Saturday, 31 May 2014

Comments on Shituf

"Does a gentile who believes in the divinity of Jesus in accordance with the Nicene Creed commit idolatry? While gentiles are not obligated to obey all the commandments that are obligatory for Jews, one of the commandments which is binding on gentiles is the prohibition against idolatry.

From the Jewish point of view, are gentile Christians idolaters? The answer, according to the dominant Jewish view, is that they are not. In Jewish literature, the term that came to be used for the trinitarian concept of God was shittuf (partnership). The prevailing Jewish view is that belief in shittuf does not constitute idolatry for gentiles but does so for Jews. The reason for this is that the definition of what constitutes idolatry is different for Jews and gentiles. Belief in shittuf, the belief that God shares his being in equal partnership with Jesus and the holy spirit, is not idolatry by the standard of idolatry demanded of gentiles. But the very same belief held by a Jew constitutes idolatry by the standard applicable to Jews.

It is for this reason that Judaism does not condemn Christian trinitarianism as idolatry unless those holding the belief are Jews who are bound by the covenant of Sinai."

These are the comments made by a Jews4Judaism page on Facebook regarding the concept of shituf.

Shituf explains that for Gentiles to ascribe mediators and other powers to God would not be idolatry for them but a Jew themselves would not be allowed to do that, however it is to simplistic to say that and I'd rather link to a reliable scholar on this matter.

The late Dr Immanuel Schochet explains what Shituf is and how it applies in a given situation in his debate with Michael Brown in part 7 of the debate (7:04-7:57): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cDkiY8d2tw.

One important note I want to stress here is that it is debated as to whether or notChristianity is valid shituf according the the Rabbinic perspective, most contend that it is not. yourphariseefriend, Messiah Truth and Outreach Judaism are examples of groups that don't recognise Christianity as valid shituf and see it as rank idolatry.

I also do have my contention with the Jews that Christianity is idolatry and am convinced that it isn't idolatrous (Although there are heretical groups such Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that sadly engage in this and Unitarians who deny the Trinity for a another reason, hold to a different form of idolatry).

Putting the issue of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ aside which both I defend in other materials, Why does Rabbinical Judaism have some of it's adherents hold to this strange belief and concept of Shituf?

Interesting concept that it is, Wouldn't this idea of higher powers be something contradicted by the TANAKH itself? One might argue and say I have shot Jesus in the foot, however I haven't considering the Trinitarian doctrine acknowledges that Jesus is YHWH, though he is not the Father. The Triunity of YHWH would not be condemned by the TANAKH itself:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-tovia-singer-on-did-authors.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/classical-trinitarian-objections.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/challenge-from-facebook-unitarian.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-trinity-is-not-truth.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication-2.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/contra-blumenthal-examination-of-contra.html

These are just my comments on the concept of Shituf.

Answering Judaism.

Friday, 30 May 2014

Temple Offerings: A response to sandz

This article in particular is a response to a comment by sandz and I hope to respond to it to the best of my ability.

"I think your christological interpretation of Ezekiel is wacky! You say the blood offerings will be performed "in commemoration of what the Messiah has done for them" (your sentences then descends into incoherence). Where do you get your idea from the context that the sacrifices are just to commemorate Jesus? And remember, the context talks about bulls and goats as well as rams to be offered in sacrifice. How does a bull or a goat commemorate the "lamb of God"? 

But even if they do, the major problem with your interpretation (or re-hash) is that nowhere does Ezekiel even hint that the sacrifices are just commemorative tokens! On the contrary, the blood sacrifices are guilt or sin offerings. Ezekiel 44: 27 (talking about the ministering priest): "On the day he enters the inner court of the sanctuary, he is to OFFER A SIN OFFERING FOR HIMSELF".." Clearly, Jesus has not covered the priest from sin!:"

The bull and the goat comment misses the whole point. The sacrifices are done in commemoration of what the Messiah has done with respect to the atonement that he provides. If there is a third temple and the NT is true at the same time, it is safe to say exegetically that the sacrifices are done for their reason.

I am well aware they are sin and guilt offerings, but that doesn't tackle my point. All that is being done is preaching to the choir. Bringing up what the offerings are doesn't tackle the reason WHY they are offered as commemorative tokens. Hence Christ's atonement stands. I have also made it clear that the third temple is done after Christ returns to the earth and it stands during the Millennial Reign of Christ.

"Also, Ezekiel 43:19:"You are to give a young bull as a sin offering to the priests"

Note also that only men "circumcised in the flesh" can enter (44:9). Paul says that circumcision has no value (Galatians), and he even describes it as a mutilation. Alos, note that Ezekiel 44: 22 says that the priests can only marry Israelite women. Yet the New Testament teaches there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. Especially after Jesus' return, there should be no need to keep racial purity."

Paul doesn't say that circumcision is mutilation in the context of Galatians. Let's read the context:
"5 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

He is condemning the Judaizers for circumcising the Gentiles and trying to put them under Mosaic Law. Paul is not against a Jew getting circumcised, he even circumcised Timothy for evangelistic accommodation and because of the fact Timothy himself was a Jew. The Jews are allowed to be circumcised, but they need to recognise that it doesn't contribute to their salvation. It is Gentiles who are not allowed to be circumcised as that would put them under the law.

The section in Galatians 3 where it talks about no difference between Jews and Gentiles in Christ, it is referring to their oneness as to salvation. They are saved by the cross and have eternal life through his resurrection by repentant faith. Jews and Gentiles who submit to Christ will receive the same salvation, forgiveness of sins and eternal fellowship with God in heaven.

Hope this tackles some important points.

Answering Judaism.

Addendum to Contra Blumenthal: Daniel 9:24-27

These points I cut out of the original response and want to address them here and in another article. Namely the points about Daniel 9:24-27 and part of the Isaiah 53 objections raised by Yisroel Blumenthal.

This article shall take a look the famous prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.

Jews and Christians acknowledge that a purpose is either to be accomplished during or at the end of the Second Temple period, both mentioning an anointed one who is cut off. Several candidates of the prince who is to come are put forward. For example Antiochus Epiphanes profaned the temple with a statue of Jupiter and profaned the altar with pig sacrifice, which is something that was indeed an abomination. David Pawson is such an evangelical who has spoken on this, but takes into consideration that the anointed one who is cut off in Daniel 9 is Yeshua at a later date. He mentions Epiphanes in this video here from 29:57-31:45. Watch from 27:43 for more info on Daniel 11.

I admit that the subject of Daniel 9 is indeed a tricky one, considering Christians have wondered when the decree of Cyrus starts and some have pointed it's end to Christ's baptism, or his entry into Jerusalem.

However, Rabbi Blumenthal is convinced of the following:
"This passage talks of God’s ultimate program for the expiation of sin, the ushering in of everlasting righteousness and the culmination of all prophecy. Jews and Christian differ in their interpretation of this passage in two areas. Christians insist that the program must be completed within the 490 year time-frame mentioned in this passage (and this is the thrust of Brown’s argument), while Jews believe that the 490 year time-frame is a preparation period which must precede the implementation of God’s program. The second area of disagreement between the Jewish and Christian interpreters of this passage focuses on the nature of God’s program. Christians accept that the career of Jesus was a fulfillment of God’s program while Jews recognize that the scriptures paint quite a different picture.

This passage is not the only description Daniel gives us of these events. In chapter 11 verse 31 Daniel describes the violation of the sanctuary using the same terminology that he uses in the passage under discussion (9:26, 27). This event is to take place at the close of the 490 years. This event is to be followed by a refining process (11:33-35). This refining process represents God’s program for the ultimate expiation of sin and for the salvation of mankind. This clearly indicates that the program will only begin at the close of the 490 years. The 490 years were decreed in order to pave the way for the program to be set in motion.

What is God’s program for the expiation of sin and the ushering in of everlasting righteousness? The scriptures spell out the details of God’s program for the salvation of the world clearly and consistently. Daniel’s prophecy must be read in the context of the overall message of scripture.

God’s program for the expiation of Israel’s sin and for the establishment of Israel’s everlasting righteousness requires that Israel undergo a period of suffering. The purpose of this suffering is to refine Israel so that her sin can be pardoned (Leviticus 26:41, Isaiah1:25, 40:2, 48:10, Psalm 66:9, Daniel 11:31 – 35). Ultimately Israel will be redeemed from her suffering and her sins will be wiped away (Deuteronomy 32:43, Isaiah 44:22, Jeremiah 31:33, 33:8,50:20, Ezekiel 36:25, 37:23). At that time Israel will be exalted, the light of God will shine upon her head, and her everlasting righteousness will be revealed to all (Isaiah 24:23, 35:10, 51:11, 52;10, 12, 60:1 – 3, 19 – 21, 61:11 – 62:3, Jeremiah 33;9, Zephaniah 3:20). These prophecies all affirm that the expiation of Israel’s sin and her ultimate exaltation will only take place at the time of her physical redemption and restoration to the land.

We can safely assume that Daniel knew all of this. Daniel had been hoping and praying that the 70 years of the Babylonian exile would be the end of Israel’s suffering, and the subsequent deliverance would usher in the ultimate Messianic era. In this passage (Daniel 9:24 – 27) Daniel was informed that this was not to be. His nation and the holy city still needed to undergo a period of purification before the final redemption process can begin. The suffering of the Babylonian exile and the turmoil of the SecondTemple era was going to prepare the nation for the long exile ahead. It will be the suffering that follows the destruction of the SecondTemple that will begin the ultimate process for the expiation of sin and for the establishment of everlasting righteousness. The 490 years which end with the destruction of the city and the Temple (Daniel 9:26), can only mark the beginning of the process. The completion of the process will be accomplished through the Messiah of the Jewish scriptures, the one who will lead the nation in her age of glory.

In conclusion we can say that there is no passage in the Jewish scriptures which requires that the Messiah put in an appearance before the destruction of the SecondTemple. When we take the three passages from the Hebrew Bible that Brown presented to support his theory and read them in the context of the fullness of the scriptural message, we see that these passages do not support his hypothesis."

What I will be mentioning here is a theory if one is to take the interpretation of Rabbi Blumenthal into consideration.

If the 490 years were to be decreed to pave way for God's plan of redemption or begin that plan, it is safe to say that Jesus' death after the 490 years would begin the plan of redemption. Depending on which decree the 490 years begin, they either end with Jesus' birth, or his baptism and once the years have elapsed, the ultimate plan of redemption will begin and through Jesus, the Jews would be purified of their sins and wickedness.

Just to comment on Daniel 11:31-33, it's similarity to Daniel 9:24-27 is indeed something worth commenting on. Daniel 11:31-33 does have a historical application, namely Antiochous Epiphanes who I had mentioned earlier in this topic but it's application to Anti-Christ is also something worth noting. The Anti-Christ will make a covenant and he breaks the covenant half way through and people in Israel and in the Gentile world, will resist Anti-Christ and refuse to take his mark, much like how the Jews resisted Epiphanes, God preserving a remnant in both contexts.

Once Jesus returns, he will restore Israel completely in their land and they shall be a holy people forevermore. The program itself certainly had to begin before the second temple was destroyed but not completed but for sure expiation for sin was made when Jesus uttered the words "it is finished".

Bare in mind that this is a theory that I have if Blumenthal's interpretation is taken into consideration. I leave you guys to come to your own conclusion.

Answering Judaism.

Thursday, 29 May 2014

Excuses? or Biblical Defense?

There are individuals who I have come across that simply dismiss a defence of Jesus as simply a convenient excuse. In fact some such as counter missionaries have even gone as far was accusing apologists of "twisting the Christian Bible" to excuse Jesus.

Or are missionaries giving a defence of Christ and are giving a denseness for their faith.

It is one thing to say Christians are "making excuses" and explaining why so the Christians can respond, but it's quite another matter to say that Christians are "making excuses" and dismiss the points altogether.

I could easily say that Rabbinic Jews have contrived excuses so they can prove their oral tradition goes back to Moses, Which does beg the question, but dismissal is not a rebuttal which is a point I have made in my articles to heretic and false prophet Maestro M. Erano Evangelista.

Think on these issues.

Answering Judaism.

Wednesday, 21 May 2014

Did Jesus dishonour his parents? and other objections A Response to Sophiee Saguy

This article is responding to some objections to me by Sophiee Saguy and I hope to respond to them adequately.

"Luke 2:48 "His mother said to him, 'Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you?' (Luke 2:48)." -- his own mother states that Jesus mistreated her. Jesus caused his parents a whole day of worrying. His parents returned from Jerusalem, assuming Jesus was with them. In fact, Jesus stayed in Jerusalem without informing his parents. They returned to Jerusalem to look for him. 

Also read Matthew 12:46-50(KJV) – (46) While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. (47) Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. (48) But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? (49) And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! (50) For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. [See also Luke 2:42-50; John 2:3-4.] 

Perhaps because Jesus did not honor his parents, he did not enjoy the 
reward of a long life on earth as promised in the Fifth Commandment."

Jesus was not intending disrespect to his mother in the context. he was interrupted during his teaching by another person and couldn't speak to his mother at the time.

"46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”"

As Jamieson Fausset Brown observes
"47. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee, &c.—Absorbed in the awful warnings He was pouring forth, He felt this to be an unseasonable interruption, fitted to dissipate the impression made upon the large audience—such an interruption as duty to the nearest relatives did not require Him to give way to. But instead of a direct rebuke, He seizes on the incident to convey a sublime lesson, expressed in a style of inimitable condescension."

Matthew Henry in his commentary says:
"12:46-50 Christ's preaching was plain, easy, and familiar, and suited to his hearers. His mother and brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him, when they should have been standing within, desiring to hear him. Frequently, those who are nearest to the means of knowledge and grace are most negligent. We are apt to neglect that which we think we may have any day, forgetting that to-morrow is not ours. We often meet with hinderances in our work from friends about us, and are taken off by care for the things of this life, from the concerns of our souls. Christ was so intent on his work, that no natural or other duty took him from it. Not that, under pretence of religion, we may be disrespectful to parents, or unkind to relations; but the lesser duty must stand by, while the greater is done. Let us cease from men, and cleave to Christ; let us look upon every Christian, in whatever condition of life, as the brother, sister, or mother of the Lord of glory; let us love, respect, and be kind to them, for his sake, and after his example."

Regarding the subject of Luke 2:48, we read:
"41 Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom. 43 After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”[f] 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man."

Jesus was not being disrespectful to his mother, Jesus was too young to begin his ministry, he had to wait until he was 30 before he could be our high priest for our redemption and before he could minister to the people for the purpose the Father gave him. He was saying "Mother, did you not no where I have been, I have been working in my Father's house". He was speaking about his mission to which he had been assigned by the Father in heaven. While Mary didn't understood what Jesus meant, she held the things he said in her heart and thought about them often. He is not treating his mother with disrespect.

His death has absolutely nothing to do with the commandment to honour ones parents.

"let us not forget Matthew 10:34-37(KJV) – (34) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (35) For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (36) And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. (37) He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. [See also Luke 14:26.]. Here he is telling his followers to disrespect their parents as well."

In the actual context of Matthew 10:34-39 and Luke 12:49-53, Jesus is speaking about a metaphorical sword of division within families that will occur if someone chooses to follow him. He is saying in essence if you don't love me more than your family, don't follow me because by doing so you will have opposition from your family and your friends.

"Here is another example of Jesus sinning. "Honor the face of an elder [zaken] " (Vayikra / Leviticus 19:32). Zaken does not simply mean an old person; for that is the subject of the first half of the verse ("You shall rise before an old person [seiva]"). This is a commandment to respect Torah scholars. Judges and religious leaders are typically called zaken in the Bible (Exodus 24:14, Leviticus 4:15, Numbers 11:25, Deuteronomy 22:16, 25:7). If Jesus did not violate this by calling them "vipers," no one ever did (Matthew 23:13-33)."

Indeed one should respect their leaders and not speak evil. However, one calling out a leader as a hypocrite when it's the truth, is not a sin and is not a violation of the Torah. Furthermore, Isaiah refers to his people as a brood of vipers because of their wickedness, which would include the scribes, judges and religious leaders who were encouraging their people in their idolatry. Calling someone a hypocrite because of the fact they are doing evil in the sight of the Lord is not disrespect to any leader if they are responsible for instructing people in the ways of Ha Shem or God. In the days of the NT, the Pharisees, though not guilty of worshipping statues, were certainly guilty of Avodah Zara or alien worship. They substituted the commands of God for the traditions of men, just as the people in Isaiah 29 did and Jesus quotes this passage to condemn the Pharisees in Matthew 15.

"Jesus insulted a gentile woman by calling her a dog (Matthew 15:22-27). This is hardly befitting righteous and holy people. Whatever his pedagogical purpose, such a designation is inappropriate."

Jesus was actually contrasting the Pharisees attitude towards the Gentiles with his own. The Pharisees at that time did not look on Gentiles with the highest favour and regarded them as inferior. Jesus in fact in the context later blesses the woman for her great faith and grants her request for her daughter to be healed.

"Mark 7:24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[g] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone."

This is a far cry from Jesus having an inappropriate designation for the Gentile woman.

Hope this addresses the objections.

Answering Judaism.


Arrogant dismissal of unbelieving testimony, is it right?

James White highlighted an interesting point back in 2008 that there are many Christians who believe that unbelievers are incapable of telling the truth. This subject he had spoken about in light of the fact that many continually defend Ergun Caner and refuse to acknowledge that Mohammad Khan, a Muslim, had exposed Caner and pointed out many lies on the part of Caner and his misrepresentation of Islam and what it teaches, as well as his puffing up of his own testimony etc.

The video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuzqoBHUhk0&feature=youtube_gdata_player.

The point is, just because an unbeliever doesn't have the truth, it doesn't mean they cannot tell the truth.

I have come across people who dismiss HBO's expose on Reinhardt Bonnke simply because of their intent to discredit the Gospel because of their refutation of Bonnke's claims.

While the motivation of HBO may be malicious, that doesn't change the fact that Bonnke has a tendency to embellish his stories and claim that people are being risen from the dead today.

Why should HBO be automatically dismissed in their testimony about Bonnke because of their intention to discredit the Gospel? The Gospel stands regardless of Reinhardt Bonnke's claims being confirmed or refuted.

There are Rabbinic Jews and Muslims who say and believe true things and looking at Rabbinic Judaism, it is amazing how much truth is found in there, mixed with errors and lies.

I have read Yisroel Blumenthal's own material and it astonishes me how much of his writings I can agree with. Do I automatically dismiss his words simply because he is not a Christian? No. I am to test them to see if they stand up to Biblical Truth.

Those who have read some of my material would be aware that there are conclusions made by Rabbinic Jews that I deem to be solid and lay rooted in biblical parameters but NOT every conclusion.

Furthermore, if Yisroel Blumenthal, Eli Cohen or whoever in the Rabbinic camps points out that someone like Yitzhak Shapira or any other person is misrepresenting and abusing a particular source, does that mean we should dismiss their points? No, examine the points.

While my knowledge of Rabbinic sources is relatively small, there is enough in my knowledge to know that Rabbinic Judaism would reject a divine Messiah and its not just because of Yisroel Blumenthal only, although his resource the School of Matthew is helpful (Of course I would disagree with the opening prologue that the New Testament should be dropped.).

There was a time I misread Moses Maimonides and said he identified Isaiah 53:4 as Messianic, which I corrected myself on in a video and if you read the Epistle to Yemen, he doesn't identify it as Messianic.

If one is going to learn about Judaism or any other religion, go to the actual sources or to people who take great care in examining the sources.

I do not want to be wrong in any detail I present about Judaism and will be happy to correct misinformation on this website.

The point is, don't assume a person who is an unbeliever is automatically wrong in what they say, check them out.

Take my point or leave it.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday, 18 May 2014

Defense of Paul of Tarsus: Response to a Muslim 4

I am continuing with my response to the Muslim fellow whom penned an article on his obsolete blog. Carrying on:
"21.

"...and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour"
(1 Cor. 3:8)

"God will render to every man according to his deeds...."
(Rom. 2:6) and (2 Thess. 3:10)

versus

"And I have given you a land for which ye did not labour, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and oliveyards which ye planted not do ye eat"
(Joshua 24:13)."
Let's read Joshua in context:

"8 “‘I brought you to the land of the Amorites who lived east of the Jordan. They fought against you, but I gave them into your hands. I destroyed them from before you, and you took possession of their land. 9 When Balak son of Zippor, the king of Moab, prepared to fight against Israel, he sent for Balaam son of Beor to put a curse on you. 10 But I would not listen to Balaam, so he blessed you again and again, and I delivered you out of his hand.

11 “‘Then you crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho. The citizens of Jericho fought against you, as did also the Amorites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, Hivites and Jebusites, but I gave them into your hands. 12 I sent the hornet ahead of you, which drove them out before you—also the two Amorite kings. You did not do it with your own sword and bow. 13 So I gave you a land on which you did not toil and cities you did not build; and you live in them and eat from vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant.’

14 “Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”"

The context of Joshua has nothing to do with end time scenarios, it is talking about the Land being given to the Israelites without having to build their economy and country from scratch, namely the building of certain vineyards and buildings. Paul is referring to the Day of Judgement where every man is judged according to his deeds. They are different contexts.

"22.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
(1 Cor. 11:14)

versus

"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head...."
(Judges 13:5),

"All the days of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in which he separateth himself unto the Lord, he shall be holy and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow"
(Num. 6:5), and (1 Sam. 1:11)."

The Old Testament passages quoted are referring to the NAZARITE VOW, where you undertook certain obligations and were set apart for the Lord for a function and a purpose. Paul is NOT addressing the Nazarite vow, He is addressing how men and women should differentiate their sex within the church. A complete misuse of the Biblical text. This is Osama Abdallah kind of methodology, abuse the text to construct something that is not there.

"23.

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace...."
(1 Cor. 14:33),

"Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace...."
(2 Thess. 3:16),

"Now the God of peace be with you all"
(Rom. 15:33) and (Heb. 13:20)

versus

"The Lord is a man of war...."
(Ex. 15:3),

"Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight"
(Psalm 144:1),

"For our God is a consuming fire"
(Heb. 12:29), and (Judges 9:23, 1 Sam. 16:14, 2 Thess. 2:11)."

God is both a just and merciful God. He can be both a loving comforting God, but also he is just and holy and hates sin with a passion. He can be a God of peace as well as allow disorder to occur for his purpose.

"24.

"And every priest stareth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sin"
(Heb. 10:11)

versus

"...and the priest shall burn them upon the altar...and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him"
(Lev. 4:35),

"And one kid of the goats for a sin offering to make an atonement for you"
(Num. 29:5),

"And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself"
(Lev. 17:11), and (Lev. 4:26).
"

Like Hebrews 10:4 as I have stated in the past, The point the writer is making is the animals were insufficient in taking away sins completely and all they could do is cover a person until the Messiah came to take away their sins, that's all it is saying. The author is saying that Christ's death is a far superior atonement than the animal sacrifices because it actually takes away our sins. The New Testament states that the sacrificial system was replaced by something better or rather fulfilled in Christ.
Read this article for more objections on blood atonement: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/quick-examination-of-hebrews-922-104.html
No contradiction between the passages in the Torah and the book of Hebrews.

"25.

"The merchants among the people shall hiss at thee (Tyre); thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt be any more"
(Ezek. 27:36),

"...and shall set thee (Tyre) in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old...that thou be not inhabited....thou shalt be no more; though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord God"
(Ezek. 26:20-21) and (Ezek. 26:14)

versus

"Now when we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria and landed at Tyre"
(Acts 21:3)

"when we had finished our course from Tyre...."

(Acts 21:7)."
The issue of Ezekiel 26 I need to look into more detail. An addendum may be done in the future if the Lord wills.

"26.

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners...his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper"
(Psalm 1:1-3)"

versus

...some (the judges and prophets) were tortured.... Others suffered mocking and scourging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated...."

(Heb. 11:35-37)."

Let's read the context:
"32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning;[e] they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground."

The people in the context of Hebrews are being persecuted for righteousness sake, they are not being killed due to being ungodliness, they are being killed for the opposite reason, doing what is right in the sight of YHWH and never compromising. There is even a tradition in Judaism (Correct me Rabbinic Jews if I am wrong) that Isaiah was sawn in two by Manasseh.

"27.

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come...."
(Gen. 49:10)

versus

"And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul...."

(Acts 13:21)."

Different contexts. Genesis 49:10 is a promise for the Messianic king to come from Judah. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin, so the application of Genesis 49:10 doesn't apply to him.

"28.

"And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river"
(Ex. 1:22)

"the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months"
(Ex. 2:2)

versus

"By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months by his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment"
(Heb. 11:23).

If the she was not afraid, then why did she hide Moses (pbuh)?"

Jochebed was not afraid of the king's command regardless of hiding Moses from the king. We may not know what was going on in Jochebed's mind but certainly she had no hesitation in disobeying the king by getting her son to safety.

"29.

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac...offered up his only begotten son...."
(Heb. 11:17)

versus

"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman"
(Gal. 4:22)

"Abram was 86 when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram" plus "Abram was 100 when his son Isaac was born unto him"

(Gen. 16:16 & 21:5)."

No contradiction, When it says only son, it is referring to that particular time AFTER Ishmael was sent away, not while Ishmael was around.

Answering Islam has made a good point on this issue in this article: http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/gen22-2.html

"30.

"...if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law"
(Gal. 3:21)

versus

"Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord"
(Lev. 18:5)

"For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them"

(Rom. 10:5)."

The law itself didn't bring righteousness to men and was there to show how bad man really is. Keep also in mind that the Torah wasn't kept to get out of Egypt in the TANAKH, but what does transpire is the people kept the Torah out of gratitude to God for getting them out of Egypt, not to keep it to get out of Egypt. 

The law is pure and good and holy, but man cannot be justified by observance of it and it is by God's grace that they can be saved. The obedience was prepared in advance for the righteous whom YHWH has drawn.

Paul is referring to forensic justification before God, whereas Moses and God are not addressing that particular subject. The reason for a Jew keeping the Torah was gratitude to God for saving him from Egypt and his oppressors. God tells the Jews in Leviticus 18:5 what he expects of his people after their liberation.

More arguments to address on the way if the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism.

False accusations of Lashon Hara

I have received some back lash from individuals for going after some Messianic teachers, some of which includes Michael L. Brown, Itzhak Shapira and Sid Roth. These aren't the only fellows who I have written against but they are ones I have mentioned them publicly.

Do I go after them because they are Messianic Jews? The answer is a no.

Some of these teachers as I have mentioned, specifically Brown and Roth give credence to those from the Kansas City Prophets, men who have been exposed as false prophets and of course most are aware of Brown's appearance on the Benny Hinn show. Even Roth gives credence to reprobate thugs like Todd Bentley.

Shapira I have gone after because of his propagation of the Modalist heresy, which thanks to Eduard Dalcour and Sam Shamoun's input on the matter indirectly, I am aware that Shapira holds to synonymous Modalism much like T.D Jakes and Roger Perkins and not to successive. Shapira doesn't point these differences to his audience in his videos on the Trinity.

There are anti-Trinitarians heretics in the Messianic movement who I would repudiate also, no matter what form their denial of the Trinity takes.
There are also individuals such as Michael Rood and sorceress Sherri Shriner who tell Gentiles that they are to observe the feasts of YHWH right now, which biblically no Christian is required to do at this time and will only happen once the Millennial Reign begins. For now, what Christians eat or observe in the Torah is a matter of conscience.

Shriner even goes as far as attacking the apostle Paul, which so many so called Christians have come to do. What person who claims to believe in Jesus would attack one of his trusted servants?

Though I consider Jacob Prasch and Arnold Fruchtenbaum brothers in the Lord, there are things they have said about Rabbinic Judaism, namely the idea Isaiah 53 being about Israel was invented by Rashi (which isn't the case and I assume they hold this view but I need to recheck) and that the Zohar has the Trinity mentioned which I would disagree with them on. The latter if the Lord Wills I may do a quick video on.

I am also aware that certain Messianics don't like to call themselves Christians, which thinking about it carefully is something they shouldn't be ashamed of being called in light of Peters words in 1 Peter 4:16.

There are others who like to claim that the name Jesus is somehow a pagan lure, which is a lie. Call him Yeshua or Jesus, it doesn't matter, makes no difference. Just don't force this on Gentiles

Because of my ministry to Jews, I need to be careful that I know a particular subject before speaking on it and need to be accurate in what I say, thus if one does make an error I am aware of, then it needs addressing.

To those who have accused me of lashon hara or have said I have gone too far, how about actually listening to what I say and checking it out for yourself.

I don't hate Messianic Jews and there are Messianics like Prasch who I consider brothers. There are good strings and bad strings in the Messianic Movement and I have seen to many sweep Messianic Jews with a broad brush, with certain individuals labelling the movement as a whole as an abomination.

I say, stick with the good Messianic and repudiate the bad.

Hope this clears up a few issues.

Answering Judaism.

Saturday, 17 May 2014

Is Supercessionism true? a response to cbd94 and others

I have come underfire for denying supercessionism or replacement theology by some users on Paltalk and desire to respond to some of objections that were raised by cbd and other individuals.

cbd94 is a Roman Catholic on Paltalk. margesimpson1 I think is an Eastern Orthodox, though I could be mistaken

Let's deal with some of the passages brought up, Firstly I direct people to my article on Romans 2:28-29: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/one-who-is-jew.html

If the Jews were cut off because of their disobedience, the Church can also be cut off and in Romans 11 we read this:
"13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!"

Gentiles only replace unbelieving Jews, but this is not an automatic proof text for supercessionism. One may say "Oh but that is talking about INDIVIDUALS not the whole group". Ok... Well even if only a GROUP of Jews is cut off and thus the Church is the continuation of Israel, well why isn't the church cut off? If the Jews can be cut off for their disobedience, the church can logically be cut off because of their disobedience. Take a look at most countries, Europe and the USA have by in large fallen into apostasy and false teachings and no Matthew 16 where it says the gates of hell will not overcome the church is not a counter against my point:

"17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”"

While the church is grafted into the olive tree, that doesn't automatically turn them into spiritual Israelites or spiritual Israel. Israel refers to the Jews who believe in Jesus. Does this prevent Gentiles from getting into heaven? No certainly not.

Replacement theology or supercessionism, call it what you want, be it from the church or false cults like Islam and Mormonism, is inconsistent with the Bible and is internally inconsistent. If God replaced the Jews with another people, there is no guarantee that God will not do the same with another group. How does cbd know that someone else may come along to replace the church as the New Israel? Do you see why replacement theology in all forms is ridiculous?

On a side note: margesimpson1 brought Matthew 5:17-19 about Christ coming to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, which quite frankly I don't eve get how that is a proof for hers and cbd's positions.

Going back to Romans 11, it is stated by Paul at the beginning: 
"11 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”[a]? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”[b] 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace"
The Jews have not been rejected as Gods chosen people and throughout history the Jewish people have been brought to faith in the Messiah and grafted back in which is later on mentioned in the passage. While Rabbinic Jews may oppose the Gospel like other groups, God still loves the Jews and desires to restore them. He doesn't abandon them as a whole due to their wickedness:

"Leviticus 26:40 “‘But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness and their hostility toward me, 41 which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies—then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, 42 I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. 44 Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God. 45 But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the Lord.’”

46 These are the decrees, the laws and the regulations that the Lord established at Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses."

The covenant that God made with the Jews isn't revoked because of the Jews disobedience and in Jeremiah 31:31-34, a new covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, the covenant made by Christ at the Lord's Supper and inaugurated after his death. The church doesn't have a covenant of it's own, nor did it have a covenant made with them, but the church IS grafted into the New Covenant that was made with the Jews. Jews need to be born again to be recipients of the covenant despite the covenant being made with them and Gentiles need to also be born again in order to be grafted into the covenant.

If Matthew 16 refers to the true church not being overcome, which is true, then Leviticus 26 is also true that the Jews are preserved as God's people, despite their disobedience are not kicked to the side and as said before, if the Jews were rejected because of sin and disobedience, The church would also fall. I am not saying that Jews who deny Jesus are automatically saved, but I am saying the Jews are still God's chosen people even in unbelief, but need the Gospel in order to be saved.

In fact even at the beginning of Romans 9 we find:
"9 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”[c]"

Both covenants belong to the Jews. The covenants that weren't made with Jews only but with the human race as a whole would be The Adamic and the Noahic covenent. The Mosaic, Davidic and Messianic Covenants however were made with the Jewish people and the Church are only recipients of the covenant by faith in Jesus, not because the covenant was made with them and I have already pointed out the issue of the Jews needing to be born again to be in the New Covenant.

Galatians 3 was brought to the table and let's take a look:
"7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[d] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith."
The context suggests nothing of the church becoming Israel, all it mentions is we become part of Abraham's spiritual seed by virtue of faith in Christ and even Galatians 6 wouldn't prove cbd's assertion. In fact funnily enough, Catholics for Israel have stated the following here on Galatians 3 and 6. The objection to which they respond is presented in italics:
"To be a real son of Abraham is not be belong to the nation or people of Israel but to have faith in Jesus Christ.  Sonship to Abraham is seen only in spiritual, not national terms: "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:29).

Rebuttal: While this is a wonderful inclusionary promise for Gentiles, this verse does not exclude the Jewish people from their original covenant, promise and blessing as the natural seed of Abraham. This verse simply joins Gentile Christians to what God had already started with Israel.

The Church is allegedly the "Israel of God": "As many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, [and] upon the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16).

Some translations (e.g. RSV) omit the Greek word kai (and) that is found in the original text.  This is a serious ommission, because without the kai the verse would imply that all who "walk by the rule" - that is, all Christians - are the Israel of God.  But when the kai of the original text is preserved, the verse implies that there is a distinction between "those who walk according to the rule", the Christians, and the "Israel of God" - the remnant of natural Israel who have accepted God's promises in Christ."

They also have said:
"The Covenant with Israel is indeed fulfilled in the New Covenant, but this does not mean that the former is abolished or dissolved.  The Church is indeed the "New Israel" (LG 9), but this does not imply that Israel "in the flesh" has been dispossessed of their divine election and promises.  The New Testament never claims that Israel's special role should come to an end after the coming of Christ.  On the contrary, it affirms the permanent validity of their covenant with God.  Neither do we find a confusion of identity between Israel and the Church in the New Testament; the two remain distinct although closely related." (http://www.catholicsforisrael.com/en/resources/faqs/102-what-is-replacement-theology)

Another text that was brought to me was 1 Peter 2:9-10 by peace 4 ever_1 which says the following:
"9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."
While the church is made a holy nation, this is only by virtue of Christ and again I don't see how this proves the church is the New Israel, let alone a continuation of it. I am aware Israel in Exodus 19 are called a priesthood and a holy nation, but the church being called this wouldn't undermine Israel's purposes. Also:

"Romans 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
    and a rock that makes them fall,
    and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[m]"

Even though the people of Israel didn't get receive the righteousness of Christ that comes by faith, There were some in Israel who did and Paul even says at the beginning of Romans 11 as his letter continues:
"11 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”[a]? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”[b] 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace."

The Jews are still God's people and will continue to remain as such, but only those who are Jews inwardly and outwardly may be saved and remain a part of Israel. The same principle goes back to the TANAKH that those who refuse to believe in YHWH and repent, would be cut off.

Feel free to be Bereans and check my words with the scriptures.

Answering Judaism.

Correcting misconceptions about my view on Replacement Theology

I recently came underfire on Paltalk about replacement theology and my denial of that doctrine and had at a few stages been misrepresented in the room, so let me clear the air with a few things.

1. I was accused of holding to dual covenant theology, which is a lie. Dual Covenant theology teaches that a Jew is saved by the OT and a Christian is saved by the NT and that Jews don't need Jesus. That belief I certainly do NOT hold to. On many occasions and in my writings I have stated time and again the Jews NEED the Gospel to be saved.

2. I was accused of advocating that we should become Jewish and adhere to kashrut (kosher), which is also another lie. In fact I have even written an article on this topic: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/observance-of-torah-demanded-of-gentiles.html. Throughout the article I have made very clear that you shouldn't force Gentiles to adhere to these restrictions. If you want to observe them that's fine, but don't be a Judaizer.

3. I do not consider Messianic Judaism as an abomination as a whole. There are aberrant sects within Messianic Judaism, such as Anti-Trinitarians, Judaisers, Pelagian and Semi-Pelagians and Anti-Paul Theologians which are an abomination and there are solid Messianics such as Jacob Prasch and Arnold Fruchtenbaum. I would encourage individuals to watch Prasch's videos called "The New Galatians" which I think will be a great help. 

4. There is a problem with some Messianics who are reluctant to be called Christians. This shouldn't be, The term Christian just simply refers to being a follower of Christ and Messianics shouldn't hesitate being called Christians in light of what is said in 1 Peter 4:16:
"16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name."

Hopefully I have cleared up these misconceptions.

Answering Judaism.

Thursday, 15 May 2014

Defense of Paul of Tarsus: Response to a Muslim 3

More arguments to address are on the way so let's get to it
"11.

"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities"
(1 Tim. 5:23)

"Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine...."
(1 Tim. 3:8)

versus

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise"
(Prov. 20:l),

"Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart"
(Hosea 4:11) and (Prov. 23:31-32, Num. 6:1-4)"

Wine in and of itself is not evil, nor wicked to drink. What is condemned in scripture is drunkeness. What occurs in the context of the verses. However, Numbers 6 discusses a different matter:

"6 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of dedication to the Lord as a Nazirite, 3 they must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or other fermented drink. They must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. 4 As long as they remain under their Nazirite vow, they must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins."

Wine being forbidden in the context of the chapter is with respect to the Nazarite vow, which required this of a person if he or she chooses to put themselves under this vow. It is not saying that an ordinary person cannot drink wine.

Funnily enough in a passage often quoted by Muslims, Look what is written. This is from Song of Solomon 5:1:
"5 I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride;
    I have gathered my myrrh with my spice.
I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey;
    I have drunk my wine and my milk."

This passage in context has the man and the woman being in love with each other and expressing their love towards each other. It is clear that wine on an ordinary occasion isn't wrong, but getting drunk is.

"12.

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made...and this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law was 430 years after (Abraham)...."
(Gal. 3:16-17)

versus

"he said unto Abraham, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them 400 years...."
(Gen. 15:13)."

The supposed contradiction is there due to the authors misreading of the text. The 400 years refers to how long the Amorites would live in the Land until they would be kicked out and that Abraham's children would be in Egypt for a time until they could enter the land. The Law of Moses was not given in the land of Egypt, it was given while Moses was in the wilderness on Mt Sinai.

"13.

"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God"
(Heb. 10:31)

versus

"And David said unto God, I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord; for his mercies are great: and let us not fall into the hand of man"
(2 Sam. 24:14)."

Different contexts, Hebrews 10 and 2 Samuel 24 in context actually says:
"30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[e] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

"13 So Gad went to David and said to him, “Shall there come on you three[b] years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me.

14 David said to Gad, “I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands.”

15 So the Lord sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. 16 When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the Lord relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand.” The angel of the Lord was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite."

Hebrews is talking about falling into God's hand in JUDGEMENT, not in mercy, whereas David is speaking of MERCY, not judgement. David is being judged, but asks God for forgiveness and it is granted to him. Once again, we have a case of being unable to read the Bible accurately.

"14.

"But to Israel God saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people"
(Rom. 10:21)

versus

"He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel...."
(Num. 23:21)."

Different contexts again. Paul is quoting from Isaiah 65:2, NOT Numbers 23:21:
"65 “I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me;
    I was found by those who did not seek me.
To a nation that did not call on my name,
    I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’
2 All day long I have held out my hands
    to an obstinate people,
who walk in ways not good,
    pursuing their own imaginations—
3 a people who continually provoke me
    to my very face,
offering sacrifices in gardens
    and burning incense on altars of brick;
4 who sit among the graves
    and spend their nights keeping secret vigil;
who eat the flesh of pigs,
    and whose pots hold broth of impure meat;
5 who say, ‘Keep away; don’t come near me,
    for I am too sacred for you!’
Such people are smoke in my nostrils,
    a fire that keeps burning all day.
6 “See, it stands written before me:
    I will not keep silent but will pay back in full;
    I will pay it back into their laps—
7 both your sins and the sins of your ancestors,”
    says the Lord.
“Because they burned sacrifices on the mountains
    and defied me on the hills,
I will measure into their laps
    the full payment for their former deeds.”"

Isaiah 65 records the deeds of the Israelites and their refusal to repent and return to God and Numbers 23 speaks of God protecting the Israelites from disaster when he took them out of Egypt to bring them to the promised land:

"Numbers 23:18 Then he spoke his message:

Arise, Balak, and listen;
    hear me, son of Zippor.
19 God is not human, that he should lie,
    not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
    Does he promise and not fulfill?
20 I have received a command to bless;
    he has blessed, and I cannot change it.
21 “No misfortune is seen in Jacob,
    no misery observed[a] in Israel.
The Lord their God is with them;
    the shout of the King is among them.
22 God brought them out of Egypt;
    they have the strength of a wild ox.
23 There is no divination against[b] Jacob,
    no evil omens against[c] Israel.
It will now be said of Jacob
    and of Israel, ‘See what God has done!’
24 The people rise like a lioness;
    they rouse themselves like a lion
that does not rest till it devours its prey
    and drinks the blood of its victims.

"15.

"And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of 450 years, until Samuel the prophet"
(Acts 13:20)

versus

"And it came to pass in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt in the 4th year of Solomon's reign over Israel...."
(1 Kings 6:1).
If there were 476 years between the time the Israelis left Egypt until the first year of Solomon's reign and Judges ruled for 450 of these years, then Saul and David could have only ruled 26 years. Yet, 2 Sam. 5:4 says David alone ruled 40 years."

"16.

"Who is the image of the invisible God...."
(Col. 1:15)

"Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible...."
(1 Tim. 1:17)

versus

"...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved"
(Gen. 32:30),

"And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to face...."
(Ex. 33:11),

"...for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts"
(Isa. 6:5), and (Judges 13:22)."
Same as point I made about 1 Timothy 6:16: There are certain circumstances in the TANAKH where God can veil his glory and manifest himself on earth. This wasn't a true incarnation but God appeared as a man, specifically the second person of the Trinity and elsewhere only the Son can reveal his Father to us.

"17.

"That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie,...."
(Heb. 6:18),

"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie...."
(Titus 1:2)

versus

"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets...."
(1 Kings 22:23, 2 Chron. 18:22),

"for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie"
(2 Thess. 2:11),

"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived...."
(Jer. 20:7),

"if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him...."
(Ezek. 14:9),
"Then said I, ah Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul" (Jer. 4:10) and (Jer. 15:18, Gen. 2:17, 5:5)."

In a video response that Nakdimon did to Gomerozdubar, who brought this text up on Paltalk: He said:

"Gomer harps on the unfortunate translation in Jeremiah 20:7 that the Hebrew word "pititani" with "you deceived me", whereas it should be translated and understood as "you persuaded me" or "you enticed me". What has YHWH persuaded or enticed Jeremiah to do? What is Jeremiah lamenting about?

He is lamenting his Prophethood! Jeremiah sees everything he says coming to pass, all the judgements he speaks from God and he is being persecuted severely every time he speaks for God. Therefore, Jeremiah doesn't want to speak the judgements of God anymore, but God persuades him to do so and strenghtens him in the process.

This is NOT talking about decieving Jeremiah in order to make him err. All one has to do is simply READ the text!"

The text in 2 Thessalonians talks about God sending a delusion in judgement because they refuse to believe in the truth. He is handing them over in essence to their unbelief. The same can be said of the texts in 1 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 18 which both speak on the same event:
"1 Kings 22:19 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’

“One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’

22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.

“‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’

23 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”

24 Then Zedekiah son of Kenaanah went up and slapped Micaiah in the face. “Which way did the spirit from[a] the Lord go when he went from me to speak to you?” he asked.

25 Micaiah replied, “You will find out on the day you go to hide in an inner room.”"

and

"2 Chronicles 18:18 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing on his right and on his left. 19 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab king of Israel into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’

“One suggested this, and another that. 20 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’

“‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.

21 “‘I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’

22 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”

23 Then Zedekiah son of Kenaanah went up and slapped Micaiah in the face. “Which way did the spirit from[a] the Lord go when he went from me to speak to you?” he asked.

24 Micaiah replied, “You will find out on the day you go to hide in an inner room.”"

God also hands the people over to judgement in the text of Ezekiel 14 which says the following, not by himself being a deceiver, but using the prophet as an instrument of judgement on the people, which isn't uncommon today:
"14 Some of the elders of Israel came to me and sat down in front of me. 2 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 3 “Son of man, these men have set up idols in their hearts and put wicked stumbling blocks before their faces. Should I let them inquire of me at all? 4 Therefore speak to them and tell them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: When any of the Israelites set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet, I the Lord will answer them myself in keeping with their great idolatry. 5 I will do this to recapture the hearts of the people of Israel, who have all deserted me for their idols.’

6 “Therefore say to the people of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices!

7 “‘When any of the Israelites or any foreigner residing in Israel separate themselves from me and set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet to inquire of me, I the Lord will answer them myself. 8 I will set my face against them and make them an example and a byword. I will remove them from my people. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

9 “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. 10 They will bear their guilt—the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him. 11 Then the people of Israel will no longer stray from me, nor will they defile themselves anymore with all their sins. They will be my people, and I will be their God, declares the Sovereign Lord.’”"

Modern day prime examples would be false teachers in the Word of Faith movement and the Kansas City Prophets, who with their heresies mislead many astray and it's possible that some, but not all, are in that situation due to God judging them for refusing to accept the truth. Others will accept the truth and reject these movements

For further reading on this topic of deceiving people, I thoroughly recommend an article done by Sam Shamoun on this issue:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/does_god_deceive.htm (Sam Shamoun, Does Yahweh Really Deceive?)

Lastly in Jeremiah 15:18, Jeremiah is actually rebuked by God and Jeremiah was mistaken and corrected by God, notice what YHWH says:
"15 Lord, you understand;
    remember me and care for me.
    Avenge me on my persecutors.
You are long-suffering—do not take me away;
    think of how I suffer reproach for your sake.
16 When your words came, I ate them;
    they were my joy and my heart’s delight,
for I bear your name,
    Lord God Almighty.
17 I never sat in the company of revelers,
    never made merry with them;
I sat alone because your hand was on me
    and you had filled me with indignation.
18 Why is my pain unending
    and my wound grievous and incurable?
You are to me like a deceptive brook,
    like a spring that fails.
19 Therefore this is what the Lord says:

“If you repent, I will restore you
    that you may serve me;
if you utter worthy, not worthless, words,
    you will be my spokesman.
Let this people turn to you,
    but you must not turn to them.
20 I will make you a wall to this people,
    a fortified wall of bronze;
they will fight against you
    but will not overcome you,
for I am with you
    to rescue and save you,”
declares the Lord.
21 “I will save you from the hands of the wicked
    and deliver you from the grasp of the cruel.”"
Regarding the texts in Genesis, they say nothing about YHWH deceiving anyone.

"18.

"Moreover, Brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea"
(1 Cor. 10:1-2)

versus

"And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel...."
(Ex. 14:19-20)

"the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharoah that came into the sea after them.... But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea...."
(Ex. 14:28-29)."

Who ever brought this objection is basically not understanding the point of Paul. Let's read what Paul ACTUALLY said:
"10 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness."

Paul is making a point that despite all that the Israelites had seen and heard, Many died as a result of not listening to God and obeying him. They were spiritually baptised and yet didn't make it into the promise land because of their sin. The Israelites passing through the Red Sea was used to illustrate baptism by water into new life in Christ and the cloud was used to illustrate baptism by the spirit into new life in Christ. This is just simply nit picking on my opponents part.

"19.

"...so that no human being might boast in the presence of God"
(1 Cor. 1:29),

"Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger and not thine own lips"
(Prov. 27:2) and (Psalm 94:4)

versus

"What I am saying I say not with the Lord's authority but as a fool, in this boastful confidence; since many boast of worldly things, I too will boast"
(2 Cor. 11:17-18),

"You have made me act like a fool--boasting like this.... There isn't a single thing these other marvelous fellows have that I don't have too...."
(2 Cor. 12:11)

"...but I laboured more abundantly than they all...."
(1 Cor. 15:10)."

There are different kinds of boasting. In 2 Corinthians, Paul is attacked by false teachers claiming to be special apostles, but who are really apostles by their own appointment and Paul is using his boasting to defend himself from the false charges raised by his opponents and turn their own boasting against them.
Just read the chapters for yourself:
"http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11-12&version=NIV"
In fact Paul boasts of his own weaknesses in chapter 12 which is also worth noting.

Contrary to what the Muslim author is saying, This is what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:
"9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed."
He even says that it was by God's grace he was able to achieve what he achieved and not simply by his own power and strength. Even in this context, Paul remains humble and acknowledges God as the one helping him.

"20.

"For our God is a consuming fire"
(Heb. 12:29)

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ...."
(2 Thess 1:8) and (Heb. 10:27)

versus

"The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy...and his tender mercies are over all his works"
(Psalms 145:8-9)"

Different contexts again. God is both just and merciful. He doesn't punish sinners immediately but gives those men time to repent. But those who refuse his mercy and refuse his offer of salvation, will come to a grisly end by fiery judgement and be cast into eternal hellfire. No contradiction in the contexts.

More objections will come if the Lord Wills me to write.

Answering Judaism.

Wednesday, 14 May 2014

Defense of Paul of Tarsus: Response to a Muslim 2

Here some more points made by our Muslim friend in his article.
"1.

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive"
(1 Cor. 15:22)

versus

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin"

(Deut. 24:16)"

Deuteronomy 24:16 I have addressed time and time again. Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 which are the same as one another are not addressing vicarious atonement, they are referring to us being responsible for our own sins. Jesus dying for our sins is not repudiated by the passages in the slightest and Paul's point to expand on this is not refuted either.

Paul is speaking on Adam's sin damning us and those who believe in Christ are spiritually made alive and restored to God to live in fellowship with him eternally. There is no connection between this text and Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20.

"2.

"Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath"
(Eph. 4:26)

versus

"Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry; for anger resteth in the bosom of fools"
(Eccle. 7:9),

"Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go" (Prov. 22:24)

"He that is slow to anger is better than the almighty (What blasphemy!); and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city"

(Prov. 16:32)."

There is nothing wrong with anger in and of it's self. What is condemned is UNRIGHTEOUS anger. Paul is saying not to be angry for the wrong reason and to not hold on to this anger.

Also the text in Proverbs 16:32 is NOT to talking about being better than YHWH, it is actually saying that one who is slow to anger is much better than a warrior or mighty man. There is no referrence to YHWH in that verse, thus Paul is NOT guilty of blasphemy:

"Proverbs 16:32 Better a patient person than a warrior, one with self-control than one who takes a city."
Read also the other translations: http://biblehub.com/parallel/proverbs/16-32.htm.

The problem with anger is harnessing it correctly as it should be and God has absolute control over his anger.

"3.

"...God alone has immortality...whom no man has ever seen or can see"
(1 Tim. 6:16)

versus

"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved"
(Gen. 32:30),

"And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend"
(Ex. 33:11),

"...I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up...."
(Isa. 6:1),

"...for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts"
(Isa. 6:5), (Amos 7:7-8)."

What a display of ignorance, What this Muslim author doesn't know either because he is being deceptive, or being ignorant. There are certain circumstances in the TANAKH where God can veil his glory and manifest himself on earth. This wasn't a true incarnation but God appeared as a man, specifically the second person of the Trinity and elsewhere only the Son can reveal his Father to us. Read my response to Tovia Singer on the Trinity, specifically what I have written about John 5:37 (http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-tovia-singer-on-did-authors.html).

"4.

"...Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife"
(1 Cor. 7:27)

"For I would that all men were even as I myself (single)...I say therefore to the unmarried and widows. It is good for them if they abide even as I"
(1 Cor. 7:7-8)

versus

"Then the Lord said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him'"
(Gen. 2:18)."

God is speaking specifically in the creation account of Adam having a partner, as the animals did not lack in having partners of their own. While marriage is a gift of God, it is not something expected of all his creatures. I DO NOT mean we can fornicate, I mean if a person's main focus is proclaimation of the Gospel, Paul says it is better for certain individuals not to marry, because they are more concerned about pleasing their spouse.

"7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?"

and

"25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.[c]

39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God."

There is nothing wrong with individuals marrying. In these passages, Paul lays down some important principles with respect to the issue of marriage. He encourages those who are married to keep their marriage sanctified a. He is NOT against anyone being married, he is addressing specific problems in specific people's lives.

"5.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness...."
(Gal. 5:22)

versus

"And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war...."
(Judges 3:10)"

The fruit of the Spirit functioning the in the Old Testament would not contradict the New. Furthermore the war in question was a JUST war COMMANDED by God. It would be nice if this was pointed out to the audience. Christians are not expected to engage in war to spread the Gospel, but whether they should join the army or not, is up for debate and is neither here nor there.

"6.

“…whoremongers and adulterers God will judge"
(Heb. 13:4)

versus

"And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms...."
(Hosea 1:2)"

God will judge sin and those who engage in it. Furthermore in Hosea 1-3, the reason that Hosea was commanded to take a harlot as his wife was to demonstrate that God was willing to save Israel from it's spiritual adultery. Hosea even tells Gomer quite forcefully that she is not to sleep with other men anymore and is married to him and in the spiritual application, God speaks to Israel to turn from their idols and to serve only him and the fact God made a covenant with them means that he wants Israel to be holy. Hosea turns Gomer away from her sinful ways and tells her that she is to lead a new life. If they don't, both Gomer and Israel, will be judged and condemned.

"7.

"Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; they (the earth and the heavens) will perish, but thou remainest...."
(Heb. 1:10-11)

versus

“…and earth abideth forever"
(Eccle. 1:4)."

2 different contexts. Solomon is talking about the present earth continuing despite generations of people dying and being born, whereas in Hebrews 1:10-11, which is a quotation from Psalm 102:25-27, Though the earth and heavens may perish, YHWH remains forever and endures. Solomon is also thinking about his present situation, namely how he perceived his life and his achievements as pointless and that God is what really matters.

"8.

"By faith Moses left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king...."
(Heb. 11:27)

versus

"And he said, Who made thee (Moses) a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killest the Egyptian? And Moses feared and said, Surely this thing is known. Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh and dwelt in the land of Midian...."
(Ex. 2:14-15)."
Let's actually read what Hebrews says in context:
"23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king's edict. 24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them."

The very text of the book of Hebrews is referring to Moses leaving Egypt when the Red Sea was parted, not to when he leaves after murdering the Egyptian slave driving. It is obvious that this author hasn't read the TANAKH or the New Testament carefully.
"9.

"That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such...."
(1 Thess. 4:6)

versus

"...and they shall spoil those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord God"
(Ezek. 39:10)

"...ye shall spoil the Egyptians"
(Ex. 3:22)."
Different contexts. YHWH is giving forcing the Egyptians to hand the Israelites over to him and to let his people go:
"16 “Go, assemble the elders of Israel and say to them, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—appeared to me and said: I have watched over you and have seen what has been done to you in Egypt. 17 And I have promised to bring you up out of your misery in Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—a land flowing with milk and honey.’

18 “The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the wilderness to offer sacrifices to the Lord our God.’ 19 But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels him. 20 So I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let you go.

21 “And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed. 22 Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians.”"

In Ezekiel 39, this is what it says:
"39 “Son of man, prophesy against Gog and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Gog, chief prince of[a] Meshek and Tubal. 2 I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel. 3 Then I will strike your bow from your left hand and make your arrows drop from your right hand. 4 On the mountains of Israel you will fall, you and all your troops and the nations with you. I will give you as food to all kinds of carrion birds and to the wild animals. 5 You will fall in the open field, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. 6 I will send fire on Magog and on those who live in safety in the coastlands, and they will know that I am the Lord.

7 “‘I will make known my holy name among my people Israel. I will no longer let my holy name be profaned, and the nations will know that I the Lord am the Holy One in Israel. 8 It is coming! It will surely take place, declares the Sovereign Lord. This is the day I have spoken of.

9 “‘Then those who live in the towns of Israel will go out and use the weapons for fuel and burn them up—the small and large shields, the bows and arrows, the war clubs and spears. For seven years they will use them for fuel. 10 They will not need to gather wood from the fields or cut it from the forests, because they will use the weapons for fuel. And they will plunder those who plundered them and loot those who looted them, declares the Sovereign Lord.

11 “‘On that day I will give Gog a burial place in Israel, in the valley of those who travel east of the Sea. It will block the way of travelers, because Gog and all his hordes will be buried there. So it will be called the Valley of Hamon Gog.[b]"

The plundering here was actually allowed by God to happen and is not a contradiction with Paul telling us not to plunder. For that matter, Israel was used as God's instrument to bring judgement upon Gog.

"10.

"God only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto...."
(1 Tim. 6:16)

versus

"Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness"
(1 Kings 8:12),

"Clouds and darkness are around about him ..."
(Psalm 97:2),

"He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters...."
(Psalm 18:11)"

Different contexts God can dwell in both the place of light and the area of darkness. Lack of taking omnipresence into consideration.

So far I am horrified by this author's atrocious misreading of the Biblical Text.

More arguments of his may be addressed in the future if the Lord Wills.

Answering Judaism.