Sunday, 30 November 2014

Clearing the air once again

On my article known as "Catholic Dogmas: Three things worthy of Death", the apostate known as xgamer_immortal or QuinQue Viae made some comments which I am just going to tackle.

"These articles of late from you are laughably bad, bobo. First off, if I bother to respond to you this time, would you be kind enough to actually engage me and read my rebuttals on my own blog and reply? Usually you just run because you have no clear answer to the questions I bring up."

If I don't know the answer, it's an issue that I haven't looked into. I explicitly state this in the description on my website:
"If you give me a question and don't have an immediate answer, it may be an issue I need to look into."

Carrying on.

"First off, you make no clear argument against "praying to saints" (I think you're talking about Saintly intercession as a general concept) besides saying it's, "ludicrous." Nice argument, pal. All the verses that urge for prayer on one's behalf.. all the verses that show Angels praying on the behalf and interceding for Man. The statement by Jesus discussing the role of Guardian Angels in an intercessory manner. The Jewish precedent and oral traditions regarding saintly intercession.All of that is simply dismissed by the "King of exegesis" bobo by saying it's, "ludicrous." And you seriously wonder why people like Sam Shamoun don't want clowns like you around anymore?"

Sam Shamoun and I, not to bore one with details, did at one stage separate after a spat. Furthermore, we put our little spat behind us this year.

Furthermore, during the time we didn't converse, Liars sprang up to claim that Shamoun was cloning me, when he did NO such thing and I repudiated the claim in the room. Whoever brought it up first I forget, but both Quin (as xgamer) and cbd94, both kept claiming that I was saying Shamoun was cloning me, when I said in the room OVER AND OVER AGAIN "The Sam Shamoun I know would NEVER do that."

Despite pointing out I NEVER made the claim, cbd94 persisted saying so and xgamer threatened to dob me and jonnykzj in, for something he and I never said. Talk about despicable.

There are other false claims that I have refuted on my website but I just wanted to get these issues out the way.

Next, I didn't just say that the point about praying to saints was ludicrous and not back it up. Here is what I have said:
"Isaiah makes the following point to his people in chapter 8 of his book:
"Isaiah 8:19 When someone tells you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. 21 Distressed and hungry, they will roam through the land; when they are famished, they will become enraged and, looking upward, will curse their king and their God. 22 Then they will look toward the earth and see only distress and darkness and fearful gloom, and they will be thrust into utter darkness."

Praying to dead saints and ask them to pray for you is not on the cards, they cannot hear you, you cannot hear them and only Christ can hear you.

Mary also cannot hear your prayers, nor can you hear her. 

To beseech the dead saints and consult them is ludicrous. 

Necromancy is witchcraft and should not be considered by Christians. That's strike one."

The fact the saints are dead, though they are alive in Christ and the fact that the book of Isaiah condemns Necromancy, shows how ludicrous the Catholic doctrine of praying to saints is. So much for claiming I never made a clear argument.

Also, Angels praying on man's behalf, doesn't justify prayers to Mary, or seeking her and the saints intercession.

"Also your exegesis of John 6 is absolutely hideous. You make these absurd esoteric connections (Oh to drink my blood is really to spread the gospel) when denying the historical context and the actual koine greek of the passage. Tell me bobo, can you find me a single instance of the NT, LXX, Apocryphal literature, or any time in Koine Greek where the word "trogo" means something symbolic? You are going against the basic reading and performing absolute mental gymnastics since you're trapped."

Others such as Jacob Prasch of Moriel Ministries and Jon Bloom of Desiring God have made the point of eating is believing and that it is a valid point. The point is eating and drinking in John 6 is referring to believing in his Gospel, his teaching and that those teachings are the key to eternal life.

Furthermore, Keith Thompson points out the following about trogo:
"Catholic argument #3: Catholics such as Robert Sungenis argue that because Jesus switches from using the Greek word phagō in vv. 50, 51, 53, which can mean to eat literally or metaphorically, to using the Greek word trōgō in vv. 54, 56, 57, 58 which, according to Sungenis, only means to literally eat or chew, that therefore Jesus must have switched to teaching people are not only eat his body symbolically, but literally as well, that is, in the Catholic Mass (Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone, [Queenship Publishing, 2000], pp. 183-185). Yet, although this type of argument convinces certain people, it is inaccurate. The word trōgō can have a non-literal meaning just as phagō can. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words notes that in regards to John 6’s usage, “The use in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18 is a witness against pressing into the meaning of the word the sense of munching or gnawing; it had largely lost this sense in its common usage” (W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words , [Thomas Nelson Inc., 1996], p. 193). This work is arguing Matthew 24:38 and John 13:18 show the word could be employed symbolically and that at this time this was common. Sungenis’s attempted response of Vine’s citations is unconvincing since for example in the case of Matthew 24:38, contra Sungenis, “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” are all clearly used symbolically of people just living life without care for what Noah was saying before the flood. Hence, this eating can be used symbolically for other things. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament also notes trōgō can be used “figuratively” (Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, [Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2009], p. 632). Sungenis also refutes his own argument since he cites Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich’s 1979 tome A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature as providing two examples of trōgō in classical Greek taking on a symbolic meaning. Sungenis fails to refute that work to show contextually the two instances it cites do not prove the point. This widely embraced lexicon is the scholarly standard and so if Sungenis wishes to refute what it is saying here then he has to do more than merely claim, as he simply does, the two examples cited by it do not prove the point. The two examples are Aristophenes in the fifth century B. C. using the word to say “the one eating my bread” figuratively and Polybius in the second century B. C. using it to say “two brothers eat” which are examples of comradeship and not literal eating according to that source. Moreover, in explaining why there is a change from phagō to trōgō in Jesus’ sermon, D. A. Carson notes, “It is far more likely that John injects no new meaning by selecting this verb, but prefers this verb when he opts for the Greek present tense (similarly in 13:18)” (D. A. Carson, JohnThe Pillar New Testament Commentary, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1991], p. 296)."


"Robert Sungenis argues,

“. . . no passage of the Old and New Testament commands anyone to drink blood, not even as a metaphor. Yet the Bible uses the drinking of both water literally (John 4:13; Romans 12:20) and figuratively (John 4:10-15; 7:38). Hence, since the rest of the New Testament never uses drinking blood as a metaphor for believing in Jesus, it certainly begs the question for opponents to claim it is metaphor in John 6. Similarly, nowhere other than in John 6 does either the Old or New Testament ever command anyone to eat the flesh of either God or Christ, even as a metaphor” (Robert Sungenis,Not by Bread Alone, [Queenship Publishing, 2000], p. 178).

The obvious error in Sungenis’s reasoning is that just because the Bible does not employ a metaphor except for in one story or episode, does not mean it is not a metaphor. For, Jesus is only called “the door” metaphorically in one episode (John 10:7-9). Sungenis even admits this when he says “John 10 is the only time that Jesus says, ‘I am the door,’ or even referred to as a door in all of Scripture” (Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone, [Queenship Publishing, 2000], p. 183). God is never referred to metaphorically as a door in the Old Testament either. Just because God or Christ as a metaphorical door is not found in Scripture does not mean John 10:7-9 is not teaching Jesus is a metaphorical and non-literal door. Similarly, just because drinking blood and eating flesh as a metaphor for believing Jesus is not used widely in the Bible, that does not mean in John 6 it is not uniquely metaphorical."

(Keith Thompson, Proof the Roman Catholic Mass is unbiblical and anti-Christian:

"I plan to write a response to you on my own blog (which is doing very well) but I honestly don't even know if it's worth it anymore. You've shown a rather desperate attempt at fighting Catholic Dogmas and your newest article is laughably bad."

Saying so doesn't make it so.

"Funny enough, Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong wrote an article about this as of late:

I would like to think you'd read it and learn something, but based upon past experiences that is extremely unlikely."

If I choose to read something, that is between me and God. If he wills, I'll be happy to take a look.

That's all I have to say for now.

Saturday, 29 November 2014

Satan's Game: Response to Rick Warren on Roman Catholicism

Yesterday, Matt Slick of CARM recently played a video by Rick Warren, pointing out the dangers of Warren himself.

Rick Warren is the author of the book known as the Purpose Driven Life.

As most know and are aware, he sadly embraces a social Gospel and even ecumenism with Muslims and Catholics

The video itself has Warren expressing his views on the Catholics and the comments made by him seriously show he doesn't understand the full implications of accepting Roman Catholics as our brothers.

I shall go through these points and hopefully demonstrate that Warren is speaking folly and that all his followers who read this article may wake up and realise they are being lead down the wrong path.

Let's begin

"We have far more in common than what divides us. When you talk about Pentacostals, Charismatics, Evangelicals, Fundementalist, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and on and on and on and on, Well they will all say we believe in the Trinity, We believe in the Bible, We believe in the resurrection, We believe Salvation is through Jesus Christ, these are the big issues"

Yes, those are big issues, But Warren doesn't realize that Catholics themselves, hold to many abominable traditions which no Christian should accept.

I have pointed out and exhorted Anglicans themselves in my articles should not accept ecumenism as a plausible option:

You cannot just say the things above are the only things required, It's not just what an individual denies that we need to be careful of, It's what they accept as well.

For example outside Catholicism, Do I accept Sid Roth, Jonathon Bernis and Michael L. Brown as brothers because they accept all the issues above? No, I reject them as brothers because they accept Benny Hinn as a brother and to the best of my knowledge, don't confront him on his heresies and ALL three have had a television appearance with him one way or the other.

The same can be said of liberals like Rob Bell and also the apostate Kansas City Prophets. Should THEY be accepted because of the things above? No, Again, it's because of the practices and heresies they endorse that cut them off from Christ and hence that is why I reject such individuals.

Yes all the issues Warren's lists are important, but other issues are not to be disregarded, especially if they are ones of salvation.

"Sometimes Protestants think that Catholics worship Mary like she is another God. But that's not exactly Catholic doctrine. There's understanding and people say  What are the saints all about, Why are you praying to the saints?. And When you understand what they mean by why what they're saying, there's a whole lot more commonality. Now there's still real differences, no doubt about that but the most important thing is if you love Jesus, we're on the same team."

This is nothing more than simplistic platitude. It matters not if a person claims to love Jesus, it's whether or not you hold to the same Jesus. Someone can claim they love Jesus and that Jesus is their Lord, but if their doctrine, which encompasses both life and belief, is contrary to the teachings of Jesus, they are not of his flock, despite any common ground that may exist.

Although the Roman Catholics do not worship Mary, the fact that they seek her intercession, pray to her and ask her to give their request to Jesus, coupled with the fact that they bow down to graven images in a religious context, they are idolaters by definition.

See my papers on Mary:

See Keith Thompson's video "Catholics Should not "Hail Mary"..." here:

Also, See my article response to Walid Shoebat on icons:

"The unity that I think we would see realistically is not a structural unity but a unity of mission and so when it comes to the family, we are co-workers in the field on this for the protection of what we call the sanctity of life, the sanctity of sex and the sanctity of marriage. So there's a great commonality and there's no on division on those three."

So? The Mormons themselves preach holiness, yet they teach polytheistic paganism and the absurd blasphemy that men can become gods.

James White points out that Mormonism doesn't even come close to Biblical Christianity and certainly is NOT biblical. See the following:
Is Mormonism Christian?
Understanding Mormonism (Dr. James White)

This again, ties into the point that we cannot overlook doctrine that is a stench and abomination to Jesus. Jesus CONDEMNED man made doctrine and it would be a great disservice to Jesus if we did overlook false doctrine.

This attiude from Warren is the same attitude I have seen Michael L. Brown and others like him display with respect to Benny Hinn and some of the Kansas City Prophets.

"Many times people have been beaten down for taking for taking a biblical stance and they start to feel Well, maybe I am out here all by myself.... No you're not. The church is growing in Latin America, The church is growing in Asia, The church is growing in Africa. It's not growing in North America or Europe, but it is growing everywhere else so we kinda have this feeling that maybe we are not as influential but we're far more influential than people realize"

The reason we are not influential in North America and Europe as we should is because for a time, the church in those continents (Not all members), but most of the church has been preaching a defective Gospel and is becoming more like the world, rather than being salt and light to the nations.

A false Gospel is the easiest way to derail an entire nation or even a continent. As Jesus said "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.".

If the church doesn't repent and turn to God, they cannot be an effective witness to the world and thus will drag MORE to hell than before. It's a case of not going through the door ourselves and barring the door to others at the same time.

I am quite happy to deal with immorality and idolatry with biblical Christians but getting into bed with heretics in ecumenism is NOT an option for the believer.

I bare no hatred to Warren as a person, but he is a false teacher who does need to repent and quite frankly, I'd rather work with Jesus ALONE, than with a heretic.

To those who give credence to Rick Warren and follow his ministry, or any ministry similar to his, I exhort you to abandon his false gospel and turn to Jesus Christ ALONE.

As my conclusion, I give you the words of Paul in his epistle to the Galatians
"6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!"

Answering Judaism.

Tuesday, 25 November 2014

Mary: The greatest woman who ever lived 2: Was she a sinner?

I had previously back in 2012 done a video response to two Roman Catholics by the name of CT_West_Coast and Savioursheart and an Eastern Orthodox (I am guessing I could be wrong), by the name of AsyrianPrince9.

Looking back on the original video (watch here:, it isn't quite up to scratch so I thought I'd might go back an readdress some of the objections presented in the original video, as I feel the response was at best inadequate. I had only just begun doing video responses to certain objections and my knowledge back then wasn't up to scratch as it is now. Having said that, I hope to respond to the objections properly and not blather on. With that said, Let's get started.

Luke 1:28's abuse has been addressed here already:

All have sinned, But who is the exception?
Romans 3:23 says the following:
"23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

I made it clear that this text would demonstrate that Mary was a sinner and the contrived excuse and rebuttal to this was "Well Mary must of sinned" or "All means All". In other words, If Mary sinned in the context Jesus must have sinned.

However in the context above, Jesus is portrayed as the sinless atonement and thus in the context would not fall into the section where all have sinned. Not to mention it is very clear and abundant even in other contexts that Jesus himself is not even a sinner to begin with and no the phrase "all" in Romans 3:23 does not include Jesus as part of sinful man.

Here are the other passages and note what is highlighted:
"2 Corinthians 5:20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[b] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

"Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin."

"1 Peter 2:21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

22 “He committed no sin,
    and no deceit was found in his mouth.”[e]
23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed."

I was of course accused of adding to the text, however my opponents I feel failed to see the irony of their words, but the point is, the Roman Catholic has NO basis biblically to claim Mary was without sin.

While the last three texts I never brought to the three in a dialogue, I later did include it in the original video.

There is no evidence for Roman Catholic claims regarding Mary when one looks into their claims.

Answering Judaism.

Friday, 21 November 2014

DACON9: Where's the source 2

DACON9 recently added some information to his article which I had taken a look at:

His reply is this:




I think you have to get ready for your church lies
spreading impurities to the world…I dont see how you can navigate through this world with your xtian blindness. Its not enough that xtians are responsible for every major catastrophe in the world but you even want to destroy any hope for the future."

Firstly, In his article DACON makes some claims about the KJV and doesn't provide a source. Read here:

I asked him for a source since he made claims about the KJV and didn't provide any evidence for his assertion, but simply bombastically proclaimed it.

The dialogue I had with DACON never brought up the subject of the KJV in the first place and his statement that "THE SOURCE IS YOU. FROM YOUR OWN DEBATES WITH ME.", makes zero logical coherent sense and just simply diverts the topic.

It is also false to claim Christians are responsible for every major catastrophe on Earth. There were false Christians that have brought destruction in their path due to the Inquisition. See Keith Thompson's debate with apostate Theodore Shoebat on this matter:
"Walid Shoebat’s Son Supports Catholic Massacre of Cathar Children & Women":


Again, assertion without backing the claim. I have no problem using the TANAKH because that was the foundation the apostles relied upon to Biblically show Jesus as the Messiah.

Also, The Pope and his followers are heretics and I don't follow the Pope.

See the following on some of Rome's atrocities:

Yes there were some in Protestantism that did hurt Jews maliciously, that should not of been the case and I repudiate that.

All I can see here in these comments is nothing but emotional rhetoric to invoke a reaction.

It is profitless to waste my time any further in dialogue with DACON9.

May God open his blind eyes.

Answering Judaism.

Sola Scriptura: Response to Quinque Viae (XM Flash or xgamer_immortal)

Quinque Viae, also known as xgamer_immortal or XM Flash, has recently written an article to me which I hope to respond to as best I can.

"Bobo has decided to make a number of anti-catholic posts on his blog, I had a rather long explanation explaining who Bobo is and where he's from, but I decided it would be best to just deal with the material he presents and see how he responds.
         First off, he makes this bizarre claim about Sola Scriptura and the role of tradition in Christian life. He starts by saying that Tradition that is not in violation with scripture is "valid" and Sola Scriptura is merely an affirmation of Scripture's supremacy, which does not negate said tradition that is in accord with Scripture. The problem is his misunderstanding of Catholic Material Sufficiency, where it stands in the Catholic belief that Scripture and Tradition are not in opposition to one another, and every Tradition is affirmed in either an implicit or explicit sense. He clearly has no knowledge of this belief but rather just makes the inference that Catholics can ignore scripture as they choose when picking Traditions. Saintly intercession is explicitly stated in the Bible, praying for the dead is explicitly affirmed in the Bible (as Protestant scholar JND Kelly proves), the Trinity doctrine is implicitly affirmed in the Bible, etc.... In fact there isn't a single doctrine of Catholicism that is found in the Sacred Tradition that has no implicit or explicit reference from the biblical texts, if he can provide one that would be great but there has been a great deal of Catholic arguments that stem from the Scripture concerning these beliefs."

First, I have indeed undertaken the task to refute Roman Catholicism. This doesn't mean I hate Catholics themselves, Far from it, If I hated Roman Catholics, then I would encourage others not to evangelise to them, same with Eastern Orthodox people.

If Quin wants to pull the "Anti-Catholic card", the same point can be said of him that he is Anti-Protestant. That's not going to get us anywhere.

Next, The onus of proof is on Quin to to show that the traditions as held to by the Catholic church are even found within the inspired texts of the Bible as well as in the early church Fathers. You would be hardpressed to find them.

A tradition is essentially teaching and as I explain in another article my writings could be considered a tradition or teaching, the same with Quin's own writings. Both of us are conveying tradition to our reading audiences. But it stands to reason to call into question Roman Catholic tradition that is ANACHRONISTICALLY shoehorned into the biblical text and into early fathers like Ignatius, Irenaus, Origen, Tertullian etc.

"Then, Bobo creates a false dichotomy where he chooses to hold Scripture up to this standard as being one's only final authority, yet then dismisses any notion that Tradition could hold an equal authority. This is merely what you would find in an anachronistic 21st century "Western" view of the texts. First off, Bobo clearly seems to have little to no knowledge of the biblical world. It was a world that was of a higher context, where great theological issues and important beliefs were assumed of the reader and often not explicitly stated. The Monotheistic belief of Yahweh in the 5 books of Moses? Not explicit, the SHEMA can read as a Henotheistic or Monolatristic creed as well as a Monotheistic one. The Kosher Slaughter, Calendar system, Jerusalem as the sacred city? Key doctrines in Judaism that are presupposed in the author's books, and are not explicitly stated. And even as scholars (mainly secular ones at that) have pointed out that the monotheistic nature of Yahweh is rather ambiguous until you get to Deutero-Isaiah, even more scholars have found that the Trinitarian nature of God is ambiguous in the NT. We have Christ's Deity clearly affirmed, Father's Deity affirmed, but we are left to ponder the specifics of this view and what "Deity" may entail. Was Christ "Theos" in the same sense Moses was "Theos" to Philo? Are mainstream NT scholars (conservative ones too) correct when they say Paul had more of an Arian view? We rely largely upon extrabiblical means to interpret scripture, looking at the wider cultural world rather than just thumping the text ignorantly. I shall go to NT Wright who makes this surprising claim,
"It is much more likely, in my judgment, that the gospel writers were able to draw on a bewildering variety of sources, many of them oral (in a world where oral reports were prized more highly than written ones), and many of them from eyewitnesses.


There is no pondering, If Christ and the Father's deity are affirmed, it is safe to assume and affirm that the Trinity is indeed taught in the texts of scripture itself and that Christ is called theos in the true sense. The exception would be Psalm 45 which talks about Christ's supremacy: There is even pretty solid material out there that even confirms the Biblical witness of the Trinity itself.

A modalistic interpretation cannot be deemed valid because scripture clearly affirms that the Father and the son are distinct persons and even Tertullian himself refuted Modalism in his treatise Against Praxeus.

Dismissal of tradition that goes against the biblical text is not an anachronistic way of reading the Bible, considering Jesus did NOT accept every single Pharisaical tradition, though some tradition he was not against.

"15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”

Acceptance of some of the oral tradition would not prove Sola Scriptura to be false. Washing the hands wasn't a problematic or false tradition, but was an example of a dispensable tradition, but certainly the loophole that Jesus mentions counts as a violation.

Are you going to suggest that Jesus is guilty of some "21st Century anachronism"?

Also, For those unaware, Henotheism believes one God is to be worshiped but there is an acknowledgement of other deities existing. The Shema hardly can be used as a pretext for Henotheism since YHWH in the OT emphatically states that this only one God and NONE besides him. Furthermore, in the Psalms we have the following:

"Psalm 115:1 Not to us, Lord, not to us
    but to your name be the glory,
    because of your love and faithfulness.
2 Why do the nations say,
    “Where is their God?”
3 Our God is in heaven;
    he does whatever pleases him.
4 But their idols are silver and gold,
    made by human hands.
5 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
    eyes, but cannot see.
6 They have ears, but cannot hear,
    noses, but cannot smell.
7 They have hands, but cannot feel,
    feet, but cannot walk,
    nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
8 Those who make them will be like them,
    and so will all who trust in them.
9 All you Israelites, trust in the Lord—
    he is their help and shield."

"Psalm 135:15 The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
    made by human hands.
16 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
    eyes, but cannot see.
17 They have ears, but cannot hear,
    nor is there breath in their mouths.
18 Those who make them will be like them,
    and so will all who trust in them."

Though the idols and false Gods have tangible statues, they themselves are non-existent and cannot do harm, nor even deliver one from the clutches of disaster (Much like the idol of Mary cannot do this either).

"Likewise, great Protestant scholar Larry Hurtado echoes this thought:
Second, the approach taken in LJC understands the books of the New
Testament as the visible tip of a much larger iceberg, as it were. In
Hurtado's view, a prior and large-scale Christian understanding of Christ,
including his history, person, nature and work, is assumed by the written
texts. Put in his own terms, the narratives of the New Testament assume a
larger enabling narrative and a larger contextual understanding, all of it
mainly oral. What does this mean for people who assert a position of sola
scriptura and of scriptura scripturarn interpretatur? How does the larger
prior understanding relate to the regula Fdei of early Christian
communities? How does it relate to the general issue of Scripture and
tradition? What is, in fact, our final authority in matters of faith and life?
[Emphasis mine]


Again, you can use tradition, Quin has claimed he understands sola scriptura but so far, I am not convinced that he has even understood it. Should we consider looking at an oral tradition for profitability, yes. Should the oral tradition be binding on one's conscience if it violates God's moral code? No.

One should go back to the early church and look at other material to see what the groups themselves believed, be they orthodox or heterodox movement. It is good to get the information for historical study and understanding so we can refute the objections of unbelievers should the issues arise.

"Bobo has anachronistically and ahistorically thrown himself into a world that relied heavily upon Oral Traditions. One where the written texts assumes a basic knowledge Ritualistic, Ceremonial, theological traditions. One that had a literacy rate of 3% (Source: Ehrman) and your typical Levantine rhetorician would have to employ alliteration, rhymes, wordplay, hyperboles, and parables to communicate to the audience and have the message repeated from individual to individual. This is exactly what Jesus did, these wordplays are especially apparent when you translate the texts back to the original Aramaic."

Yes, the ancient world did have oral tradition, but this isn't a news flash to a sola scripturist, since we accept that the Bible was oral first, then codified and written down. This wouldn't however justify the claims of Roman Catholics and what they say about their traditions. Not much else to say really.

"To the first century Jew, the tefillin, the Kosher Slaughter, Calendar system, Jerusalem's prominence had to, by definition, be of an equal authority to the Torah (For the sake of discussion I'm limiting the torah to the 5 books of Moses) otherwise there is no infallible manner in which to discern the theological truths of these practices. I do wonder, how does Bobo infallibly know how to perform the Slaughter that was essential to Jewish life? There's no evidence in the Torah besides a vague, "Kill the beast as I have commanded you." But how? What does Deuteronomy mean concerning the tefillin prayers? Is it esoteric? If that is the case then why did classical Jewish branches all seem to affirm a literalistic interpretation of said texts? The Teffillin has been found at the site of the Essenes, the Pharisees wore it, the Sadducees wore it (according to the Talmud), & even the Hellenic Jews seemed to have recognized the teffillin as tangible objects. (Source: letter to Aristeas) But how does Bobo know how to wear it? Like the pharisees did? Or the Sadducees? They differed in the specifics. 

Bobo's logic is as follows:
A) Presuppose that scripture alone is one's final authority
B) Holds Tradition as authoritative only in it's accordance to Scripture

This leads to an infinite regression and circular logic, for I could propose the following conundrum.

A) The Scripture says to kill the animal in a certain manner.
B) I believe we should kill the animal by using a hammer to the head. Then later remove the meat from the blood.

A) Scripture says to kill the animal in a certain manner.
B) I believe we should kill the animal using a knife and follow Rabbinic Traditions.

Point C) Scripture does not specify whether or not a hammer or knife is used. Or how to drain the blood, when to drain it, etc..

You have both scenarios where scripture is hailed as the only final authority, but point B is up for interpretation and relies upon one's own subjective viewpoint with no infallible backing. Is Bobo honestly going to suggest that a commandment from God is subjected to one's own private understanding of the slaughter? It does not logically follow. You will end up with an infinite number of methods and answers that are all outside the scope of scripture, either you hold scripture and tradition as equally valid or you have to concede that the Word of God fails to instruct the average individual on to the essentials of his faith.

A tradition telling us how to slaughter kosher in certain way or tying tefillin isn't so much of a problem, since a Sola Scripturist DOESN'T dismiss every tradition, but tests those said traditions. Why is there the assumption that just because I reject unbiblical traditions, therefore I am not open to how the issue of kosher and tefillin is to be resolved?

If you want to discern how to properly deal with these matters, that's fine, it's important to do things the way God requires.

"Finally the last desperate appeal of the anti-catholic apologist is to resort to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, a verse which explicitly debunks Sola Scriptura but is somehow twisted into a bizarre proof-text for the dogma. First off, in which biblical dictionary or lexicon is the word "ophelimos" used to denote completion or sufficient? Ophelimos roughly means advantageous, useful. So if the Protestants are correct and and this is supposedly some 'creedal' statement then why on earth would Paul soften the impact of this alleged important early creed by employing such terminology? I would rather believe that Paul did not lie when he said scriptures were something that were advantageous while not disregarding the Oral Traditions as being equally authoritative (2 Timothy 3:8) which would be following the precedent set in Judaism of that time."

Paul doesn't affirm Oral Tradition as equally authoritative, he often pointed to the OT and even to Luke's own Gospel to substantiate his teaching, not to mere traditions of men. For those who are unaware, Jamnes and Jambres are the names of the Pharaoh's magicians, two at least, who opposed Moses in Egypt when he performed miracles in front of the Pharaoh.

Read more on them here:

Ophelimos will be looked at momentarily.

"He goes onto say every scripture is profitable. Two pesky little words that totally debunk the belief of Sola Scriptura are "every" and "scripture." First off, "Every scripture" (pasa graphe) would refer to the every scripture in an individual sense. Even "Doctor" James White has admitted such. Unless Bobo can defy scholarship and show some proof of an early "Bible" compiled into one book (rather than scrolls) he is once again projecting an anachronistic view in the biblical world. Every scripture would be referring to Isaiah alone, Genesis alone, Jeremiah alone, Sirach alone. The author is affirming the sacredness of scripture, every single OT scripture individually, and saying one could learn and teach from said scripture. This correlates beautifully with the Catholic view of Material Sufficiency, not the Protestant view of formal sufficiency which states that the scriptures are only authoritative when the "magical number" of 66 is met, then the Bible as a whole becomes authoritative. Moreover, it is curious as to why Bobo forgot that the word "Scripture" was in the singular, not the plural. The only time the word scripture is pluralized in the passage is in a reference that excludes NT texts and is speaking solely of Old Testament scripture. So it's clear the Catholic interpretation is the biblical and logical interpretation of the verse."

I never claimed the Bible was compiled into one book and acknowledge the individual books were scrolls. Even Jesus himself read from a scroll of Isaiah. Even if "Every Scripture" refers to the books of the OT, it doesn't prove the Romanist church to be true, let alone biblical or even the false doctrines they so love to propagate.

As for Sirach, as Ryan Turner of CARM observes:
"1.  There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles.  While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say."  There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics.  In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5Lk. 24:27Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God. "

Keith Thompson observes the following in his paper on Sola Scriptura:
"First, neither the Lord Jesus nor the Apostles ever quote any Apocryphal book with the formulaic expressions denoting canonicity, i.e. "Thus saith the Lord," "This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken through the prophet," "The Scripture says," "It is written," etc.

Now someone may wish to say that this is also true with many of the OT books which the Jews and Christians both accept as canonical. The problem with this objection is that we do know that the Lord Jesus and his Apostles, as well as the NT documents as a whole, often appealed to the Scriptures in the possession of the Jews at that time. And, as we documented in the previous parts of our discussion, one will find many references to “the Law and the Prophets,” or to “the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms” (cf. Luke 24:25, 27, 44-45). These divisions of the Scriptures did not include the Apocryphal books, but did contain the OT books found in the Jewish and Protestant canons.

Second, just because the NT may allude to material from the Apocrypha doesn’t mean that the NT writers viewed them as inspired or canonical." Keith Thompson, Appendix: Addressing Some Arguments in Support of the Apocrypha:

I thoroughly recommend all to read that article above and examples in said article are listed to demonstrate the point made.

Other points about Sirach may be focused on if the Lord Wills.

As for the quote from James White. WHERE did he say what he said? And Speaking of White, this is what he said on Sola Scriptura (Bold italic emphasis mine):
Sola scriptura says the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. It does not deny the existence of "general revelation" in nature (hence the error of saying the "sole source of revelation"). It is interesting to note, however, that Mr. Ray, in his zeal for the Roman position, ends up taking the more conservative, traditional partim-partim viewpoint of tradition and revelation, for while many modern Roman Catholic theologians are moving toward abandoning the "two-source" view of revelation, Mr. Ray states his adherence to it plainly a number of times in his article (we shall note them in passing). Mr. Ray is a former Baptist. Hence, he might want to be familiar with what the Baptists in 1689 placed in their Confession of Faith:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
The sufficiency of Scripture is clearly asserted, but it is a sufficiency carefully defined. No one claims the Bible is an omnipedia of all knowledge. Nor does anyone claim the Bible can tell you, specifically, what color fabric to place upon the pews of your new church building. But all things that are "necessary" for God's "own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture.""

And in the same article says:
"Sola scriptura speaks to the Church as she exists in her normative state. Times of revelation are not normative. They are now passed. So how does the Church have sure access to the truths of God today? By reference to nebulous, a-historical traditions, or to the sure and unchanging Word of God in the Scriptures? Sola scriptura says the Church always has an ultimate authority to which to turn: and the Church isn't that ultimate authority! The Church is in need of revelation from Her Lord, and that she finds in Scripture, not in "traditions" that are uncertain".

James White, A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray’s Article, Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura:

I would recommend others reading his articles here:

Also, Why is there the assumption that the Protestant view means that a "magic number" as to be met?

"In summary for 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
A) Paul affirmed an Oral Tradition as a Pharisee, so any attempt at saying the OT alone is needed would have to deny the Pharisaic belief in the Oral Torah and explain from a biblical basis things like the Calendar system & Kosher Slaughter.
B) The word "Ophelimos" ruins any sort of creedal statements that the Protestant might infer
C) The phrase used is pasa graphe, meaning every scripture. The Scripture is individually affirmed as authoritative, which correlates terrifically with how scriptures were bound to scrolls in first century Judaism.
D) As biblical commentator Adam Clarke has observed, the verse is about the Old Testament only. Implying the NT is included ("the scriptures you read growing up..") is going way beyond the text and making astronomical claims that cannot be proven.
E) The affirmation of Scripture is most likely to counter the gnostic interpretations. Bobo should probably know the Pastorals had an innate anti-Gnostic polemic to them, the author is trying to say the Old Testament is valid in contrast to the proto-gnostics who may already be denying its value. The historical context is everything.

A Oral Traditions of the Pharisees don't prove the Roman Catholic apostate traditions to have any weight. I already said that traditions used to deal with kosher slaughter and tefillin aren't problematic and that Jesus accepted SOME of the traditions, not all.
B How? It just means profitable. Tradition is profitable, not inspired.
C Which doesn't prove Rome to be a true church in any way.
D. I am aware Paul is referring to the Old Testament in context, I have said it refers to the New Testament in principle. The same principle applies.
E. Yes I am aware the NT has anti-Gnostic polemic in them.

Going back to ophelimos, the word means profitable. No Sola Scripturist denies this and tradition itself can be profitable, as is a commentary. Several of the Reformers had no hesitation looking at the dissertations and treatises of church Fathers or the decisions of the church councils for what they said. However...... tradition in this passage is not described as God Breathed, scripture itself, so how it destroys a protestant creeds and confession I have no idea. Tradition outside the scripture is NEVER referred to as God breathed, hence the point is vacuous.

Furthermore it is important to realize that scripture is "theopneustos" or God-breathed (Something the Roman tradition is not) and also can equip and furnish the believing. Tradition is fine to use for edification for sure and even may provide an insight you haven't noticed. Maybe I have an insight someone may not have seen who knows? But the point is, It is ultimately the scripture itself that is called inspired, not the traditions of the Roman apologists who want to force false teaching on their congregants.

Matt Slick observes the following regarding the Greek of the passage:
"Let's take a look at the Greek. The word "inspired" is qeovpneustos (theopneustos), and it means literally, "God breathed." This means that God was the one working through people--breathing through them his words. The Scriptures, therefore, are perfect and without error because they come from God. Paul continues and says that these Scriptures are profitable for teaching, for proof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. In verse 17 he explains that this is so the Christian may be adequate--equipped for every good work. The word artios(artios) is defined as follows:
  • "complete, capable, proficient, able to meet all demands."2
  • "complete, perfect of its kind, suitable, exactly fitted"3
  • "complete, perfect. 2a having reference apparently to "special aptitude for given uses."4
So, we see from three sources that explain the Greek that Paul is telling us that the Scriptures are "complete, capable, proficient, able to meet all demands, exactly fitted, etc." This is fine; but Paul continues to tell us that this, so we might understand that by studying the Scriptures, we will be adequately equipped for every good work.
The Greek word for "equipped" is ejxhrtismevno" (exartismenos) and it means, "having been finished, fully equipped":
  • "equip, furnish."5
  • "to be thoroughly prepared or furnished."6
  • "to complete, finish. 1a to furnish perfectly. 1b to finish, accomplish."7
We can then see that we are equipped for every good work. Every good work is explained in the previous verse as teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. This means that the Bible is sufficient for all of these things. This naturally includes the teaching of doctrine because teaching correct doctrine is a good work by which we reprove, correct, and train. Furthermore, this means that we don't need sacred tradition to teach, reprove, correct, and train in righteousness because the Scriptures are what is sufficient for this."

Sam Shamoun himself also notes the following:
"1. The Holy Scriptures are the sole, infallible rule of faith by virtue of it being breathed out or inspired by God. As such it is completely sufficient in and of itself to thoroughly equip Christians in all things necessary for salvation and sanctification.

2. The Bible is the only certain norm, since it is the only revelation that can be demonstrated to have come from inspired men of God. This cannot be said of oral traditions.

3. Finally, the central focus of the Scriptures is to reveal and make known the risen Lord and immortal Savior Jesus Christ, God’s eternally beloved Son, who alone grants eternal life to all who believe." Sam Shamoun, An Articulation of Sola Scriptura: The Biblical Basis for the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures:

Finally, Thompson demonstrates the following regarding the phrase "exartismos" (Bold and italic emphasis mine):
"Now, when 2 Timothy 3:17 teaches that Scripture thoroughly equips the man of God for every good work including doctrine, the original Greek word is exērtismenos (ἐξηρτισμένος), the perfect passive participle of exartizō (ἐξαρτίζω). The word exartizō is defined in the following ways by major professional lexicographers and grammarians:
Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words defines it as: “to fit out” (W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, [Thomas Nelson Inc., 1996], p. 117).

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines it as: to complete, finish 1a) to furnish perfectly” (Joseph. H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2009], p. 222).

Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words affirms it means “to equip or furnish completely” (William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, [Zondervan, 2006], p. 1146).

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes the word means to “bring to a suitable state” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromily, Vol. 1, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964-1976], pp. 475).

The Baur, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, defines it as: “equip, furnish . . . for every good deed 2 Ti 3:17” (Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur, Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, [University of Chicago Press, 2000], p. 346).
Hence, what is deduced from this text is that Scripture is able or powerful to make men wise unto salvation through faith. Scripture is God-breathed or given by inspiration of God. Scripture’s purpose is to profit us with doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. Hence, there is no doctrine or sin that Scripture is not profitable enough to address. And Scripture is sufficient in the sense that it makes the man of God complete, fully furnishing and fully equipping him for every good work including doctrine or teaching.

Therefore, since 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches that Scripture fully furnishes or makes the man of God fully equipped forevery good work including doctrine, that means Scripture contains everything we need for doctrin. We do not need extra-biblical tradition to supplement Scripture and inform us of doctrine allegedly missing from Scripture as Romanism teaches."

Moving on.

"Most importantly, as Catholic apologist David Armstrong points out, there is a passage about the Church which puts the Church as even more authoritative than anything expressed in 2 Tim 3:16. See here:

Maybe another time if the Lord Wills I may comment on this article, but not now.

         I haven't been able to deal with all of Bobo's arguments, he has the bad habit of jumping bombastically to one subject to the next for some reason. I would rather focus on Sola Scriptura first with him and expand from there. But so far, Bobo has displayed his incapability with dealing with the basic anthropology of the Biblical world, one which is clearly affirmed by the leading Protestant NT scholars of our time.. one that relies heavily upon Oral Tradition. Such oral tradition is even of a "greater" (their words not mine) value than written scripture in due to the low literacy rate of the time. Bobo has failed to explain how key aspects of the Jewish faith remain outside the Bible, and his "Oh well traditions are valid just not as valid as scripture!" doesn't work out logically (as proven above) and is a presupposition not justified in the biblical texts, Judaism, or early Christianity. The Catholic case that the Word of God (Oral, Written, & Magisterial) is our final authority alone still stands while Bobo's remains unproven.

I hope he will honestly engage me in dialogue this time and we can stick to a subject. My past attempts at dialogue with him have failed (I wrote quite a lengthy series of replies on iconography under one of his videos which he never got around to reading)  I'm planning on writing on the canonicity of Sirach (relying solely upon Protestant & Jewish sources mind you) in antiquity and may be posting some of my articles on 2 Tim 3:16 & Sola Scriptura which might be of interest to him.

No I don't bombastically jump from one subject to another, In two of my papers I address a number of claims of individuals I have spoken with. The prime reason for focusing on multiple topics that I did was because of the fact that several objections were brought to me by Th3 Vin3 and margesimpson1. It would be nice to point this out to his readers.

Furthermore, Quin fails to mention in his article that I had listened to an EASTERN ORTHODOX recorded television program, called Holy Cross Live, presented by Yanni Simonides, where he discusses with scholars on what the orthodox church teaches. This was for a set of videos on Eastern Orthodoxy that I had done in the past which Quin mentions he wrote replies to.

It is not icons that are the problem, it's the veneration of icons which is the problem, which is to be blunt, idolatrous and no there is no difference between the worship of a statue and a veneration of an icon.

I would also recommend and judge for yourself the article by Messianic Drew on Roman Catholic claims of authority:

For now this is all I have to say in this particular article.

Answering Judaism.

Wednesday, 19 November 2014

Catholic Dogmas: Three things worthy of Death

Let's look at Romans 1:24-32 in context.

"24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

We see in the passages that Paul is speaking of the state of unregenerate man before God.

We see also, that human beings know in their heart of hearts that God exists, he has written his existence into their conscience and they know that he is there, but refuse to acknowledge it. As a result of their unwillingness to turn from their iniquity and this ties in with the Old Testament with how God treated the Israelites when they rebelled against him in the Nev'im or the Prophets. He handed them over to their sinful desires because of their stubborn refusal to repent and of course, he will treat unrepentant Christians in exactly the same manner.

Furthermore, Some specific sins are listed, including "men committing indecent acts with other men and women with women" which is not simply talking sexual acts connected with idols  but it lists homosexuality and other sins as well.

However, I shall point out three specific topics, namely praying to saints, transubstantiation, and of course, the veneration of Mary, all come under the category of things that are worthy of death, but also not only would some continue in these things, but approve of those who practice these things.

Read the following to familiarise yourself:

I have already talked about these three in those two articles themselves.

Let me get this straight, I am NOT saying that the death penalty should be given to Catholics, God forbid I should suggest anyone in Christendom should be put to death. Read my response to Shadid Lewis on Romans 1 for more information:

The only point I am making is that the particular doctrines in Roman Catholicism would certainly have warranted death under the Old Testament law. I'll tell you why.

Isaiah makes the following point to his people in chapter 8 of his book:
"Isaiah 8:19 When someone tells you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. 21 Distressed and hungry, they will roam through the land; when they are famished, they will become enraged and, looking upward, will curse their king and their God. 22 Then they will look toward the earth and see only distress and darkness and fearful gloom, and they will be thrust into utter darkness."

Praying to dead saints and ask them to pray for you is not on the cards, they cannot hear you, you cannot hear them and only Christ can hear you.

Mary also cannot hear your prayers, nor can you hear her. 

To beseech the dead saints and consult them is ludicrous. 

Necromancy is witchcraft and should not be considered by Christians. That's strike one.

Now onto Transubstansiation, John 6 is often abused to promote transubstansiation, Let's read what it actually says:
"25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”

26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”

32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray 

When Jesus speaks of eating and and drinking in this context, he is referring to believing in his Gospel, his teaching and that those teachings are the key to eternal life. Jesus is not referring to his own body being devoured every time a Roman Catholic Mass is celebrated.

Blood itself is not to be consumed and this is what Roman Catholicism expects us to believe, that somehow Jesus' body and blood is to be literally eaten every time the Lord's supper is taking place. This is cannibalism and vampire religion and certainly to a certain degree, counts as murder.

That's strike two.

The final nail in the coffin is the veneration of Mary, which is indeed one of the most vile sins ever to enter the church to infect it.

Although many love to claim they are not worshipping Mary, The fact they even beseech Mary in a prayer absolutely would be idolatrous.

Yes I know that the Roman Catholics do not claim that Mary herself is not a deity but the only way for Mary to hear the voices of every single Catholic on the planet, is if she is omnipresent, A quality that only the Trinity would be able to possess.

Jesus himself in John 14 claimed to be able to answer ALL prayers, but that is because he is ontologically God as the Bible affirms, something the Catholics already accept.

"John 14:9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

Mary is not God and cannot answer any prayer.

See Keith Thompson's video "Catholics Should not "Hail Mary"..." here:

Also, the bowing to a statue of Mary DOES violate the first and second commandment, considering the fact you are bowing to a graven image, every time you prostrate yourself towards it in a religious context.

See my article response to Walid Shoebat on icons:

Lest anyone accuse me of such, NO I am NOT saying having an icon for decoration is wrong, I am saying icon VENERATION is wrong. To quote me "Icons are not the problem, but the worship of them is."

See also Thompson's video called "Catholicism turns Mary into a God":

Case and point, the prohibition against idolatry is violated by Roman Catholicism, that's strike three.

It is clear that Roman Catholicism comes under the condemnation of Romans 1 and is under the anathema of God. Roman Catholics need the Gospel and need to come to a saving knowledge of God.

May this be the prayer of ours,

Answering Judaism

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

Mark 12: A proof text for prosperity?

"Mark 12:41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”"

This passage is one of the most misunderstood teachings of Jesus.

What Jesus is commenting on is the fact that the widow despite what little she had into the treasury as an offering, she actually gave more than those who were wealthier than her.

Jesus wasn't saying that everyone had to put everything in, nor was he advocating sowing your seed to some nutty televangelist from the apostate word faith movement.

The woman herself was willing to give to God what she had. This isn't to say the rich people were wrong necessarily for putting what they did into the treasury, but for sure, more could of been given.

Jesus certainly wasn't advocating that people should give their money to an evil ministry that seeks to use God's name as a means of financial gain, it is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what Jesus is trying to say.

It is not advocating Christians tithing either, but certainly has the principle of giving and it is not just how much you give to God, it's your attitude is well.

The topic of tithing is addressed here:

It is worth noting the widow most definitely had her heart in the right place and the argument can be made regarding the rich people that though their gifts were indeed of high value, their heart may not have been in the right place and may have had a ritualistic attitude to giving God their gifts.

Any giving by a Christian should be done with an attitude of wanting to give to God out of gratitude, not for an ulterior motive and without grumbling. Why would God want a gift if you are not willing to give it?

Have a think on this and study the issue,

Answering Judaism.

Monday, 17 November 2014

Jesus the God Man: A response to MDI

In an article released by the organization known as MDI or Muslim Debate Initiative, they seek to try and refute the concept of the Trinity or try and find holes within the doctrine itself. The article can be found here:

Let's begin with the response:

"Trinitarian theology argues that Jesus is the God-man, and what this means is that Jesus was fully man, as well as being fully God at the same time.

According to Trinitarians, Jesus being the God-man explains a lot of things, for example when Jesus ate, slept, and was given birth to, this was part of the human side of Jesus, the human nature of Jesus. So as man, a full man, Jesus would experience things as all humans do, so that’s why he’d even pray, and not know everything, because he was a real human being.

So while Jesus had this human nature, he still also had the fully divine nature, and so he was still God."

Now if one carefully analyses this theology, one will find several problems and contradictions within it, but before we get to that we must address something else, we must go right to the heart of the issue. Trinitarians assert that Jesus was the God-man, fully God and fully man, yet the question is this, when and where did Jesus assert such a thing? When did Jesus ever say that he is fully God, and fully man, that he possesses two such natures?

The answer is simple, such a verse does not exist, and no major historical scholar in the field of the historical Jesus believes that Jesus uttered such a statement, there is no evidence for it. Jesus never said he was fully God and fully man, the church introduced this theology, and it’s obvious to see why. The church believes that such a theology will get rid of a lot of problems, because indeed how could Jesus be God if he didn’t know the last hour, surely God is all-knowing is he not?"

So what better way to explain this problem off by simply saying “oh yes this was the man nature of Jesus”, not the divine nature. So whenever Jesus displays actions that cannot make him God, they simply attribute it to the man nature"

No Christian claims Jesus said those exact words, and he didn't have to, it was the claims he made about himself that demonstrate he is God, it was already a given he was a man. Jesus spoke in such a way to the Jews that they rightly concluded that he made claims about himself. I have written in length showing the Trinity:

Jesus had set aside his divine perogatives, but not his deity, that's why there were certain things he did not know while he was on earth. This point has been addressed in my response to Tovia Singer on the Trinity:
"Jesus' knowledge was limited while on earth, however, there were cases where the disicples understood that Jesus knew all things. Also, by Tovia's logic, the Father and the Spirit are not God, because in Revelation 19:12, the rider called Faithful and True (Which is Jesus) has a name that no one knows but himself. Does this mean the Father and the Spirit are not God? Of course not. There are details that are only known to a certain member of the Godhead at certain times. That's one possible answer.

The other answer is that Jesus is speaking of the end times in the context of a ancient Jewish marriage, where only the Father knew when the marriage takes place. This video by InspiringPhilosophy explains this point better than I:"

"But now to the actual theology itself, and the problems and contradictions it poses when one well and truly thinks about it.

How can one be fully divine, and fully human at the same time? This is what you call a paradox, a contradiction, and an impossibility. Why you might ask? Well as we all know, being divine means you’re all knowing, all-powerful and so forth. But being human, means you’re none of those things. So how can one be all knowing, while ignorant at the same time?

The equivalent of this is calling someone a married bachelor. These are two completely different things, one cannot be all knowing, and be ignorant at the same time, that’s just a contradiction.

Similarly, being fully divine means you’re eternal, while being human, means you’re not eternal. So how can one be eternal, having always existed, yet at the same time is not eternal and came into existence during a point in time?! It makes no sense, as we said, it’s a paradox, and it’s a contradiction."

This goes back to the point I already made above, furthermore, everyone knows one cannot be a married bachelor, or 100% Good and 100% evil at the same time. However this is not a human being we are dealing with and no those two statements I mentioned don't apply to God considering he himself is pure, holy and good, and he shuns evil, thus it is already clear he is not 100% evil, let alone evil a little bit. He isn't evil at all. Also, no such thing as a married bacholer exists, not even in the Godhead. Biblically speaking God can be 100% God and Man, but not 100% evil and good at the same time, simply because of what the Bible already establishes, namely God being good with no evil or darkness in him.

Moreover, what's more of a paradox? God existing with two natures, one eternal, the other temporal? OR is God existing from eternity without beginning and end? The latter is far more perplexing and if you are going to dismiss the Trinity because "it doesn't make sense", Apply that to God existing eternally and you shoot yourself in the foot.

"It’s very simple, God is God, and man is man. If God becomes man, he’s no longer God now is he, he’s become a man. For instance, man is man, and animal is animal, if a man becomes a duck, he’s no longer a man but a duck. Similarly, if God became a man, then he was no longer God, he was man, there’s no such thing as the God-man unless God found himself a human wife and conceived a child with that human lady, and so the son would have the natures of God and man.

"Trinitarians say Jesus “took on the human nature”, that doesn’t make the situation any better, because how can the all mighty and powerful God, the infinite and the eternal, take on the finite and limited? How can the perfect take on imperfection? If God took on imperfection, then he was no longer fully perfect, yet that’s impossible for God because he is always perfect. If God took on ignorance, then he was no longer all knowing, and that’s an impossibility for God because God is perfect in wisdom and knowledge. It is impossible for him to become imperfect in that attribute, let alone any attribute. For if God became imperfect in anything, then he could not be God as God is perfect and it is impossible for him to imperfect for to be imperfect would cease making him God!"

Trinitarians are not put in a bad situation when we say Jesus took on a human nature. You tell me how God existed eternally, you can't. Jesus came into the world through the womb of Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not God finding a human wife to have sex to produce Jesus. That is blasphemy to Christians. There are things God himself can and can't do but we don't claim he becomes imperfect.

For example, God cannot time travel (neither can we for that matter and time dilation and sleeping for a long time doesn't count). Does this make God imperfect just because he cannot time travel though he is all powerful? Of course not, that isn't the case.

Just as God not being able to time travel doesn't render him imperfect, God becoming a man doesn't render him imperfect, not even laying his divine perogatives and glory makes him imperfect.

"So did the all-perfect God take on imperfection? Is that what we’re expected to believe when we’re told God took on the human nature? So God took on the imperfection upon himself while being fully perfect at the same time?"

What imperfection? He didn't take on imperfection, he laid aside his glory and his divine perogatives while still remaining as God, as Philippians 2:5-11 explains:
"5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father."

What does setting aside the divine perogatives and glory have to do with God being imperfect? NOTHING.

"Another problem with this whole God-man issue is the reasoning behind it, Trinitarians allege that God became like us, so he could understand us. But does not God already understand us? He made us, so surely he should understand us better than anybody else since he created us. Not only did he create us, he created the feelings we feel. So surely if anybody knows anything about understanding us and what we go through, it should be God as he created it all.

Now to also say that God became like one of us to understand us presupposes that he did not understand us in the first place which is why he became one of us, so he could better understand us and experience what we go through. If this is the case, this means that God is ignorant and not all knowing, for he should’ve already known about us instead of having to become like one of us to understand us.

Put it this way, if you travel to China to learn about the Chinese culture and the Chinese way of life, this means you weren’t aware of the Chinese way of life and culture, which is why you went to China so you could experience it. So similarly, when God became man to understand and experience what we go through, it means that he did not know this in the first place, which is why he took on such a act."

Can you show me any serious, knowledgeable Trinitarian who actually says God became a man to understand us? I know not one. That isn't the reason Jesus became a man in the first place.
The reason he became a man was because of the Father sending him to Earth to die on the cross for our sins, so that by our repentance and faith in him we will be born again, justified by faith and saved by grace. THAT is the reason he came to Earth

He didn't come to Earth to understand us. After all since he is God, he knows you better than you know yourself.

"Now if Trinitarians respond back by saying well “No, God didn’t become a man because he didn’t understand us and so forth, no, God already understood us and knew what we experienced”. If a Trinitarian says this, then they refute themselves and defeat the whole purpose of their own statements when they say God became a man to understand us. Why would God become a man to understand us if he already knew everything? It makes it all meaningless.

Trinitarians try to show how beautiful it is, they try to emotionally suck you in, saying, “Look how great God is, that he became like us to understand and experience what we go through, isn’t that wonderful”. No, not really, what’s so wonderful about him becoming like us, understanding us, and experiencing what we go through if he already knew this in the first place?

What would be wonderful about such a thing is if the person doing it was doing it because they well and truly wanted to understand how the people felt, to understand their experiences and so on, but if you already had full knowledge of it, if you created it, then there’s no point to it."

Again, Show me a SERIOUS Trinitarian who says this. What Trinitarian who understands his theology and is Trinitarian by conviction rather than tradition even makes the claim that God came to Earth to understand and experience us? Once again, I know not one.

"So in conclusion, the theology of the God-man is filled with contradictions within itself, and secondly, Jesus himself never taught that he was the God-man."

The article written by MDI is pretty hollow and vacuous, and again this last point is nothing more than an argument from silence. Can you show me where Jesus explicitly said he was a Muslim? No.

However he wasn't a Muslim for different reasons but would anyone use this argument of "Jesus himself said he was a Muslim" verbatim? I don't think so, so be consistent again if you are using that argument. Jesus may not of used the exact wording, but he certainly demonstrated he was God by his claims and actions, with the resurrection being a confirmation of those claims.
See the following articles which I call, the Deuteronomy 13 trilogy:


"So Jesus never declared himself to be the God-man, but what did he declare himself to be then?

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:1-3)

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. (John 8:40)"

John 17:3 is addressed here:

Any verse where it says that Jesus is a man, That's not a news flash to a Trinitarian at all, We accept he is God AND Man. Jesus being a prophet is ALSO not a news flash. Do you expect us Biblical Trinitarian Christians to be concerned that Jesus is identified as a man?

I have said this many times before, and I'll say it again, When Jesus took on human flesh, he began relating to the Father AS HIS GOD.

Jesus didn't have to say he was the God Man in the exact words, he could get his point across without having to resort to the exact words and even The Bible confirms Jesus' deity not only from his words, but also from the apostles who knew him.

Hope I have answered the objections properly.

Answering Judaism.