel says Yeshua will come back to the Earth. We haven't heard the 7th shofar blow (revelation 11). None of this has happened yet.
So when is Yeshua coming back to the Earth? We can tell based off of this that it will happen after the tribulation period. This is important to understand. Why?
Essentially when Preterists see the temple in Revelation, they see the 2nd temple. Problematic with that is this specific portion in Revelation 11. "1I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. 2But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles."
This is important! The court of the Gentiles did not exist within the 2nd temple period. So, its amazing, but we can connect the temple in Ezekiel 40-46 with this picture. One is compelled to answer this with "but that temple of Ezekiel was supposed to be built soon." Soon by whose standards? God's standards. So this goes beyond man's capacity to understand when this would occur. The next objection to the re-establishment of the temple is "Ezekiel's temple was metaphorical to the picture of Yeshua." Problem with this, and we're going to see. Ezekiel 40 declares something of interest. "2 In visions of God he took me to the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, on whose south side were some buildings that looked like a city." At first glance, this doesn't look too problematic. But, when understanding the land of Israel, and to those who have actually visited there, we realize that there are not mountains in Israel. This obviously is talking about something physically fulfilled within the future. Animal sacrifices in the temple must be resumed (for what purpose, we do not know, thats God's business) and this shall come with the 2nd parousia of the Messiah. That is all we are told.
Lets move on now. We were talking about world peace earlier. Preterists have a problem when we're looking at this. Has Revelation 21 been fulfilled, where there will be no more tears or sorrows within mankind? Simple answer. Watch the 5 o'clock news.
The simple answer IMHO is that there is a whole other role to be fulfilled. When we follow the events fulfilled by Yeshua and the timeline of God's appointed times in Leviticus 23, not all of these events have been fulfilled. As a matter of fact, only 3 have been fufilled. Exodus 40 ties in perfectly with Yeshua being born on Aviv 1, or on the Graeco Roman Calendar March 20, 6 B.C. Amongst other rabbinical commentary, Hippolytus has this written on his gravestone, and admits it in his writings. Pesach, Aviv 15, has been fufilled, and in the exact same fashion that Yeshua declares it would happen. 3 days he spent in the earth. Wednesday until Saturday evening once again on the Graeco Roman calendar. His resurrection was the fulfillment of Aviv 15, another fulfillment of God's appointed times. The third was Shavuot. This was fulfilled on that very same day with the giving of the Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit) to 120 believers at one time.
The best thing, and ultimate challenge to those who wish to believe in a Preteristic outline is to find when the other 3 have been fulfilled. These appointed times by God have not been fulfilled. They are going to be fulfilled in Yeshua's second coming, his parousia.
So the answer to the questions at hand can easily be seen within the language presented. Yeshua has not returned to the earth a second time, has not fulfilled all of the prophecies. Most replacement theologians do not like this because they know that they then must follow the Torah to the tee. But Yeshua declares even still his words would last forever. If he's God, that means the Torah as well. This call I make to those of understanding. Anyone who wishes to follow Preterism, read www.jewsforjudaism.org. Their attacks are levied directly at Christians of this breed. Preterism is not a sound Biblical approach to scripture. It is incorrect doctrine. It is growing within the body of believers, and its our responsibility, within our community to put a stop to it before it spreads too far.
hamashiachagape
On Rosh Hashanah, and why I do not celebrate the holiday.
Is Rosh Hashanah the Hebrewic New Year?
Just recently, as I'm coming to become more familiar with the Messianic Jewish Theology, I was approached by a Theology minor on the issue of whether or not Rosh Hashanah was the Jewish New Year holiday.. I took the liberty to discuss with him what the first day of the New Year Hebrewic calendar was. He directed me to the all important Torah passage Leviticus 23:23-25. We will take a look at that in a while. Its important to know first what Rosh Hashana means in Hebrew. In Hebrew Rosh Hashana literally means "head of the year." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_Hashanah It is oberserved on the first day of the Jewish month Tishri, which is the seventh month of the Hebrewic calendar. Thus, what the Orthodox Jewish community claims is that Rosh Hashanah is the start of the civil year in the Hebrew calendar. Where it must be asked did this New Year commemoration originate from? Its origin stems from the Babylonian captivity oddly enough. So the answer to this is in legalistic texts. Originally, and according to the holy text of the Bible, the Feast of Trumpets was noted to be a holiday known as Yom Teruah. This was the literal Hebrewic and Biblical term for "Festival of Shofars." The Mishnah and Talmud later on would change this into Rosh Hashanah, or the New Year observance due to its very unfounded belief that this was the representation of when the creation of the world or universe began and its exposure to Babylonian paganism (something we still have a problem with today based off of the months of the Hebrewic calendar named after the gods and goddessses from Babylonian paganism). As to why its unfounded, we shall address in a future article. In short, while the Mishnah is considered to be Orthodox Jewish oral law and was given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai (based off of oral tradition from the Gemara), it was actually began around the time of the Babylonian exile when one looks closely at the dates of the timeline of the lives of the rabbis. The Mishnah is actually merely a historical document with some very important material regarding Messianic prophecy, and customary procedures on how the holidays were kept. However, the Gemara, or the tradition completes the Talmud between the 2nd and 5th centuries C.E. There is no legitimate reason to accept either of them as an authoritative word of God. Lets see what God says about Yom Teruah. Is Yom Teruah the holiday that should be used to commemorate the New Years? As it reads from the New International Version "23 The LORD said to Moses, 24 "Say to the Israelites: 'On the first day of the seventh month you are to have a day of rest, a sacred assembly commemorated with trumpet blasts. 25 Do no regular work, but present an offering made to the LORD by fire.' " No where in this claim is it stated that God comes down and reveals to Moses that this is to be the New Year. That is only in later traditional man made accounts that this is the case. So what is the first of the year that God commands us to keep?This does actually to my surprise included, exist. The reason that there is no way that the New Years can be commemorated by what the Orthodox Jews of today claim is that Exodus 12 prohibits it. In Exodus 12, we read of the holiday, Pesach, which is to commemorate the New Years. "1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb [a] for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. 6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. 9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire—head, legs and inner parts. 10 Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. 11 This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD's Passover. 12 "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. 13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt. 14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting ordinance. 15 For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. 16 On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat—that is all you may do. 17 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 18 In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. 19 For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien or native-born. 20 Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread." 21 Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb. 22 Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. Not one of you shall go out the door of his house until morning. 23 When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down. 24 "Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants. 25 When you enter the land that the LORD will give you as he promised, observe this ceremony. 26 And when your children ask you, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' 27 then tell them, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.' " Then the people bowed down and worshiped. 28 The Israelites did just what the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron. 29 At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. 30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead."Thus we have our answer. Rosh Hashanah is not the Hebrewic New Year. It is what the Orthodox Jews follow incorrectly today as the New Year.
Just recently, as I'm coming to become more familiar with the Messianic Jewish Theology, I was approached by a Theology minor on the issue of whether or not Rosh Hashanah was the Jewish New Year holiday.. I took the liberty to discuss with him what the first day of the New Year Hebrewic calendar was. He directed me to the all important Torah passage Leviticus 23:23-25. We will take a look at that in a while. Its important to know first what Rosh Hashana means in Hebrew. In Hebrew Rosh Hashana literally means "head of the year." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_Hashanah It is oberserved on the first day of the Jewish month Tishri, which is the seventh month of the Hebrewic calendar. Thus, what the Orthodox Jewish community claims is that Rosh Hashanah is the start of the civil year in the Hebrew calendar. Where it must be asked did this New Year commemoration originate from? Its origin stems from the Babylonian captivity oddly enough. So the answer to this is in legalistic texts. Originally, and according to the holy text of the Bible, the Feast of Trumpets was noted to be a holiday known as Yom Teruah. This was the literal Hebrewic and Biblical term for "Festival of Shofars." The Mishnah and Talmud later on would change this into Rosh Hashanah, or the New Year observance due to its very unfounded belief that this was the representation of when the creation of the world or universe began and its exposure to Babylonian paganism (something we still have a problem with today based off of the months of the Hebrewic calendar named after the gods and goddessses from Babylonian paganism). As to why its unfounded, we shall address in a future article. In short, while the Mishnah is considered to be Orthodox Jewish oral law and was given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai (based off of oral tradition from the Gemara), it was actually began around the time of the Babylonian exile when one looks closely at the dates of the timeline of the lives of the rabbis. The Mishnah is actually merely a historical document with some very important material regarding Messianic prophecy, and customary procedures on how the holidays were kept. However, the Gemara, or the tradition completes the Talmud between the 2nd and 5th centuries C.E. There is no legitimate reason to accept either of them as an authoritative word of God. Lets see what God says about Yom Teruah. Is Yom Teruah the holiday that should be used to commemorate the New Years? As it reads from the New International Version "23 The LORD said to Moses, 24 "Say to the Israelites: 'On the first day of the seventh month you are to have a day of rest, a sacred assembly commemorated with trumpet blasts. 25 Do no regular work, but present an offering made to the LORD by fire.' " No where in this claim is it stated that God comes down and reveals to Moses that this is to be the New Year. That is only in later traditional man made accounts that this is the case. So what is the first of the year that God commands us to keep?This does actually to my surprise included, exist. The reason that there is no way that the New Years can be commemorated by what the Orthodox Jews of today claim is that Exodus 12 prohibits it. In Exodus 12, we read of the holiday, Pesach, which is to commemorate the New Years. "1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb [a] for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. 6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. 9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire—head, legs and inner parts. 10 Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. 11 This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD's Passover. 12 "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD. 13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt. 14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting ordinance. 15 For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. 16 On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat—that is all you may do. 17 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. 18 In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. 19 For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien or native-born. 20 Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread." 21 Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, "Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb. 22 Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. Not one of you shall go out the door of his house until morning. 23 When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down. 24 "Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants. 25 When you enter the land that the LORD will give you as he promised, observe this ceremony. 26 And when your children ask you, 'What does this ceremony mean to you?' 27 then tell them, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.' " Then the people bowed down and worshiped. 28 The Israelites did just what the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron. 29 At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. 30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead."Thus we have our answer. Rosh Hashanah is not the Hebrewic New Year. It is what the Orthodox Jews follow incorrectly today as the New Year.
On whether Evolution can be compromised with Messianic/Christian beliefs
Why can't Evolution co-exist with Christianity
A topic of debate for a long time has been whether or not Evolution can co-exist with Christianity. The topic has been addressed on many other websites all over the web on numerous occasions. The stance I personally go with after studying a vast array of different forms of understandings within the Science community is www.creationontheweb.org . First it would be good to define our terms. The definition of Evolution is changes that have occurred over time allow increases of information content to produce a hierarchical structure of animal and plant life forms. What does Christianity say about how the animal kingdom was created? First of all, in Genesis 1:11, it states that - 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." In regards to the term "according to their various kinds" this infers that God created plants to have a certain form in the beginning, not that they evolved by genetic means over time. Genesis 1:12 states - "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good." Initially there were no changes that occurred over time to produce life, it was created so from the outset. The same can be applied to animals. Genesis 1:21 states "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." From the initial outset, animals were created the way they were supposed to be. What happened to the animals? They would now become different kinds according to God, as its stated in Genesis 1:24 - And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. Thus, right here there is a problem from the Evolution and Christian mixture. What have people done to try to mix the two together? First we have the framework hypothesis. This states that Genesis is poetic and figurative. HOWEVER, this is not in line with the way that Genesis was written. According to http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history there are only two verses in Genesis that state anything poetic. In their own words - "The Hebrew verb forms of Genesis 1 have a particular feature that fits exactly what the Hebrews used for recording history or a series of past events. That is, only the first verb in a sequence of events is perfect (qatal), while the verbs that continue the narrative are imperfects (vayyiqtols).4 In Genesis 1, the first verb, bara (create), is perfect, while the subsequent verbs are imperfect.5 A proper translation in English recognises this Hebrew form and translates all the verbs as perfect (or past) tense. Genesis 1–11 also has several other hallmarks of historical narrative, such as ‘accusative particles’ that mark the objects of verbs. These are not translated into English (e.g. Hebrew ‘et’ in Genesis 1:1). Terms are often carefully defined. Also, parallelisms, a feature of Hebrew poetry (e.g. in many Psalms), are almost absent in Genesis.6" Thus, being that the book of Genesis does not follow a fictional prose of writing from the ancient time period, it would necessarily follow that Genesis is to be taken literally, thus nullifying the framework hypothesis. Another argument made can be utilized by both Evolutionists and Creation Scientists. This is called the Gap theory, the theory that over the course of Genesis 1:1 and 2, there was a lapse of billions of years. Creation comments on this again - Exodus 20:11 says, ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is …’ This is the definitive verse outside Genesis concerning the time frame of creation. It states categorically that God created everything in six days. There is just no allowance for a gap. 6 " http://creation.com/from-the-beginning-of-the-creation This reiiteration found in Exodus 20:11 states that there was 6 days needed, no more than that. Thus there was no creative process over the course of billions of years. Also, to refute another gappist argument - "The Hebrew words bara (‘create out of nothing’) and asah (‘make’) are used in the Bible. Genesis 1:1 uses bara and Exodus 20:11 uses asah. This is used by Gappists to claim that Exodus 20:11 means a recreating and forming of a destroyed world. But Genesis 1:26 uses bara and asah interchangeably. Asah in Nehemiah 9:6 is also used to mean creation out of nothing. "You alone are the LORD. You made (asah) the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you." http://creation.com/from-the-beginning-of-the-creation Finally the words tohu and bohu from Hebrew meaning "without form" and "void" respectfully. Gappists argue that this indicates a judgmental destruction by God of the world and a recreation. However, it only tells us that the earth was unformed and unfilled in Hebrew. Out of context is taken Jeremiah 4:23, which is a prophecy sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Thus the Gap Theory is incorrect. Another way to try to piece everything together is through Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolution. A major problem with Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creaitonism is Mark 10:6, where Yeshua states - "'at the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female'" Also the Greek word apo means "at the beginning", another problem for both of these positions. Also, animal sacrifice, as we talked about in another article, is immoral according to these two views. Moses writes in God's Decalogue "thou shalt not murder." Yet, if God tells us to sacrifice our own kinds, we are committing murder. Thus, what we have on our hands is a self defeating God, an illogical God if Natural Selection is used as a creative force to create humans. If we kill other members of the animal kingdom, we have God creating a world that is forced to kill each other from the get go. Sin becomes meaningless as God's will is to provide penal substition of animals to help forgive us of our sins before Yeshua, as is willed and provided a guideline in Leviticus 17. Thus in the end, Theistic Evolution, or Progressive Creationism become self refuting concepts from the Christian, Muslim or Jewish perspective. And Monotheism is the only possible God scenario. Polytheism is self refuting, because if God creates other gods....then God creates God and God = another god which means that God is not God, but must be God by very nature. Thus we have a contradiction through the principle of Identity. So Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creationism are purely contradictory ideas both Scientifically and Philosophically. In the end Evolution is purely secular Science. It proposes that we can know everything about the past through experiment, but thats absurd because on can not put the past into a test tube. It is important that we as true Christians stand up against this ideology, and follow Science the way the one True God wants us to follow it; through God's doing, intellectual honesty and the Scientific method.
A topic of debate for a long time has been whether or not Evolution can co-exist with Christianity. The topic has been addressed on many other websites all over the web on numerous occasions. The stance I personally go with after studying a vast array of different forms of understandings within the Science community is www.creationontheweb.org . First it would be good to define our terms. The definition of Evolution is changes that have occurred over time allow increases of information content to produce a hierarchical structure of animal and plant life forms. What does Christianity say about how the animal kingdom was created? First of all, in Genesis 1:11, it states that - 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." In regards to the term "according to their various kinds" this infers that God created plants to have a certain form in the beginning, not that they evolved by genetic means over time. Genesis 1:12 states - "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good." Initially there were no changes that occurred over time to produce life, it was created so from the outset. The same can be applied to animals. Genesis 1:21 states "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." From the initial outset, animals were created the way they were supposed to be. What happened to the animals? They would now become different kinds according to God, as its stated in Genesis 1:24 - And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. Thus, right here there is a problem from the Evolution and Christian mixture. What have people done to try to mix the two together? First we have the framework hypothesis. This states that Genesis is poetic and figurative. HOWEVER, this is not in line with the way that Genesis was written. According to http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history there are only two verses in Genesis that state anything poetic. In their own words - "The Hebrew verb forms of Genesis 1 have a particular feature that fits exactly what the Hebrews used for recording history or a series of past events. That is, only the first verb in a sequence of events is perfect (qatal), while the verbs that continue the narrative are imperfects (vayyiqtols).4 In Genesis 1, the first verb, bara (create), is perfect, while the subsequent verbs are imperfect.5 A proper translation in English recognises this Hebrew form and translates all the verbs as perfect (or past) tense. Genesis 1–11 also has several other hallmarks of historical narrative, such as ‘accusative particles’ that mark the objects of verbs. These are not translated into English (e.g. Hebrew ‘et’ in Genesis 1:1). Terms are often carefully defined. Also, parallelisms, a feature of Hebrew poetry (e.g. in many Psalms), are almost absent in Genesis.6" Thus, being that the book of Genesis does not follow a fictional prose of writing from the ancient time period, it would necessarily follow that Genesis is to be taken literally, thus nullifying the framework hypothesis. Another argument made can be utilized by both Evolutionists and Creation Scientists. This is called the Gap theory, the theory that over the course of Genesis 1:1 and 2, there was a lapse of billions of years. Creation comments on this again - Exodus 20:11 says, ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is …’ This is the definitive verse outside Genesis concerning the time frame of creation. It states categorically that God created everything in six days. There is just no allowance for a gap. 6 " http://creation.com/from-the-beginning-of-the-creation This reiiteration found in Exodus 20:11 states that there was 6 days needed, no more than that. Thus there was no creative process over the course of billions of years. Also, to refute another gappist argument - "The Hebrew words bara (‘create out of nothing’) and asah (‘make’) are used in the Bible. Genesis 1:1 uses bara and Exodus 20:11 uses asah. This is used by Gappists to claim that Exodus 20:11 means a recreating and forming of a destroyed world. But Genesis 1:26 uses bara and asah interchangeably. Asah in Nehemiah 9:6 is also used to mean creation out of nothing. "You alone are the LORD. You made (asah) the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you." http://creation.com/from-the-beginning-of-the-creation Finally the words tohu and bohu from Hebrew meaning "without form" and "void" respectfully. Gappists argue that this indicates a judgmental destruction by God of the world and a recreation. However, it only tells us that the earth was unformed and unfilled in Hebrew. Out of context is taken Jeremiah 4:23, which is a prophecy sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Thus the Gap Theory is incorrect. Another way to try to piece everything together is through Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolution. A major problem with Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creaitonism is Mark 10:6, where Yeshua states - "'at the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female'" Also the Greek word apo means "at the beginning", another problem for both of these positions. Also, animal sacrifice, as we talked about in another article, is immoral according to these two views. Moses writes in God's Decalogue "thou shalt not murder." Yet, if God tells us to sacrifice our own kinds, we are committing murder. Thus, what we have on our hands is a self defeating God, an illogical God if Natural Selection is used as a creative force to create humans. If we kill other members of the animal kingdom, we have God creating a world that is forced to kill each other from the get go. Sin becomes meaningless as God's will is to provide penal substition of animals to help forgive us of our sins before Yeshua, as is willed and provided a guideline in Leviticus 17. Thus in the end, Theistic Evolution, or Progressive Creationism become self refuting concepts from the Christian, Muslim or Jewish perspective. And Monotheism is the only possible God scenario. Polytheism is self refuting, because if God creates other gods....then God creates God and God = another god which means that God is not God, but must be God by very nature. Thus we have a contradiction through the principle of Identity. So Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creationism are purely contradictory ideas both Scientifically and Philosophically. In the end Evolution is purely secular Science. It proposes that we can know everything about the past through experiment, but thats absurd because on can not put the past into a test tube. It is important that we as true Christians stand up against this ideology, and follow Science the way the one True God wants us to follow it; through God's doing, intellectual honesty and the Scientific method.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Former Roman Catholic priests speak!
Henry Gregory Adams. Born in Saskatchewan, Canada. He entered the Basilian Order of monks and adopted the monastic name of "Saint Hilarion the Great." He was ordained as a priest and served five parishes in the Lemont, Alberta area.
Sacraments. "The monastic life and the sacraments prescribed by the Roman Catholic Church did not help me to come to know Christ personally and find salvation...I realized that the man-made sacraments of my church and my good works were in vain for salvation. They lead to a false security." (p. 3)
Joseph Tremblay. Born in Quebec, Canada, 1924. He was ordained a priest in Rome, Italy and was sent to Bolivia, Chile where he served for 13 years "as a missionary in the congregation of the Oblate Fathers of Mary Immaculate."
Salvation by works. "My theology has taught me that salvation is by works and sacrifices....my theology gives me no assurance of salvation; the Bible offers me that assurance....I had been trying to save myself on my works...I was stifled in a setting in which I was pushed to do good works to merit my salvation." (pp. 9, 11-12)
Bartholomew F. Brewer. He applied to the Discalced Carmelites, a strict monastic order. He received training of "four years of high school seminary, two years in the novitiate, three years of philosophy, and four years of theology (the last after ordination)." He was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in Washington, D.C. He eventually served as a diocesan priest in San Diego, California and entered the Navy as a Roman Catholic chaplain.
Upon questioning Rome's Beliefs, "At first I did not understand, but gradually I observed a wonderful change in mother. Her influence helped me realize the importance of the Bible in determining what we believe. We often discussed subjects such as the primacy of Peter, papal infallibility, the priesthood, infant baptism, confession, the mass, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven. In time I realized that not only are these beliefs not in the Bible, they are actually contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture." (pp. 21-22)
Relying on works. He left the Roman Catholic Church, got married and through conversations with his wife and other Christians, "I finally understood that I had been relying on my own righteousness and religious efforts and not upon the completed and sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic religion had never taught me that our own righteousness is fleshly and not acceptable to God, nor that we need to trust in his righteousness alone...during all those years of monastic life I had relied on the sacraments of Rome to give me grace, to save me." (p. 25)
Hugh Farrell. Born in Denver, Colorado. Entered the Order of our Lady of Mount Carmel, commonly called the Discalced Carmelite Fathers. Ordained as a priest.
Priestly power to change elements: "The priest, according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, has the power to take ordinary bread and wine, and, by pronouncing the words of the consecration prayer in the sacrifice of the Mass, to change it into the actual body and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Hence, since one cannot separate the human nature of Christ from his divinity, the bread and wine, after being changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, are entitled to the worship of adoration." (pp. 28)
Temporal punishment due to sins. "I knew from the teachings of the priests and nuns that I could not hope to go directly to heaven after my death. My Roman Catholic catechism taught me that after death I had to pay for the temporal punishment due to my sins. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that 'the souls of the just which, in a moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sin, enter purgatory.'" (p. 29)
Penance. Regarding life in the monastery and doing penance. "These penances consist of standing with the arms outstretched to form a cross, kissing the sandaled feet of the monks, receiving a blow upon the face from the monks, and, at the end of the meal, lying prostrate before the entrance to the refectory so that the departing monks must step over one's body. These, and other penances, are supposed to gain one merit in heaven and increase one's 'spiritual bank account.'" (p. 36)
The Mass and sorcery. "According to the teaching of the Roman Church the priest, no matter how unworthy he may personally be, even if he has just made a pact with the devil for his soul, has the power to change the elements of bread and wine into the actual body and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ. Provided he pronounces the words of consecration properly and has the intention of consecrating, God must come down on the altar and enter and take over the elements." (p. 39)
Alexander Carson. Baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as an infant. His priesthood studies were at St. John's seminary, Brighton, Massachusetts. He was ordained by Bishop Lawrence Shehan of Bridgeport, Connecticut in 1955 and was a priest in Alexandria, Louisiana. Also, he was pastor of Sacred Heart Catholic Church, Rayville, Louisiana.
Bible or Tradition. "...the Holy Spirit led me to judge Roman Catholic theology by the standard of the Bible. Previously, I had always judged the Bible by Roman Catholic doctrine and theology." (p. 53)
Mass contrary to scripture. "In my letter of resignation from the Roman Catholic Church and Ministry, I stated to the bishop that I was leaving the priesthood because I could no longer offer the Mass, as it was contrary to the Word of God and to my conscience." (pp. 54-55)
Charles Berry. He entered the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine and became a priest after 17 years. He was given orders to continue studying until he achieved a Ph.D. in chemistry and was then "transferred to the headquarters of the Augustinian order in the United States."
Superstition. "In the United States the Roman Catholic Church is on its best behavior, putting its best foot forward because of its critics and opponents. In a Roman Catholic country, where it has few opponents or critics, it is a very different matter. Ignorance and superstition and idolatry are everywhere, and little effort, if any, is made to change the situation. Instead of following the Christianity taught in the Bible the people concentrate on the worship of statues and their local patron saints." (p. 59)
Idols and Statues. "When I met in Cuba a genuine pagan who worshiped idols (a religion transplanted from Africa by his ancestors), I asked how he could believe that a plaster idol could help him. He replied that the idol was not expected to help him; it only represented the power in heaven which could. What horrified me about his reply was that it was almost word for word the explanation Roman Catholics give for rendering honor to the statues of the saints." (p. 59)
Bob Bush. He went to a Jesuit Seminary and studied for 13 years before being ordained in 1966. He entered a post graduate program in Rome.
Works: "When I entered the order, the first thing that happened was that I was told I had to keep all the rules and regulations, that to do so would be pleasing to God, and that this was what he wanted for me. We were taught the motto, 'Keep the rule and the rule will keep you.'" (p. 66).
Salvation is by faith: "It took me many years to realize that I was compromising by staying in the Roman Catholic Church. Throughout all those years I continued to stress that salvation is only in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross and not in the infant baptism; that there is only one source of authority which is the Bible, the word of God; and that there is no purgatory but rather that when we die to either go to heaven or hell." (p. 69)
Salvation by works: "The Roman Catholic Church then goes on to say that in order to be saved you must keep its laws, rules and regulations. And in these laws are violated (for example, laws concerning birth control or fasting or attendance at Mass every Sunday), then you have committed a sin....'individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary way by which the faithful person who was aware of serious sin can be reconciled with God, and with the church' (Canon 9609)." (p. 75)
Works: "The Roman Catholic Church adds works, and that you have to do these specific things [keeping its laws, rule and regulations] ]in order to be saved, whereas the Bible says in Ephesians 2:8-9 that it is by grace that we are saved, not by works." (pp. 75-76)
All excerpts taken from - Far from Rome, Near to God: Testimonies of 50 Converted Roman Catholic Priests, Carlisle, PN: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1997.
Sacraments. "The monastic life and the sacraments prescribed by the Roman Catholic Church did not help me to come to know Christ personally and find salvation...I realized that the man-made sacraments of my church and my good works were in vain for salvation. They lead to a false security." (p. 3)
Joseph Tremblay. Born in Quebec, Canada, 1924. He was ordained a priest in Rome, Italy and was sent to Bolivia, Chile where he served for 13 years "as a missionary in the congregation of the Oblate Fathers of Mary Immaculate."
Salvation by works. "My theology has taught me that salvation is by works and sacrifices....my theology gives me no assurance of salvation; the Bible offers me that assurance....I had been trying to save myself on my works...I was stifled in a setting in which I was pushed to do good works to merit my salvation." (pp. 9, 11-12)
Bartholomew F. Brewer. He applied to the Discalced Carmelites, a strict monastic order. He received training of "four years of high school seminary, two years in the novitiate, three years of philosophy, and four years of theology (the last after ordination)." He was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in Washington, D.C. He eventually served as a diocesan priest in San Diego, California and entered the Navy as a Roman Catholic chaplain.
Upon questioning Rome's Beliefs, "At first I did not understand, but gradually I observed a wonderful change in mother. Her influence helped me realize the importance of the Bible in determining what we believe. We often discussed subjects such as the primacy of Peter, papal infallibility, the priesthood, infant baptism, confession, the mass, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven. In time I realized that not only are these beliefs not in the Bible, they are actually contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture." (pp. 21-22)
Relying on works. He left the Roman Catholic Church, got married and through conversations with his wife and other Christians, "I finally understood that I had been relying on my own righteousness and religious efforts and not upon the completed and sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic religion had never taught me that our own righteousness is fleshly and not acceptable to God, nor that we need to trust in his righteousness alone...during all those years of monastic life I had relied on the sacraments of Rome to give me grace, to save me." (p. 25)
Hugh Farrell. Born in Denver, Colorado. Entered the Order of our Lady of Mount Carmel, commonly called the Discalced Carmelite Fathers. Ordained as a priest.
Priestly power to change elements: "The priest, according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, has the power to take ordinary bread and wine, and, by pronouncing the words of the consecration prayer in the sacrifice of the Mass, to change it into the actual body and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Hence, since one cannot separate the human nature of Christ from his divinity, the bread and wine, after being changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, are entitled to the worship of adoration." (pp. 28)
Temporal punishment due to sins. "I knew from the teachings of the priests and nuns that I could not hope to go directly to heaven after my death. My Roman Catholic catechism taught me that after death I had to pay for the temporal punishment due to my sins. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that 'the souls of the just which, in a moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sin, enter purgatory.'" (p. 29)
Penance. Regarding life in the monastery and doing penance. "These penances consist of standing with the arms outstretched to form a cross, kissing the sandaled feet of the monks, receiving a blow upon the face from the monks, and, at the end of the meal, lying prostrate before the entrance to the refectory so that the departing monks must step over one's body. These, and other penances, are supposed to gain one merit in heaven and increase one's 'spiritual bank account.'" (p. 36)
The Mass and sorcery. "According to the teaching of the Roman Church the priest, no matter how unworthy he may personally be, even if he has just made a pact with the devil for his soul, has the power to change the elements of bread and wine into the actual body and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ. Provided he pronounces the words of consecration properly and has the intention of consecrating, God must come down on the altar and enter and take over the elements." (p. 39)
Alexander Carson. Baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as an infant. His priesthood studies were at St. John's seminary, Brighton, Massachusetts. He was ordained by Bishop Lawrence Shehan of Bridgeport, Connecticut in 1955 and was a priest in Alexandria, Louisiana. Also, he was pastor of Sacred Heart Catholic Church, Rayville, Louisiana.
Bible or Tradition. "...the Holy Spirit led me to judge Roman Catholic theology by the standard of the Bible. Previously, I had always judged the Bible by Roman Catholic doctrine and theology." (p. 53)
Mass contrary to scripture. "In my letter of resignation from the Roman Catholic Church and Ministry, I stated to the bishop that I was leaving the priesthood because I could no longer offer the Mass, as it was contrary to the Word of God and to my conscience." (pp. 54-55)
Charles Berry. He entered the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine and became a priest after 17 years. He was given orders to continue studying until he achieved a Ph.D. in chemistry and was then "transferred to the headquarters of the Augustinian order in the United States."
Superstition. "In the United States the Roman Catholic Church is on its best behavior, putting its best foot forward because of its critics and opponents. In a Roman Catholic country, where it has few opponents or critics, it is a very different matter. Ignorance and superstition and idolatry are everywhere, and little effort, if any, is made to change the situation. Instead of following the Christianity taught in the Bible the people concentrate on the worship of statues and their local patron saints." (p. 59)
Idols and Statues. "When I met in Cuba a genuine pagan who worshiped idols (a religion transplanted from Africa by his ancestors), I asked how he could believe that a plaster idol could help him. He replied that the idol was not expected to help him; it only represented the power in heaven which could. What horrified me about his reply was that it was almost word for word the explanation Roman Catholics give for rendering honor to the statues of the saints." (p. 59)
Bob Bush. He went to a Jesuit Seminary and studied for 13 years before being ordained in 1966. He entered a post graduate program in Rome.
Works: "When I entered the order, the first thing that happened was that I was told I had to keep all the rules and regulations, that to do so would be pleasing to God, and that this was what he wanted for me. We were taught the motto, 'Keep the rule and the rule will keep you.'" (p. 66).
Salvation is by faith: "It took me many years to realize that I was compromising by staying in the Roman Catholic Church. Throughout all those years I continued to stress that salvation is only in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross and not in the infant baptism; that there is only one source of authority which is the Bible, the word of God; and that there is no purgatory but rather that when we die to either go to heaven or hell." (p. 69)
Salvation by works: "The Roman Catholic Church then goes on to say that in order to be saved you must keep its laws, rules and regulations. And in these laws are violated (for example, laws concerning birth control or fasting or attendance at Mass every Sunday), then you have committed a sin....'individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary way by which the faithful person who was aware of serious sin can be reconciled with God, and with the church' (Canon 9609)." (p. 75)
Works: "The Roman Catholic Church adds works, and that you have to do these specific things [keeping its laws, rule and regulations] ]in order to be saved, whereas the Bible says in Ephesians 2:8-9 that it is by grace that we are saved, not by works." (pp. 75-76)
All excerpts taken from - Far from Rome, Near to God: Testimonies of 50 Converted Roman Catholic Priests, Carlisle, PN: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1997.
Who was Josephus? A shocking article on who I believe Josephus was.
Growing as a Christian Apologist for so many years, this has been a topic that I have turmoiled over for some time. I have heard so many thoughts about this passage called the Testimonium Flavianum by so many. Obviously Skeptics have wanted to say this is an entire interpolation based off of the fact that many want Yeshua to be a mythical character. For more on this topic, one should read "Shattering the Christ Myth" by James Patrick Holding, a most excellent book which demonstrates that most of the so-called "scholarship" in this area of study is nonexistent. You will find it humorous that one of the major supporters of this thesis is a lady by the name of Acharya S who published a book by the same publishing company that publishes books on fictional events, such as the reality of the location of Atlantis. Anyways, long story short, Holding does a good job busting up skeptics in this book. There are also mostly Christian references, and many non-observant of Jewish ideology and understanding scholars who agree with a partial interpolation theory. This theory, as Holding rightfully gives credit to, actually was written about by Chris Price from Christian Cadres in Holding's book ironically enough, and is what I want to touch base on and shoot down.
First of all, lets take a look at the passage in question. "
3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." What does this sound like? It sounds like a more hellenized understanding of what Messianics would believe back in the time period. Paul makes references that sound very similar. I believe in all probability, what the passage would most likely look like is "He was the Messiah." And the next part "And the tribe of Messianic (jews) so named from him are not extinct at this day."
Why don't Christians want to accept this passage as authentic? I can name a few places that we can see based off of the tradition we're taught in church. First of all, what are we taught in church specifically? Over the years, we have been taught that EVERYBODY rejected the Messiah. Josephus shoots down this ideology when he declares "those that loved him at the first did not forsake him." Based off of a Jewish understanding that I have now of scripture, I believe many followers of the Messiah knew what was coming based off of their readings in synagogue, and based off of what John the Baptist was questioning regarding the Messiah's role. Many realized without Yeshua having to tell them that he was the Messiah, the descendant of David. It doesn't make sense to follow the "just-so" story that Christians have made up over the years about everybody rejecting the Messiah. If he had been rejected by everyone, then there would not have been a crowd of Jewish people following him and mourning!
Thats a minor reason as to why. Most Christians have a problem with the language, that "an Orthodox Jew wouldn't have said such things." Of course, this is true. But a Messianic Jew would say such things. I believe this is just another way of trying to live in denial of the passage. I was even told by a hellenized influence, a doctorate in Philosophy, holding also a Masters in Religious studies when I questioned him about the passage that to paraphrase, "Thats what Josephus said right? I don't see a need to question this any further."
One could ask, "is this what Josephus said?" But to this question, comes something that muddies the waters a bit. Basically, the primary reason that most scholars and Christians believe in a partial interpolation of this passage is because they are trying to apply Hellenized concepts to a Jewish passage. Let me demonstrate what I mean. Here are the two things that are mentioned regarding the passage. First of all, The Antiquities of the Jews, though not passage 18.3, is not recognized by Origen, but what Origen does take from the passage is the passage about Jesus being a historical person who was the brother of John the Baptist. Of course Origen would take an interest in this passage. It would have had historical value to him. We have already seen Ignatius's viewpoints on what Graeco-Romanized viewpoints thought about Jews and Christians. A passage to his letters to the Magnesians states "For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s favor…it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like Jews. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity." Basically, according to Ignatius, you're either a Jew or a Christian, which stems from anti-semitism as we have also formulated in a previous article. Basically, since this argument is senseless, and not reflective of the majority of the church within the 1st 300 years of its existence, and I believe that there was also tampering of the text by the Romans, which seems to be indicated by the fact that he is called "bishop of Antioch." Problem is, the word bishop didn't exist for another 300-400 years after the fact that this was allegedly written (i.e. Ignatius was later than we put him at, or his writings were tampered with, one or the other). Wikipedia states on this subject "By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been enlarged by spurious letters, and some of the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time." Furthermore "A detailed but spurious account of Ignatius' arrest and his travails and martyrdom is the material of the Martyrium Ignatii which is presented as being an eyewitness account for the church of Antioch, and as if written by Ignatius' companions, Philo of Cilicia, deacon at Tarsus, and Rheus Agathopus, a Syrian. Though James Ussher regarded it as genuine, if there is any genuine nucleus of the Martyrium, it has been so greatly expanded with interpolations that no part of it is without questions. Its most reliable manuscript is the 10th century Codex Colbertinus (Paris), in which the Martyrium closes the collection. The Martyrium presents the confrontation of the bishop Ignatius with Trajan at Antioch, a familiar trope of Acta of the martyrs, and many details of the long, partly overland voyage to Rome. Synaxarium of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria says that he was thrown to the wild beasts that devoured him and rendered him into pieces [3].
After Ignatius' martyrdom in the Flavian Amphitheatre, his remains were honorably carried back to Antioch by his companions, and were first interred outside the city gates, then removed by the Emperor Theodosius II to the Tychaeum, or Temple of Tyche which was converted into a church dedicated to Ignatius. In 637 the relics were translated to the Church of St Clement in Rome." This is enough information to demonstrate a tampering of the epistles of Ignatius.
So Ignatius was either reflective of a later belief of the Romans, or was just completely hellenized to begin with. This we can be uncertain of exactly, but it seems that most of what we know about Ignatius was in fact forged. But at least we get the idea of what the early hellenized church believed.
Back to Origen. He was the one who stated in his writings that Josephus did not accept Yeshua as his Messiah. To keep this fair, we need to look at what Origen believed about Jews to begin with to see what he would have a problem with in regards to this passage. Origen believed, ""On account of their unbelief and other insults which they heaped upon Jesus, the Jews will not only suffer more than others in the judgment which is believed to impend over the world, but have even already endured such sufferings. For what nation is in exile from their own metropolis, and from the place sacred to the worship of their fathers, save the Jews alone? And the calamities they have suffered because they were a most wicked nation, which although guilty of many other sins, yet has been punished severely for none as for those that were committed against our Jesus." So basically, what Origen declares here is that Jews were responsible for killing Yeshua. He also calls Yeshua "our Jesus" basically beginning a lot of the concepts of a hellenized viewpoint of the Messiah. Problematic if we haven't seen it already, Origen obviously did not like the Jews. His statements also run against the Bible, which basically declares that some of the leaders of the synagogues and the Sanhedrin, coupled with Pilate's apathy allowed Yeshua to receive his punishment. He further writes " We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election." This runs directly opposite to the writings of Paul's writings in Romans 11:29. Not to mention, it was the Gentiles who chose to go through with the execution. Its not a surprise then, that he would be the very same person to declare that Josephus, a Jew, did not accept the Messiah. This would have presented a problem within the strategy of what hellenists were attempting to do; move the focus away from Israel, and onto themselves. Primarily also because he believed in other parts of his letters that Jews were the ones responsible for killing Yeshua. He was also a chief proponent of Replacement theology, and was declared heretical by the early church twice, and even once by the Roman Catholic church. He also never quoted the passage from Antiquities, even though its accepted by all Josephan scholars to be at least partially authentic. That brings Origen's character into question. Yet this seems to be the source that scholars want to utilize when questioning the full authenticity of the passage. I disagree. Lets continue.
The other source, which I believe makes it even more convincing that this is fully authentic, is where the source is alleged to have come from (though I believe its merely a Greek translation of the text, perhaps preserved through Eusebius). Eusebius is the other person whom skeptics look at when looking at the interpolation hypothesis. Whats wrong with utilizing him? Eusebius did not like Jews anymore than Origen did. In his "Demonstration of the Gospels" Eusebius writes " "but by races of other stock, while they [the Jews] would be dispersed among the Gentiles throughout the whole world with never a hope of any cessation of evil or breathing space from trouble. Furthermore, he claimed that Jews in every community crucified a Christian at their Purim festival as a rejection of Jesus. He also made a distinction between Hebrews [who he saw as "good men of the Old Testament"] and Jews [who he characterized as "evil."]" Again, another person who did not like Jews. Yet most scholars identify the Josephus writings "The Antiquities of the Jews" as coming from Eusebius. What really would have been written by Josephus though from a source so antagonistic of the Jewish belief system? He himself identified Jews as evil. Josephus was a Jew. If this text had been interpolated in any way, shape or form, in all likelihood, it would have been distorted in the direction that Josephus would declare that the Jews were responsible for killing Yeshua, or that Jews were to be punished for their actions against Yeshua for all eternity (closer to that). Something that would have been antagonistic towards the Jews, to make the Jews want to leave their Jewish ways. After all, Josephus was a Pharisee of all people. What do you think that would have looked like to Jewish people? It would have been seen, obviously in like fashion as was being presented by Origen and Eusebius, as an evangelistic tool to present Josephus in a negative light.
My beliefs though, after studying all of the information, and background of the sources if in fact Josephus's writings were preserved directly from hellenized Christian sources, as scholars indicate, its amazing that we don't have negative interpolations of Jews within the accounts. We see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF THIS SORT. What then shall we think of Josephus?
Basically, I believe Josephus was a Messianic Jew. Scholars are making this particular passage way too difficult. It is interesting that there is so much debate over this passage. I personally think it is completely genuine, and the reason that people believe it is a partial interpolation is because it was preserved by Christian resources who wanted to make themselves look good, which we have seen runs against their thesis. There is speculation that Eusebius preserved the text. But both Eusebius and Origen hated Jews. So if it had been interpolated, they would have done exactly what Origen actually did. Origen declared Josephus did not believe in the Messiah. This guy, declared twice in the original church to be a heretic, once for his replacement theology (the church has replaced Israel), is what scholars want to utilize when interpreting Josephus. The anti-semitic flavor of Greek writings on Jews should be taken with a grain of salt, instead of relied upon as reliable evidence. Nobody takes the writings of the Nazi regime seriously, for similar reasons that I don't take the writings of the early church fathers seriously. That and the commentary relies upon cherry picking of the Tanakh and the Brit Hadashah. The interpolation would have gone in the opposite direction that Christians want it to go in. Josephus's writings would have been preserved in the flavor of him being a "Christ-killer" in all probability. The wording of this particular passage is very Jewish in nature and is therefore a reflection that the early church was composed primarily of Messianic believers, who followed the Torah and accepted Yeshua.
First of all, lets take a look at the passage in question. "
3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." What does this sound like? It sounds like a more hellenized understanding of what Messianics would believe back in the time period. Paul makes references that sound very similar. I believe in all probability, what the passage would most likely look like is "He was the Messiah." And the next part "And the tribe of Messianic (jews) so named from him are not extinct at this day."
Why don't Christians want to accept this passage as authentic? I can name a few places that we can see based off of the tradition we're taught in church. First of all, what are we taught in church specifically? Over the years, we have been taught that EVERYBODY rejected the Messiah. Josephus shoots down this ideology when he declares "those that loved him at the first did not forsake him." Based off of a Jewish understanding that I have now of scripture, I believe many followers of the Messiah knew what was coming based off of their readings in synagogue, and based off of what John the Baptist was questioning regarding the Messiah's role. Many realized without Yeshua having to tell them that he was the Messiah, the descendant of David. It doesn't make sense to follow the "just-so" story that Christians have made up over the years about everybody rejecting the Messiah. If he had been rejected by everyone, then there would not have been a crowd of Jewish people following him and mourning!
Thats a minor reason as to why. Most Christians have a problem with the language, that "an Orthodox Jew wouldn't have said such things." Of course, this is true. But a Messianic Jew would say such things. I believe this is just another way of trying to live in denial of the passage. I was even told by a hellenized influence, a doctorate in Philosophy, holding also a Masters in Religious studies when I questioned him about the passage that to paraphrase, "Thats what Josephus said right? I don't see a need to question this any further."
One could ask, "is this what Josephus said?" But to this question, comes something that muddies the waters a bit. Basically, the primary reason that most scholars and Christians believe in a partial interpolation of this passage is because they are trying to apply Hellenized concepts to a Jewish passage. Let me demonstrate what I mean. Here are the two things that are mentioned regarding the passage. First of all, The Antiquities of the Jews, though not passage 18.3, is not recognized by Origen, but what Origen does take from the passage is the passage about Jesus being a historical person who was the brother of John the Baptist. Of course Origen would take an interest in this passage. It would have had historical value to him. We have already seen Ignatius's viewpoints on what Graeco-Romanized viewpoints thought about Jews and Christians. A passage to his letters to the Magnesians states "For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s favor…it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like Jews. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity." Basically, according to Ignatius, you're either a Jew or a Christian, which stems from anti-semitism as we have also formulated in a previous article. Basically, since this argument is senseless, and not reflective of the majority of the church within the 1st 300 years of its existence, and I believe that there was also tampering of the text by the Romans, which seems to be indicated by the fact that he is called "bishop of Antioch." Problem is, the word bishop didn't exist for another 300-400 years after the fact that this was allegedly written (i.e. Ignatius was later than we put him at, or his writings were tampered with, one or the other). Wikipedia states on this subject "By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been enlarged by spurious letters, and some of the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time." Furthermore "A detailed but spurious account of Ignatius' arrest and his travails and martyrdom is the material of the Martyrium Ignatii which is presented as being an eyewitness account for the church of Antioch, and as if written by Ignatius' companions, Philo of Cilicia, deacon at Tarsus, and Rheus Agathopus, a Syrian. Though James Ussher regarded it as genuine, if there is any genuine nucleus of the Martyrium, it has been so greatly expanded with interpolations that no part of it is without questions. Its most reliable manuscript is the 10th century Codex Colbertinus (Paris), in which the Martyrium closes the collection. The Martyrium presents the confrontation of the bishop Ignatius with Trajan at Antioch, a familiar trope of Acta of the martyrs, and many details of the long, partly overland voyage to Rome. Synaxarium of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria says that he was thrown to the wild beasts that devoured him and rendered him into pieces [3].
After Ignatius' martyrdom in the Flavian Amphitheatre, his remains were honorably carried back to Antioch by his companions, and were first interred outside the city gates, then removed by the Emperor Theodosius II to the Tychaeum, or Temple of Tyche which was converted into a church dedicated to Ignatius. In 637 the relics were translated to the Church of St Clement in Rome." This is enough information to demonstrate a tampering of the epistles of Ignatius.
So Ignatius was either reflective of a later belief of the Romans, or was just completely hellenized to begin with. This we can be uncertain of exactly, but it seems that most of what we know about Ignatius was in fact forged. But at least we get the idea of what the early hellenized church believed.
Back to Origen. He was the one who stated in his writings that Josephus did not accept Yeshua as his Messiah. To keep this fair, we need to look at what Origen believed about Jews to begin with to see what he would have a problem with in regards to this passage. Origen believed, ""On account of their unbelief and other insults which they heaped upon Jesus, the Jews will not only suffer more than others in the judgment which is believed to impend over the world, but have even already endured such sufferings. For what nation is in exile from their own metropolis, and from the place sacred to the worship of their fathers, save the Jews alone? And the calamities they have suffered because they were a most wicked nation, which although guilty of many other sins, yet has been punished severely for none as for those that were committed against our Jesus." So basically, what Origen declares here is that Jews were responsible for killing Yeshua. He also calls Yeshua "our Jesus" basically beginning a lot of the concepts of a hellenized viewpoint of the Messiah. Problematic if we haven't seen it already, Origen obviously did not like the Jews. His statements also run against the Bible, which basically declares that some of the leaders of the synagogues and the Sanhedrin, coupled with Pilate's apathy allowed Yeshua to receive his punishment. He further writes " We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election." This runs directly opposite to the writings of Paul's writings in Romans 11:29. Not to mention, it was the Gentiles who chose to go through with the execution. Its not a surprise then, that he would be the very same person to declare that Josephus, a Jew, did not accept the Messiah. This would have presented a problem within the strategy of what hellenists were attempting to do; move the focus away from Israel, and onto themselves. Primarily also because he believed in other parts of his letters that Jews were the ones responsible for killing Yeshua. He was also a chief proponent of Replacement theology, and was declared heretical by the early church twice, and even once by the Roman Catholic church. He also never quoted the passage from Antiquities, even though its accepted by all Josephan scholars to be at least partially authentic. That brings Origen's character into question. Yet this seems to be the source that scholars want to utilize when questioning the full authenticity of the passage. I disagree. Lets continue.
The other source, which I believe makes it even more convincing that this is fully authentic, is where the source is alleged to have come from (though I believe its merely a Greek translation of the text, perhaps preserved through Eusebius). Eusebius is the other person whom skeptics look at when looking at the interpolation hypothesis. Whats wrong with utilizing him? Eusebius did not like Jews anymore than Origen did. In his "Demonstration of the Gospels" Eusebius writes " "but by races of other stock, while they [the Jews] would be dispersed among the Gentiles throughout the whole world with never a hope of any cessation of evil or breathing space from trouble. Furthermore, he claimed that Jews in every community crucified a Christian at their Purim festival as a rejection of Jesus. He also made a distinction between Hebrews [who he saw as "good men of the Old Testament"] and Jews [who he characterized as "evil."]" Again, another person who did not like Jews. Yet most scholars identify the Josephus writings "The Antiquities of the Jews" as coming from Eusebius. What really would have been written by Josephus though from a source so antagonistic of the Jewish belief system? He himself identified Jews as evil. Josephus was a Jew. If this text had been interpolated in any way, shape or form, in all likelihood, it would have been distorted in the direction that Josephus would declare that the Jews were responsible for killing Yeshua, or that Jews were to be punished for their actions against Yeshua for all eternity (closer to that). Something that would have been antagonistic towards the Jews, to make the Jews want to leave their Jewish ways. After all, Josephus was a Pharisee of all people. What do you think that would have looked like to Jewish people? It would have been seen, obviously in like fashion as was being presented by Origen and Eusebius, as an evangelistic tool to present Josephus in a negative light.
My beliefs though, after studying all of the information, and background of the sources if in fact Josephus's writings were preserved directly from hellenized Christian sources, as scholars indicate, its amazing that we don't have negative interpolations of Jews within the accounts. We see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF THIS SORT. What then shall we think of Josephus?
Basically, I believe Josephus was a Messianic Jew. Scholars are making this particular passage way too difficult. It is interesting that there is so much debate over this passage. I personally think it is completely genuine, and the reason that people believe it is a partial interpolation is because it was preserved by Christian resources who wanted to make themselves look good, which we have seen runs against their thesis. There is speculation that Eusebius preserved the text. But both Eusebius and Origen hated Jews. So if it had been interpolated, they would have done exactly what Origen actually did. Origen declared Josephus did not believe in the Messiah. This guy, declared twice in the original church to be a heretic, once for his replacement theology (the church has replaced Israel), is what scholars want to utilize when interpreting Josephus. The anti-semitic flavor of Greek writings on Jews should be taken with a grain of salt, instead of relied upon as reliable evidence. Nobody takes the writings of the Nazi regime seriously, for similar reasons that I don't take the writings of the early church fathers seriously. That and the commentary relies upon cherry picking of the Tanakh and the Brit Hadashah. The interpolation would have gone in the opposite direction that Christians want it to go in. Josephus's writings would have been preserved in the flavor of him being a "Christ-killer" in all probability. The wording of this particular passage is very Jewish in nature and is therefore a reflection that the early church was composed primarily of Messianic believers, who followed the Torah and accepted Yeshua.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Here comes Santa Claus.....
Every year around December 25th, the kids come out of school. What a season of joy it is. The family traditions that our lives are built upon, setting up the tree, putting presents around the tree for all the ones we love, holding to the usual customs and traditions of the what we believe to be the early church customs. We hold our family get togethers, take the kids to see Santa Claus, and sing Happy Birthday to our Savior. We often have warm and fuzzy feelings about this time of the year.
But...theres a small little problem with this celebration. Not that its not done in a good spirit, but the origins of these customs are what most Christians today are ignorant of. The issue we arrive is the hellenism of the culture, which is centered around, sadly enough paganism. These customs that have surfaced, not just this one, but all Western traditions are centered around these hellenistic practices. Through only the fault of some irresponsible early church figures, we have blindly accepted these customs as Godly holidays.
We said that we were going to look at 2 Kings, well, heres the appropriate time for this. 2 Kings 17 states "11 At every high place they burned incense, as the nations whom the LORD had driven out before them had done. They did wicked things that provoked the LORD to anger. 12 They worshiped idols, though the LORD had said, "You shall not do this." [b] 13 The LORD warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and seers: "Turn from your evil ways. Observe my commands and decrees, in accordance with the entire Law that I commanded your fathers to obey and that I delivered to you through my servants the prophets."
14 But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the LORD their God. 15 They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the LORD had ordered them, "Do not do as they do," and they did the things the LORD had forbidden them to do.
16 They forsook all the commands of the LORD their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. 17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in [c] the fire. They practiced divination and sorcery and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
18 So the LORD was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence. Only the tribe of Judah was left, 19 and even Judah did not keep the commands of the LORD their God. They followed the practices Israel had introduced. 20 Therefore the LORD rejected all the people of Israel; he afflicted them and gave them into the hands of plunderers, until he thrust them from his presence.
21 When he tore Israel away from the house of David, they made Jeroboam son of Nebat their king. Jeroboam enticed Israel away from following the LORD and caused them to commit a great sin. 22 The Israelites persisted in all the sins of Jeroboam and did not turn away from them 23 until the LORD removed them from his presence, as he had warned through all his servants the prophets. So the people of Israel were taken from their homeland into exile in Assyria, and they are still there.
Samaria Resettled 24 The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. They took over Samaria and lived in its towns. 25 When they first lived there, they did not worship the LORD; so he sent lions among them and they killed some of the people. 26 It was reported to the king of Assyria: "The people you deported and resettled in the towns of Samaria do not know what the god of that country requires. He has sent lions among them, which are killing them off, because the people do not know what he requires."
27 Then the king of Assyria gave this order: "Have one of the priests you took captive from Samaria go back to live there and teach the people what the god of the land requires." 28 So one of the priests who had been exiled from Samaria came to live in Bethel and taught them how to worship the LORD.
29 Nevertheless, each national group made its own gods in the several towns where they settled, and set them up in the shrines the people of Samaria had made at the high places. 30 The men from Babylon made Succoth Benoth, the men from Cuthah made Nergal, and the men from Hamath made Ashima; 31 the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire as sacrifices to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. 32 They worshiped the LORD, but they also appointed all sorts of their own people to officiate for them as priests in the shrines at the high places. 33 They worshiped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought. 33 They worshiped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought.
34 To this day they persist in their former practices. They neither worship the LORD nor adhere to the decrees and ordinances, the laws and commands that the LORD gave the descendants of Jacob, whom he named Israel. 35 When the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites, he commanded them: "Do not worship any other gods or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them. 36 But the LORD, who brought you up out of Egypt with mighty power and outstretched arm, is the one you must worship. To him you shall bow down and to him offer sacrifices. 37 You must always be careful to keep the decrees and ordinances, the laws and commands he wrote for you. Do not worship other gods. 38 Do not forget the covenant I have made with you, and do not worship other gods. 39 Rather, worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies."
What a stern warning that God has given to all of the future generations here. But this requires special attention to the holidays and feasts that we celebrate because of these stern warnings given by God. God tells us not to follow pagan holidays. So the question then becomes, are we following a pagan holiday when we celebrate Christmas?
Well for one, and most to all Christians will tell you this, Yeshua was not born on the 25th of December. Based off of this fact alone, and given so much evidential support that Yeshua was born on the 1st of Nisan, or from the Graeco-Roman calendar, March 20, 6 B.C. you would think it would be so easy for a Christian to be open to giving up this celebration. But its not. For one, most Christians are not even aware of this date. Secondly, there has grown an attachment to this date of celebration. You would be amazed at the fire and anger that some Christians will throw at you when you tell them the origins of this holiday.
But in being faithful to the truth, one must look closely at origins and honestly seek his word. The Bible tells us not to lean on our own understanding, but rather on the understanding of God. So if the origin is not of God....what does Yeshua say? If its not of God, its against God. Hellenized Christians understand this as the "either/or principle." Not only today am I going to show you that this holiday is not of God, but I'm further going to show you where the roots of this holiday are from, thereby exposing its Paganistic roots.
What most Christians don't understand is that Ishtar and Saturnalia were two of the most commonly celebrated holidays by the Romans nearly 1700 years ago. We're going to get to Ishtar later. Saturnalia though is an interesting holiday, whose roots centered around oddly enough the celebration of the sacrificing of children to Molech! It was a day of worship in which the god Saturn would be recognized with Kronos. The Greek word Kronos has become developed to mean something that correlates with something that you might be wearing on your wrists right now. Its a watch and a time clock. Kronos in its symbolization is the equivalent of what we know today as "Father Time." Naive as it may be, Christians are honoring these gods each year when they take their children to see Santa Claus.
For more on Saturn, I present this to you "
Saturn* (mythology), in Roman mythology, ancient god of agriculture. In later legends he was identified with the Greek god Cronus, who, after having been dethroned by his son Zeus (in Roman mythology, Jupiter), fled to Italy, where he ruled during the Golden Age, a time of perfect peace and happiness. Beginning on December 17 of each year, during the festival known as the Saturnalia, the Golden Age was restored for seven days. All business stopped and executions and military operations were postponed. It was a period of goodwill, devoted to banquets and the exchange of visits and gifts. A special feature of the festival was the freedom given to slaves, who during this time had first place at the family table and were served by their masters.
The week of December 17-25th each year (with the culmination being on December 25th) would exemplify this celebration of the Greek god Saturnus, which derives from Molech. Is there any wonder that Christmas trees have been associated with this holiday? 1000s of years ago, these Christmas trees with presents under them were known as Ashteroth poles. And funny enough, it is these very Ashteroth poles that we are told not to honor. Why? Because this is based around a Canaanite religious practice to honor the Ugarithic mother goddess Asherah. Pagans would set up trees to honor Asherah. This correlates perfectly with the practice of Christmas (unfortunately). Jeremiah 3:13 even declares " 13 Only acknowledge your guilt— you have rebelled against the LORD your God, you have scattered your favors to foreign gods under every spreading tree, and have not obeyed me,' " declares the LORD. " The KJV goes further with this to show you another word for "spreading" tree. "13Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD." This word can also mean "green" tree. Hopefully this is opening the door for people to see their errors (it did for me).
Ooops.
Have no fear, our God is a God of grace and forgiveness though. All we have to do is turn away from these pagan customs, and return back to the God of Israel, keeping his commandments and decrees. As silly as this sounds to Christians, God does not want us to celebrate Christmas. It is within his word. I pray that we may turn back to God, so that he will forgive us for the hellenistic customs that we were following, and go back to God's outline for a holy living...living according to the Torah.
But...theres a small little problem with this celebration. Not that its not done in a good spirit, but the origins of these customs are what most Christians today are ignorant of. The issue we arrive is the hellenism of the culture, which is centered around, sadly enough paganism. These customs that have surfaced, not just this one, but all Western traditions are centered around these hellenistic practices. Through only the fault of some irresponsible early church figures, we have blindly accepted these customs as Godly holidays.
We said that we were going to look at 2 Kings, well, heres the appropriate time for this. 2 Kings 17 states "11 At every high place they burned incense, as the nations whom the LORD had driven out before them had done. They did wicked things that provoked the LORD to anger. 12 They worshiped idols, though the LORD had said, "You shall not do this." [b] 13 The LORD warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and seers: "Turn from your evil ways. Observe my commands and decrees, in accordance with the entire Law that I commanded your fathers to obey and that I delivered to you through my servants the prophets."
14 But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the LORD their God. 15 They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers and the warnings he had given them. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless. They imitated the nations around them although the LORD had ordered them, "Do not do as they do," and they did the things the LORD had forbidden them to do.
16 They forsook all the commands of the LORD their God and made for themselves two idols cast in the shape of calves, and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the starry hosts, and they worshiped Baal. 17 They sacrificed their sons and daughters in [c] the fire. They practiced divination and sorcery and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
18 So the LORD was very angry with Israel and removed them from his presence. Only the tribe of Judah was left, 19 and even Judah did not keep the commands of the LORD their God. They followed the practices Israel had introduced. 20 Therefore the LORD rejected all the people of Israel; he afflicted them and gave them into the hands of plunderers, until he thrust them from his presence.
21 When he tore Israel away from the house of David, they made Jeroboam son of Nebat their king. Jeroboam enticed Israel away from following the LORD and caused them to commit a great sin. 22 The Israelites persisted in all the sins of Jeroboam and did not turn away from them 23 until the LORD removed them from his presence, as he had warned through all his servants the prophets. So the people of Israel were taken from their homeland into exile in Assyria, and they are still there.
Samaria Resettled 24 The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. They took over Samaria and lived in its towns. 25 When they first lived there, they did not worship the LORD; so he sent lions among them and they killed some of the people. 26 It was reported to the king of Assyria: "The people you deported and resettled in the towns of Samaria do not know what the god of that country requires. He has sent lions among them, which are killing them off, because the people do not know what he requires."
27 Then the king of Assyria gave this order: "Have one of the priests you took captive from Samaria go back to live there and teach the people what the god of the land requires." 28 So one of the priests who had been exiled from Samaria came to live in Bethel and taught them how to worship the LORD.
29 Nevertheless, each national group made its own gods in the several towns where they settled, and set them up in the shrines the people of Samaria had made at the high places. 30 The men from Babylon made Succoth Benoth, the men from Cuthah made Nergal, and the men from Hamath made Ashima; 31 the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire as sacrifices to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. 32 They worshiped the LORD, but they also appointed all sorts of their own people to officiate for them as priests in the shrines at the high places. 33 They worshiped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought. 33 They worshiped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought.
34 To this day they persist in their former practices. They neither worship the LORD nor adhere to the decrees and ordinances, the laws and commands that the LORD gave the descendants of Jacob, whom he named Israel. 35 When the LORD made a covenant with the Israelites, he commanded them: "Do not worship any other gods or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them. 36 But the LORD, who brought you up out of Egypt with mighty power and outstretched arm, is the one you must worship. To him you shall bow down and to him offer sacrifices. 37 You must always be careful to keep the decrees and ordinances, the laws and commands he wrote for you. Do not worship other gods. 38 Do not forget the covenant I have made with you, and do not worship other gods. 39 Rather, worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies."
What a stern warning that God has given to all of the future generations here. But this requires special attention to the holidays and feasts that we celebrate because of these stern warnings given by God. God tells us not to follow pagan holidays. So the question then becomes, are we following a pagan holiday when we celebrate Christmas?
Well for one, and most to all Christians will tell you this, Yeshua was not born on the 25th of December. Based off of this fact alone, and given so much evidential support that Yeshua was born on the 1st of Nisan, or from the Graeco-Roman calendar, March 20, 6 B.C. you would think it would be so easy for a Christian to be open to giving up this celebration. But its not. For one, most Christians are not even aware of this date. Secondly, there has grown an attachment to this date of celebration. You would be amazed at the fire and anger that some Christians will throw at you when you tell them the origins of this holiday.
But in being faithful to the truth, one must look closely at origins and honestly seek his word. The Bible tells us not to lean on our own understanding, but rather on the understanding of God. So if the origin is not of God....what does Yeshua say? If its not of God, its against God. Hellenized Christians understand this as the "either/or principle." Not only today am I going to show you that this holiday is not of God, but I'm further going to show you where the roots of this holiday are from, thereby exposing its Paganistic roots.
What most Christians don't understand is that Ishtar and Saturnalia were two of the most commonly celebrated holidays by the Romans nearly 1700 years ago. We're going to get to Ishtar later. Saturnalia though is an interesting holiday, whose roots centered around oddly enough the celebration of the sacrificing of children to Molech! It was a day of worship in which the god Saturn would be recognized with Kronos. The Greek word Kronos has become developed to mean something that correlates with something that you might be wearing on your wrists right now. Its a watch and a time clock. Kronos in its symbolization is the equivalent of what we know today as "Father Time." Naive as it may be, Christians are honoring these gods each year when they take their children to see Santa Claus.
For more on Saturn, I present this to you "
Saturn* (mythology), in Roman mythology, ancient god of agriculture. In later legends he was identified with the Greek god Cronus, who, after having been dethroned by his son Zeus (in Roman mythology, Jupiter), fled to Italy, where he ruled during the Golden Age, a time of perfect peace and happiness. Beginning on December 17 of each year, during the festival known as the Saturnalia, the Golden Age was restored for seven days. All business stopped and executions and military operations were postponed. It was a period of goodwill, devoted to banquets and the exchange of visits and gifts. A special feature of the festival was the freedom given to slaves, who during this time had first place at the family table and were served by their masters.
The week of December 17-25th each year (with the culmination being on December 25th) would exemplify this celebration of the Greek god Saturnus, which derives from Molech. Is there any wonder that Christmas trees have been associated with this holiday? 1000s of years ago, these Christmas trees with presents under them were known as Ashteroth poles. And funny enough, it is these very Ashteroth poles that we are told not to honor. Why? Because this is based around a Canaanite religious practice to honor the Ugarithic mother goddess Asherah. Pagans would set up trees to honor Asherah. This correlates perfectly with the practice of Christmas (unfortunately). Jeremiah 3:13 even declares " 13 Only acknowledge your guilt— you have rebelled against the LORD your God, you have scattered your favors to foreign gods under every spreading tree, and have not obeyed me,' " declares the LORD. " The KJV goes further with this to show you another word for "spreading" tree. "13Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD." This word can also mean "green" tree. Hopefully this is opening the door for people to see their errors (it did for me).
Ooops.
Have no fear, our God is a God of grace and forgiveness though. All we have to do is turn away from these pagan customs, and return back to the God of Israel, keeping his commandments and decrees. As silly as this sounds to Christians, God does not want us to celebrate Christmas. It is within his word. I pray that we may turn back to God, so that he will forgive us for the hellenistic customs that we were following, and go back to God's outline for a holy living...living according to the Torah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)