96 Responses to “The Debate Over Antichrist”

1. Robert Sievers Says:
   January 19th, 2009 at 11:01 am

   It would be great to see a resource listing all these countries that God destroys at the end, the verse reference, and a list of what they are today. Joel, I know you have a lot of this information already (and maps too).

2. Cody Baker Says:
   January 19th, 2009 at 11:54 am

   Couldn’t agree more Robert! My brother and i attended a pro-Israel rally in Dallas yesterday and were just discussing the exact same thing! Of course there was no MSM there to show the peaceful demonstration. They only show that which deamonizes Israel.

   Joel, we shared the Islam and the End Times DVD with a gentleman who intends to show it to a large Messianic Jewish crowd. Praise God for what He is doing through you!

3. Luke Says:
   January 19th, 2009 at 12:38 pm

   I wish I could have been at that Dallas prophecy conference and see everybody looking at each other with their hands down, hoping that somebody could answer. Narrow-minded fools.

4. Paul Evans Says:
   January 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

   That is a strong argument, I think that is one of the better arguments i have read concerning that Middle East as the central location. You have to be blind to miss it, and I think most of the modern people are so blind to their own belief, that they miss the very obvious.

5. Tom Cole Says:
   January 19th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

   I think it’s painfully obvious that the rise of Islam has been clearly laid out in scripture. In researching Isaiah 63 I found quite a bit of evidence that Edom could include Jordan and the Palestinian people that migrated from Jordan to Israel. Jesus’ wrath seems to have a special vehemence upon Edom. I believe that we will see Jordan take a much stronger stance toward a Caliphate and that they will play a significant role. I could be wrong, but my bets are on Jordan and Turkey playing a huge role in the coming days.

6. Jeremiah Says:
   January 19th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

   Walid’s challenges and points really are tops! Skeptics really can’t answer these questions/challenges honestly and maintain their positions without looking like boneheads.

   Interestingly, many of the people who hold to an EU antichrist/pre trib. rapture view are the same people who will champion the literal interpretation of God’s Word while at the same time avoiding the literal interpretations and obvious chronology presented in Scritpures like
   2 Thess. 2:8…

   ” And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.”

   …And of course as Walid points out at length, the many nations that Christ is at war with in His second advent who are all Muslim nations.

   It continues to amaze me that sincere brothers in Christ like Jack VanImpe, Perry Stone and Hal Lindsey, who herald the literal interpretation of Scripture, will on some occaisions present interpretations of Scripture and tradition that require more faith than the literal and plain meaning of the afor mentioned 2 Thess. 2:8 for example or the obvious contexts and activities found prophesied in the Old Testament concering the Day of the Lord in Joel and Isaiah just to name two.

   The importance of this issue cannot and should not be understated. This is surely not about our being proven right and someone else being proven wrong so we can feel better about ourselves than we ought. This is about being prepared so we don’t miss the boat like so many did in the first advent of our Lord. If we can clearly discern the times and seasons, we can be prepared and work accordingly for the Lord in these last times before He comes again.

7. nancy Says:
   January 19th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

   ” Many are not aware that while Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation, believed that the Papacy played the role of the spiritual harlot, he also believed that the Muslims were the Kingdom of Antichrist.”

   I was made aware of this not long ago…I find it compelling!

8. Joel Says:
   January 19th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

   Hi Tom!

   Edom is a term that is sometimes hard to nail down. Sometimes it is used specifically of Jordan and the West Coast of Arabia. On other times, it is a general term used to refer to the greater end times enemies of Israel. In other words, the spiritual and physical descendants of the ancient Edomites that now fill the Middle East. One detail that is important to remember also that in Daniel 11, it says that Jordan essentially escapes from the hand of the AC. So they seem to be at odds. Today Jordan is apart of the Arab block that is tied in with Saudi And Egypt. Turkey seems to be leaning toward the Iranian Block. Interesting days.

   Bless You Tom!

9. Joel Says:
   January 19th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

   Hi Robert,

   To a degree God’s War on Terror has this. One of our friends named John here on the blog is working on just such a quick reference list however I believe.

10. Christopher Says:
    January 19th, 2009 at 11:41 pm

    Any thoughts about incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel? I’m careful not to speculate, but his name, personality, and the fact that he will be pulling the strings in the White House have me a little curious.

11. G. C. Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 12:12 am

    We are the Christians from all nations now called the people of GOD, It is not anymore a privilege of Israel or Jews, our king is named Jesus Christ and he is reigning over our souls our temples and our Churches, from this point of view we have to understand the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel and Joel concerning the war against GOD and his chosen people, So
    - The persecution of Christians worldwide is a war against GOD,
    - The Islamic blasphemies against name of Jesus is a war against GOD,
    - The Islam fight to prevail the world is a war against GOD and his tabernacle.
    Such war is not a corporality war and it should not be like that from Christian wise point of view in which we confess that we are kept under the protection and care of our lord who shall fight for us not by being necessarily in flesh but rather in a miraculous ways similar to his previous care and protection to Israelites under the Egyptians bondage.

12. Tim Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 1:16 am

    I very much enjoyed your research and it is well presented. I do however have some contrasting information that should be seriously considered in your studies.

    Rev 17 describes, in very good detail, what the anti-christ is clothed with and where he resides. I am going to be very brief here…

    Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand…
    NOTE: no other major religion wears such apparel and uses a golden cup.

    Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
    NOTE: According to tradition, Rome was founded in 753 BC on one of the Seven Hills-a term used for centuries to describe the Capitoline, Quirinal, Viminal, Esquiline, Caelian, Aventine, and Palatine hills surrounding the city/state/country… the Vatican.

    Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
    NOTE: VICARIUS FILLI DEI = official title of the Roman Catholic Pope; Romans used letters to also represent numbers. Translated, it equals 666.

    Many more references are available but this should point you in the right direction. I do not post this to bring shame upon Catholics, but rather to help others understand Rev 18:4 “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”

    God Bless!

13. Tim Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 1:48 am

    It is accurate to say that during the Gog-Magog war that practically all Islamic nations will be involved against Israel under a Caliphate. I have put many, many hours into this study and agree 100%. Ezekiel 38+39 are very clear about this once one studies the ancient geography.

    One only needs to study Islamic eschatology to realize that there will be “Black Flags” coming from Khorasan (modern day Iran) that will march West to defeat Israel.

    So much of the Islamic eschatology coincides with Christian eschatology, and once I realized this I was utterly amazed… even the White Horse, the 7 year peace accord and so much more that is involved.

    Considering Islamic prophecies, it was stunned to find that a “tall black man will assume the reins of government in the west”, one who “commands the worlds greatest army” will aid the Mahdi… kinda interesting when considering what will happen on this day; January 20th 2009.

    God Bless!

14. Paul Evans Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 2:38 am

    David Reagan of the Lion and Lamb Ministries with frustration pointed to Mystery Babylon 14 ignoring that the crucial word in that question is “literal”.

    Was this asked at the conference? I am curious if this is what triggered the whole thing, that he felt embarrassed and used his publication to fire a few pot shots at you guys? Obviously he felt safer in his own publication then at the conference.

    I have heard Jefferey response on Cush before, if i believed anything he said, I would have been convinced of his response. But I find him to be one of the most dishonest “prophetic” teachers out there. I think Reagan would come in a close second.

15. gavriel Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 5:25 am

    Statue on Nebukadnessar has 2 legs, one made of Islam, the other made of Western countries according to Rev.17:12-13 , who will give their power to the Beast during the 7-year tribulation periode, propably in the middle of it. They will not be in the first invasion of the Beast to Israel (Ez.38:13; Is.10:6-7), but will be thereafter.

16. Joel Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 7:18 am

    Hi Tim,

    Thanks for posting. Very briefly, the Catholic Church does not fit the bill of Mystery Babylon for several reasons.

    First, regarding the “Hills”, these are clearly not literal hills, but are referring to Kingdoms or Empires.

    “The seven heads are seven mountains (a common biblical motif for Kingdoms or Empires) on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings.”

    How can seven literal hills correspond to seven kings? This would render the passage meaningless.

    “If the hills represent kings, then they do not refer to the seven hills of Rome.” John Walvoord, All The Prophecies of the Bible, pp 607-608

    Also, how can literal hills “fall”?

    “Further, a statement is made, ‘Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, but when he does come, he must remain for a little while’ (v. 10). This could not refer to hills.” John Walvoord, All The Prophecies of the Bible, pp 607-608

    But perhaps more importantly, if one simply examines the Greek, there are no hills, but mountains. Onos = Greek for “mountain” Bounos = Greek for “hill”. This passage uses Onos. See for instance, Luke 3:5, where both words are used.

    Other important factors need to be considered. For instance, Babylon is first and foremost a religious AND and economic powerhouse:

    Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication. - Rev 17:1-2

    The kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury. – Rev 18:3

    The Catholic Church is not such a horrendously rabid consumer that the merchants of the earth would weep if she were destroyed. Saudi Arabia on the other hand buys everything. The only thing they produce is Oil, everything else they import into their perverted desert kingdom.

    Other factors to consider, the Catholic Church is not drunk with the blood of the saints. Yes, in the past, they persecuted Protestants, (and Protestants would have done the same if they had the power in those days, in fact John Calvin and others had Christians killed and tortured). But the Catholic Church has since publicly repented. Will they be punished for that which they repented for? Will anyone be punished for something their ancestors did? Will anyone be punished for something that they repented for?

    There are many other issues. The Catholic Church has nothing to do with the former seven Beast Empires. The merchants of the sea could not see her burning. She is inland. etc etc etc. Isiah 15 says that Arabs will no longer pitch their tents there after she is destroyed. This obviously is not describing the Vatican.

    Anyway, I know that this is a common teaching since Dave Hunt’s very well written book on the subject. But Rome / Vatican simply doesn’t fit the Scriptural bill. Dr. Reagan and others will have to keep looking to find a response to Walid’s challenge.

    Bless You, Joel

17. Joel Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 7:22 am

    Paul,

    Jeffrey’s response of Cush was as close to Walid’s challenge that anyone will ever come. But it still fails. Many translate Cush as Ethiopia. But Modern day Ethiopia is in ancient Abyssinia, while modern day Sudan is in ancient Cush / Ethiopia. So it is trickery. Cush is Sudan and is still a Muslim nation. But his response is the best one that someone could give.

    Bless Ya

18. Tom Cole Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 8:20 am

    G. C., you said “We are the Christians from all nations now called the people of GOD, It is not anymore a privilege of Israel or Jews, our king is named Jesus Christ and he is reigning over our souls our temples and our Churches, from this point of view we have to understand the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel and Joel concerning the war against GOD and his chosen people”.

    I must disagree with you on this subject. We do not replace Israel. Daniel’s 70th week is clearly for the Jewish people and for their final salvation. Also in Revelation 12:13-17 - 13 “When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus”.

    The Anti-Christ will first attempt to wipe out the Jewish people. When he cannot destroy them all, he will turn his rage toward those who hold the testimony of Jesus; the Christian church. There is a Muslim saying “First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday”. Meaning the people of the Saturday Sabbath (Jews) will be destroyed first, then the people of the Sunday Sabbath (Christians) will be destroyed next.

    We cannot escape the reality that the enemy (Satan) hates the Jewish people and that his intention is to destroy them in order to halt the prophetic promise of his own demise.

19. TMF Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 8:34 am

    Your teachings these last few months have given me much to think about. I have turned from thinking the ac could be from the roman empire to being Islamic or somehow empowered and driven by Islam. Keep up the good work, if my husband gets regular work, I would like to buy some of your books…….if we are still here! (wink)

20. JohnH Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 8:48 am

    Interesting stuff. I’m still processing this as it is a shift.

    However, I’ve longed argued, er “discussed” with some of my amillennial and postmillennial trends this: in the 1400s and 1500s, the core doctrine of Christianity, justification, had been corrupted to the point that there needed to be a reformation. If the core had been corrupted to that point, then why do we think that the doctrines of eschatology had somehow escaped unscathed. Personally, I think that eschatology also needed its own reformation, and that started in the 1800s with people like Darby. I cannot discount the possibility that events in the world are leading to yet another reformation, or refinement, of eschatology.

    In any event, that’s how I see it.

    Joel: I was involved in a large trial and have not had time to read through all of God’s War on Terror. I loaned out my book and cannot get it back!

    I’ve listened to Walid quite a bit and talked with Missler (who I think has made a rather large shift; I don’t think I am violating any confidence, but two years ago I had dinner with Chuck and he told me this: when I see Turkey moving into the Islamic camp, then I will get excited.) Well, now I’m getting excited.

    So, excuse my ignorance, but what is the role of Russia? I have long taught that Russia is a player and as long 10 years ago I was teaching, based on what I read, that Russian might be drawn into an attack on Israel in part to shore up support in the Islamic republics in Central Asia that used to be part of the Soviet Union. It always seemed pretty clear to me that those Islamic republics (along with Islamic republics elsewhere) would be important cogs in the endtime wheel. There is also tremendous oil wealth there and Russia wants to control the flow of it to the West, perhaps a leading reason of the incursion into Georgia this past summer. It seems that supporting Islam’s core desire to destory Israel (which itself is discussed in numerous places in the biblical prophets) would be a way for Russia to maintain its sphere of influence there. Of course, it will be destroyed in its attack on Israel.

    In any event, am I off base? If so, what am I missing?

21. Brian Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 10:07 am

    Tim, I don’t really have much to add since Joel already covered it. However, the supposed-Islamic hadith peddled by Amir Taheri that you mention regarding a black man taking over the West has already been proved to be false. Taheri made it up, no hadith exists. Timothy Furnish at “MahdiWatch” did some research into that. With that said, I do think BO will set the stage for the compromising of Israel.

    As far as the Catholic Church, I agree with everything Joel stated. It’s hard to imagine that Jesus’ conferring on Peter and command to establish his church did not happen for 1500 years! The apostles and Jesus would be complete failures if the Catholic Church did not fulfill Jesus’ command. I believe the “European paradigm” is a left over remnant of thought from the Protestant Reformation.

22. Pam Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 10:17 am

    For many years, I have been taught (rightly or wrongly) that the antichrist will be an apostate Jew. Since some, many?, do believe that to be valid, what Scripture are they basing that stance upon? And, in any event, would not a circumcised Muslim (albeit not circumcised according to the One True God’s commanded day and manner after birth) and descendant of Abraham through Ishmael who was circumcised (by Abraham on the correct day after birth according to the One True God’s commandment) be “apostate” for more than just turning away from worshiping The I AM to worship this allah-wanna-be-i-am?

23. JohnH Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 10:22 am

    Pam: I have heard that too, but have never seen any biblical support for it. It’s based, I think, on an assumption that Jews will never give their support to anyone who is not Jewish, but that’s an assumption that is not reflected anywhere in history.

24. Exit40 Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 10:56 am

    Pam, JohnH, I believe the following Scripture is the foundation for the Jewish ac theory…

    Jhn 5:43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

    There is no other corroborating Scripture ( witness ) that specifically points to a Jew that I am aware of, but references do point to the ac himself. If anyone has insight into this, please share.

    God Bless You

    David

25. Pam Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 10:56 am

    Did/does not each section of Daniel’s statue vision celebrate the same highest holiday and could this be a connecting thread about identities? Seems all center around the winter solstice and sun worship in my humble opinion. When the two prophets are lying dead in the street, the world is celebrating more than just their death perhaps?

26. Mark Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

    Brian,

    Peter and the disciples did establish the church IN JERUSALEM in Acts 2, long before a church was established in Rome (note who preached the message).

    “The apostles and Jesus would be complete failures if the Catholic Church did not fulfill Jesus’ command.”

    Pardon my bluntness but the Catholic Church is not the fulfillment of Jesus’ command, therefore the success or failure of the Catholic Church is irrelevant. The Catholic Church preaches a different gospel that is dependent on the Catholic Church and not the blood of Christ alone as scripture teaches.

    You might want to read Dave Hunt’s book ‘A Woman Rides the Beast’. I don’t mention it because I believe the Catholic Church is necessarily the woman but because it contains a great deal of historical information that reveals the Catholic church’s true colors.

    I apologize if this has come across the wrong way but I could not let your statement go uncommented on.

    God bless.

27. Paul Evans Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    JohnH I agree with Joel, that Russia may play only a supporting role. Russia has always played to a beat of its own drum, it has never going along with anyone unless it was in their interest to do it. Russia hates the Arab world, but they do business because it is in their interest to do so, when they do not need them anymore, they will shove them away and deal with someone else. What Russia wants is “They need me, more than i need them” mentality. That is why Russia is playing this gas game with Ukraine and Europe. They want them both to realize how much they need Russia, and how much Russia does not need them.

    I think we will see Russia rise back up to an Orthodox country. They will do what they want and let the rest of the world be damned, they will do what they want and no one will stop them. I do not believe Russia will attack Israel, I think if push came to shove they would not, I am not sure if they would support countries that would, but i guess it depends how much they can profit from it.

28. JackC Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Pam, JohnH, Exit40,
    Another verse that is used to “prove” that the Antichrist will be a Jew is Daniel 11:37: “Neither shall he (the Antichrist) regard the God of his fathers…” Proponents of the teaching of a Jewish Antichrist point to this verse as evidence that the antichrist will not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of the Jewish race. But the word translated God in this verse is “elohim” which could also be translated “gods”. Translating it as “gods” would lend support to a Muslim antichrist since Arab Muslims do not in fact worship the many gods of the ancient Arabian religions that their fathers worshipped. Muhammed put an end to this polytheism when he conquered Mecca and removed the various idols from the Kaaba.

    Blessings

29. Joel Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    JackC,

    This argument has been resented before by those who wanted to show that the Ac will not be Jewish. However, the language here is clearly pointing to Yahweh, whom the Ac shows no regard for. Every time the phrase “the Elohim of his fathers” it is a reference to The God of His Fathers, the Gog of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. However, as an Ishmaelite, a Muslim would perfectly fulfill this description. He would show no regard for the God of his father Abraham, nor the desire of women nor any of the other gods. But he would honor a god of fortresses (war or jihad).

30. Brian Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    Mark, as a Catholic, I believe Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations are “on the same team” if you will, though we differ obviously in theological tenets. We’re believers in Jesus Christ and we are opposed to the spirit of antichrist in Islam and eventually to the AC himself. This is more and more apparent to me as the days go on, that our differences are less significant I believe. I don’t really think it furthers our discussion of the future by focusing our differences among us. Not to mention, it is not the focus of this website. However, with that said, history shows the only church for 1,500 years after Christ was the Catholic church. Do you really think Jesus, Peter and the apostles got it so wrong from day one as to establish a church on falsehood? If you’re arguing that the apostles got it right but the subsequent followers got it wrong, I would then challenge you to read the writings of the early church fathers. Their writings are clearly Catholic in nature and in adherence to Catholic tenets. If the early church fathers got it wrong, then it seems Jesus’ conferring of the Church on the Apostles went bust rather quickly. If you’re arguing Catholicism went corrupt went Constantine legitimated it in the Roman empire, then I would say the tenets of the faith did not begin there. Catholic tenets were formalized more then, but were there from the beginning. Again, go back to the early church fathers. Also, there was a church before there was a new testament.

31. Paul Evans Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 6:49 pm

    This is what i say to those who claim that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, (assuming they are Protestants) then that would make you its bastard child.

    The idea that God got it wrong for 1500 years is the same mentality that created Islam, and the argument that Mohammad used to go after Christians and Jews. The idea that Protestantism somehow has it right and “corrected” the wrong is ludicrous. I believe that form of thinking creates an antichrist system and belief.

    The idea that the Church of Christ is a Whore of Babylon, is just absolutely offensive. If it offends me very much, I just wonder how much God is offended that “Believers” in Christ are calling their own “Whore of Babylon”. This argument is meant to divide the church and keep the three branches of Christianity separated.

    Catholicism has a better opportunity to re-unite with the Orthodox Church, than Protestants have to re-unite with Catholicism, especially when this type of argument goes on.

32. JackC Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    Hi Joel,
    Your response is exactly why I enjoy this website. It makes me really think and reevaluate what I’ve learned in the past. After reading your response, I checked numerous translations and discovered that most translate Daniel 11:37 as “gods” instead of “God”. These included the NKJV which has “gods” in a footnote, the New Living Translation, NIV, English Standard Version, NASB, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, and the Hebrew Names Version (blueletterbible.org) as well as the Septuagint. I also searched the phrase “God of his fathers” and found that the majority of the time the phrase is preceded with “LORD” (Jehovah) (for example: 2 Kings 21:22, 2 Chronicles 21:10, Ezra 10:11), unlike Daniel 11:37. I am aware that Daniel uses a similar phrase in Dan. 2:23, but since that verse was written in Aramaic instead of Hebrew, it would be inappropriate to equate the two phrases. Anyway,regardless of our disagreement about the interpretation of this one verse, I am in full agreement with your teaching of an Islamic Endtime scenario. Also, I did attend one of your lectures in the Kansas City area several months ago and enjoyed it immensely. Keep strong and may God bless you.

33. Mark Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 10:01 pm

    Brian, Paul,

    I would agree that on a whole range of issues, we are ‘on the same team’ (Abortion and homosexuality come to mind). However, on the most important issue of all, salvation, we (or perhaps I should say, the Catholic Church and I) have significant differences that cannot be glossed over.

    “Do you really think Jesus, Peter and the apostles got it so wrong from day one as to establish a church on falsehood?”

    Your Catholic bias blinds you to what the scriptures clearly teach in Acts 2. The first church was not Catholic, nor in Rome. It was in Jerusalem.

    It also did not have a Pope whose very words are elevated to equality with Scripture, did not worship Mary, did not elevate Peter, Paul and the rest of the disciples to semi-godhood by praying to them, did not provide indulgences so people could sin to their hearts content with no repercussions, and did not think that baptizing people was a requirement of salvation. There is zero scriptural support for any of these Catholic practices (and, yes, I know that indulgences are no longer practiced).

    The reason these things are crucial is that they go to the true understanding of how one is reconciled to God. Once you say that you must be a member of a particular church/denomination, once you say that baptism is a requirement for salvation, once you say that you have to spend an undetermined amount of time paying for your sins (ie purgatory), you have changed the gospel of Jesus and turned it into a salvation of works. Our salvation comes through Christ alone, through faith alone, by grace alone (Eph 2:8-9). Once you modify that, you have preached a different gospel (Gal 1:8-9)

    I have no doubt that the church Peter started in Rome started on very good footing but it went away from the true gospel. I don’t know how long it took for the gospel to become corrupted nor is it particularly relevant. What is relevant is what the church currently teaches. If it isn’t scriptural, it’s wrong no matter what happened during the 1500 years or what the early church fathers wrote.

    And for the record, I am not arguing that the Catholic Church is the woman. I think Joel makes a good case against it. I’m not willing to be dogmatic about eschatological issues (although, apparently I am about soteriological issues), but neither do I think that the possibility that the Catholic Church is the beast is ludricrous.

    And, ‘Catholic Church’ ‘Church of Christ’.
    ‘Those who have repented of their sins and placed their faith SOLELY on Jesus’ finished work on the cross’ = ‘Church of Christ’ regardless of the church/denomination they are in. If that describes you, then we are brothers in Christ regardless of our other differences.

    (Sorry, Joel. I know this is OT. I promise, no more responses from me).

34. Mark Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    That last section should have a ‘does not equal’ sign in there but I guess it got stripped. Should be:

    And, ‘Catholic Church’ DOES NOT EQUAL ‘Church of Christ’.

35. Larry LA Says:
    January 20th, 2009 at 11:25 pm

    Watch the video ‘Hamas in their own voices’, it was on this website and it is on youtube. That Muslim cleric in the video says that they will destroy Rome, the Capital of Catholicism, of the Crusader and from THERE, they will conquer Europe, America and the world, this it their agenda, astonishing, just as it was prophesied in Revelation 17, the Antichrist and his 10 buddies will hate the Whore and kill her, because they never forgot the Crusades, if this offends you, you got a problem. The deception today is to blame everything on Islam.

36. nancy Says:
    January 21st, 2009 at 12:19 am

    Larry,
    We finally agree on something!

37. scot dryer Says:
    January 21st, 2009 at 12:59 am

    Logically you have two and only two options…either everyone in Christianity will be in the kingdom of heaven OR Christianity is NOT the church for we know that ALL of the “ekklesia” will be in the kingdom. Which is it, one by nature rules out the other. If it IS true the ekklesia\asssembly\congregation of redeemed IS the church and ALL of the church will be in the kingdom then that rules out Christianity as a candidate for the church.

    What fool would openly tear down the assembly of redeemed or the body of Messiah. Everytime a “believer” returns to their whore\cult assembly that they call a “church” knowing that part of the dogma is a lie…as all contain, they commit fornication. Everytime a “believer” is confronted with doctrine that are contradictory to what the scriptures teach and they choose to participate in the lie under “but my pastor says,” they commit fornication. But befor that it was “my priest says.” Do we not read the good book. Do we not know that we are all priests and part of one body of which messiah is the head. Name one, just one denomination\division\sect\cult\circle that does not, as a part of its doctrine whether written, spoken or unspoken contain a lie. It cannot be done. Why? BECAUSE MESSIAH BUILDS THE CHURCH & NOT US. Our own sin stands as a testimony against us for challenging his office right before our very eyes in the form of our “statements of faith” which are no statement of faith at all but rather a statement of unbelief! The church is not that dollar crazy harlot on the corner, rather a global body of called out believers. Catholcisim\Protestantism is not nor has it ever been the body of redeemed but some of the body of redeemed are in her. Though she will not be found in the Millenium. Instead, momma and daughter are products of dipensational, evolutionary thought which only produces more sectarianism which is sin and forbidden in scripture. Everytime we dart of to create another sect (daughter breaking away from momma to start a new circle) we unknowingly continue in the same old sin. Church is NOT something we do or build…it is a noun that Messiah defines…we don’t “do church.” The picture of Romanism and Protestantism is that of a dysfunctional family and is a pictur of the relationship between father, mother and child. A child who wants to live in disobedience to the Father yet still feel the security (albeit false) of being safe in the “house” will go around what the father says and obey momma. Abba shows us independently the error in the doctrine and traditions and rather than obey hem by coming out of it we go back to momma in disobedience of the Father. This is Romanism\Protestantism. The principle of the seed dictates that something that did not come from the Father will not return to the Father. Neither Romanism nor the offshoot sects (Protestantism) will return to the father so we would all do well to stop standing at a distance and shaking our heads in confusion wondering why Isa is invoked at the ecumenical inauguration by the worlds most popular angry catholic\ protesting universalist. Ninety percent of Christopaganism is going to receive the False Prophet as Jesus and Satan as god…for he is the GOD of this world and all of its “fig leaves” or religions including Catholicism and Protestantism which have lead many to hell but seemingly cover our sin and shame. Messiah’s kingdom is not of this world, still. It is proclaimed in Revelation 10 & 11 so God forbid we be building the “kingdom” when the kingdom comes. The “kingdom of heaven is at hand” in the hearts of believers and includes not only the eternal promises, but also the expectation of death in his name if asked to do so.

    haSatan is the father of ALL lies and one can only logically conclude that if catholicism and protestantism are not the entire church then they are entirely a lie…which as we discussed earlier must mean she came from satan. Either Catholic\Protestant claims are correct and she is the church OR the claim is a lie. This is not difficult. Either the ekklesia is a global body of which Messiah is the head OR an earthly institution with a chapter on the corner waiting for a new roof. When you see see them burning and Islam cheering, remember that Abba is in charge and our high places and sun imagery is coming down…just like the prophets did in what she calls the “old testament.” They will tear it down and elavate Abba. You ever wonder why Norwegian Jesus has the sun disc around his head in most of our imagery in christopagism right alongside other luciferian “shining ones” in Islam like the shia Imams…you will know soon enough when the grand delusion takes place from above.

    By the way, much of “the church” have never been in any denomination. Again, christopaginsm creates more problems with the disgusting dispensational, evolutionary Greek philosophy. What group were people apart of before Romanism hijacked the body of redeemed? ANYONE who has ever come to the Father like a child, honestly is a recipient of Abba’s grace paid for by Messiah…whether 2000 years before he was incarnated or 2000 years after.

38. scot dryer Says:
    January 21st, 2009 at 2:40 am

    The double entendre used in Revelation 17 & 18 is common in Jewish literateure. The clearest indication in the entire passage of where the whore resides is in verse 18. The city which rules over the kings of the earth. Rome of course is the city which ruled over the kings of the earth. The waters are peoples (plural), nations(plural), tribes(plural), and tongues(plural)…also called the “sea” a description of the nations. The kingdom of the beast (Antichrist’s Kingdom) is ridden by this whore…they use her and then abuse her, and all of this is allowed by YHWH for she glorifies herself.

    I stand outside of both Catholicism and Protestantism (angry Catholicism) at a distance and see a mother and daughter fighting for power. Every daughter thinking she has one up on the mother that she rebelled from thus ascending…shameful…

    Catholics say Protestants are wrong
    Baptists say Pentecostals are wrong
    Seventh day Adventists say Catholics are wrong
    Presbyterians say Methodists are wrong
    Lutherans say Presbyterians are wrong
    Assembly of God say Church of God are wrong
    The Christian Church says The Church of Christ is wrong

    And I say they are all right. A picture of mother and daughters standing in a circle pointing their finger at one another intead of looking at their own wickedness and idolatry. A repeat of the garden scenario of blame…take ownership and repent for ever thinking that his kindom is ANY earthly institution, including christopganism. I speak with conviction having been first convicted.

    Do tell? What do we call the larger cult\circle\church after we leave it to build another down the street if not the mother? Does God have a mother? Why repent? If I go to that building we call “the church” we are automatically included right? Messiah dealt with this befor in his people regarding the true temple being the hearts of men.

    Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
    Jer 31:34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ˜Know the LORD,” for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.

    He only makes COVENANT with Israel, there is no second tree called “Christianity” we are grafted back into the root (Israel of God) whether we are a natural branch (12 tribes) or a wildbranch (gentile) once we believe in Messiah Yeshua.

    There is none good but God. Stop the madness. Two sets of instructions always results in warring factions…stop the sectarianism and come out from among them and return the commandments of your precious Abba like a child. He waits with arms wide open.

39. Jack Smith Says:
    January 21st, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    To all - What about the nations that are not named in the Gog Alliance? All are nations neighboring Israel, and they are all Muslim. They are: Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. Walid uses Ezek 30-32 to identify these nations, but Ezek 38-39 does not include them. Why not? I propose it is because one of the nations in Gog’s Alliance has already defeated the Muslim nations surrounding Israel. That nation is Persia, i.e., modern day Iran. The neighboring nations are not mentioned in Ezek 38-39 because Iran is now in control of them, and they are now united as a “Revived Caliphate.” Gog (and the land of Magog) joins forces with the Revived Caliphate against Israel. Israel is the miraculouse victor which is the reason why Ezek 38 - 39 state that the nations of the world will know that Israel is the covenant people of God, and also will know that God is God (Ezek 38:16, 23,; 39:21-23).

40. ChristineMarie Says:
    January 21st, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    The Islamic Pope

    One of the less publicized counter-terrorism efforts is the one by Islamic scholars and clerics to neutralize the effects of self-proclaimed “religious authorities” issuing defective (in terms of law or interpretation) fatwas (religious edicts). This has become a serious problem with the availability of satellite television and radio, which can spread a bad fatwa (like one that accuses someone of being a heretic and calls on all Moslems to try and kill the poor guy). This was never a problem in pre-radio days. Back then, a fatwa was simply a religious interpretation (or just opinion) given to a small group of people, or an individual. But now, a inspiring (and often unscrupulous) preacher can get on satellite TV or a radio show and issue all manner of religiously incorrect, and dangerous fatwas.

    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htt…/20090121.aspx

    Fatwa Conference In Mecca: No Extremist Fatwas

    http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/13086.htm

    Centralised digital signage to be deployed across UAE mosques

    http://www.ameinfo.com/181594.html

41. Gidget Says:
    January 21st, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    I grew up in the Church of Christ - way too legalistic - made me into a stressed out perfectionist as I was taught I could backslide my way out of salvation. I now realize if that were actually true, then it negates Christ’s sacrifice and puts the focus back on me. If I could actually sin to the point that I loose eternity with God, something He promised when I gave my life to Him, then how would I ever obtain it again? Would Christ have to die again just for me? There was obviously no joy for me with this system because grace was misunderstood. It took me years to really grasp the truth that grace meant I was receiving something I didn’t deserve and that this beautiful gift from God was for keeps! He did something for me that I could not do for myself - reconcile me to himself through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. Of course, the big worry in the church system I grew up in, is that people will believe that “once saved, always saved” will give us a license to sin. But, for me, my desire is to please God because I love Him - when I do fall short, I confess and repent (make a u turn) so that my relationship with God has no obstacles in the way… knowing that my salvation was secured on that cross.

    Because of that experience, as an adult, I’ve always attended non-denominational Bible teaching churches, not wanting to again get stuck in rules of men. I began going to women’s Bible studies and really digging into the word for myself. And, if something doesn’t sit right with me - discernment, I guess, then I ask for clarification backed up by scripture, not wanting to just taking someone’s word for it, etc…

    Most people I speak with have had a negative church experience at some point because, quite frankly, people aren’t perfect and they will let us down, but I would not trade the risk it takes to put myself out there and then miss out on the corporate worship experience as well as the many wonderful relationships God has led me to in the body of Christ. I met my husband at a Bible study years ago afterall

    Scott, I pray that you have fellow believers to worship with in the body of Christ, even if it’s in a home, and that you experience the joy of being in relationship with brothers and sisters in Christ, practicing for eternity…

42. Brian Says:
    January 21st, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Mark, yes certainly there is scriptural basis for all these Catholic teachings (though you mis-represented them, ie, we don’t worship saints & Mary; we do not earn our salvaion, etc..)

    Peter: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Mt16:18-19

    Intercessory Prayer: Paul asks other apostles to pray for him — Rom15:30; Col. 4:3; I ThesI:II; Eph 6:18 “Only, brethren, I entreat you by our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of the Holy Spirit, to give me the help of your prayers to God on my behalf.” Rom 12:4-5 If we can ask the living to pray for us, why not the saints who have passed on? For God is the God of the living (Mk 12:26)

    Purgatory: “I tell you, you will not get out till you have paid the very last penny.” Lk12:59

    Baptism: “Amen, amen I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” Jn3:5 also Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16; Col 2:11-12; Acts 16:33

    —”I have no doubt that the church Peter started in Rome started on very good footing but it went away from the true gospel. I don’t know how long it took for the gospel to become corrupted nor is it particularly relevant. What is relevant is what the church currently teaches. If it isn’t scriptural, it’s wrong no matter what happened during the 1500 years or what the early church fathers wrote.”—

    But, it does matter! If all these Catholic beliefs were taught firmly in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries, then there was no time really for some “corruption” to take place. Yes, it is ironic that this is exactly the argument that Muhammad used to attack the Bible and Christians too.. The truth is, there was no corruption. You have to be willing to read the early church fathers, disciples btw of the Apostles, to see these were not made up doctrines or corrupted teachings. Core Catholic teachings were there from the very beginning. Didache, Polycarp, Ignatius, Iraeneus, Justin Martyr, Clement, etc.. Again, the Church came before the New Testament. There was no scripture in the first century, only the Church. How did the 1st century Christians know how to be “Christian” if they had no New Testament?

    Peace to you my Christian brother!

43. scot dryer Says:
    January 22nd, 2009 at 3:53 am

    The way they knew how to be followers of the Jewish Messiah is meeting in the synagogues, studying torah and the rest of the scriptures or the tanahk…which by the way is “the scriptures” referenced in the apostolic writing and the epistles. They also kept the sabbath and festivals of YHWH…what they DID NOT do is regularly gather on sunday, celebrate christmas, easter, take communion, baptize into the church, the veneration of saints, halloween or any of the other christopagan festivals. They celebrated Passover, Yom Kippur, Tabernacles and Shavuot (just like in Acts) and the rest of the true christian festivals (YHWH’s feasts) as spelled out in Lev 23 Exod 12 and several other passages throughout the scriptures…Christ being the “anointed” Messiah of the Israel of God or the commonwealth of Israel of course.

    Gidget,
    Thank you for the concern and yes..we have dear friends as a part of a home group and fellowship in 40 states of the union. We do not participate in the 501c3 government religions and encourage people to come out from among them in love and start home gatherings that are largely elder run. We travel all over the country and have great friends in first day and seventh day assemblies. There is nothing like assembling together which is what YHWH’s set times are for and we are not to forsake the assembling together on the feasts…the first of which is the weekly shabbat…a true gift and like Paul says…a “shadow of theat which is to come” in the future of course. When we gather on shabbat everyone has a voice and children run and play and we have food alongside 6-12 hours of teaching from a few people…just like the early assembly. There is no 30 foot gulf between the first pew and the pulpit. The veil is torn…this Israelite will NEVER go back to Egypt in that respect.

44. Joel Says:
    January 22nd, 2009 at 7:19 am

    Scott,

    If you truly wish to do it like the Apostolic Church, then you must have a college of Bishops. And of course, partaking of Communion / the Eucharist was the single most important element of the meetings of the early Church. And they didn’t treat it like mere grape juice an oyster crackers. Just one small example: Ignatius of Antioch (35-107) was an early Christian bishop and martyr. He heard John the Apostle preach and personally knew Polycarp, who was John’s disciple. He was also the third Bishop of Antioch, one of the early Church’s most important cities. Consider some of his comments:

    “Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

    “Stand fast, brethren, in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in His love, in His passion, and in His resurrection. Do ye all come together in common, and individually, through grace, in one faith of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and “the first-born of every creature,” but of the seed of David according to the flesh, being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, [which causes] that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.”

    “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again… Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD Epistle to the Smyreans)

    “Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.” (Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD Epistle to the Philadelphians)

45. Brian Says:
    January 22nd, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    Amen.

46. scot dryer Says:
    January 22nd, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    That is some funny stuff right there…lol

    Brian actually thinks its OK…ROFLOL…This same idea regarding the cardinals, bishops, presbyters has gotten alot of people killed in the past and while Catholicsm may be sorry for the way thing turned out in the inquisition, we haven’t seen the end of it yet. I hope I am not the only one that finds the secret rite of the Eucharist a damnable and disgusting counterfit to what Messiah was teaching us to do on Passover in the future…

    “NOW BEHOLD THE GRACE OF GOD THAT HAS COME TO US IN OUR ELEVATED PULPIT WHICH WE USE TO DISOBEY THE CLEAR COMMANDMENTS OF YHWH\YESHUA”

    The Eucharist = Catholic Kryptonite = The mystical remedy for the Achilles heel of the big bad devil

    There is ONLY one ALTAR and the whore is going to give it a way and the beast can’t what to get it. The ALTAR is NOT in Rome…rather in J’ville.

    The “early church” in the scriptures celebrated Passover and the rest of the feasts AFTER Messiah was resurrected including Paul. That is to say, the feast of unleavened bread did not then become eucharist. Neither was all the hocus pocus immortality nonsense what was being portrayed. Passover was a 1500 year old practice at the time, He was saying “Hey guys…what you have been doing all these years, it points to me…so from now on when you do it remember me.” Plain and simple to understand.

47. scot dryer Says:
    January 23rd, 2009 at 12:06 am

    The Council of Toulouse - Catholica Canon - Law 3

    The Lords of the different districts shall search the villas and woods for the hiding places of the Sabbath Keeping heretics.

    They call all the new testament authors heretics. When they come for me who here will stand on commandment number 4.

    Luke 14:23 The lord said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and COMPEL them to come in, that my house may be filled.

    So called Saint Augustine (sainthood is the Holy Fathers business, oh yeah, he is in Rome) used the above verse to justify imprisonment, murder and vice to “COMPEL” people to the will of “THE CHURCH”

    CONVERTING is not scriptural, rather to revert and repent.

48. Joel Says:
    January 23rd, 2009 at 7:23 am

    Scot,

    When one becomes so anti-Catholic / anti-Church that they are actually forced to rewrite history that is not a laughing matter at all. Any effort to claim that the early Church was anything other than structured and visible community that was governed by a college of Bishops that were ordained by the Apostles themselves is simply ignorance. Any effort to claim that the early Church did not emphasize the Eucharist every time that they gathered together is also ignorance. Ignatius of Antioch, was one of the leaders of the Church in Antioch in the earliest days of the Church. He was a Bishop for many years while the Apostle John was still alive. One cannot just laugh him away. Today, virtually every cultic group would like to erase the record of Church Fathers. These men form the backbone of our tradition - including our Scriptures. Reject them and you are adrift in the sea of personal opinion where every new personality and wind of teaching will carry you along to a new idea. Messianic Judaism is wonderful but it must be rooted. Once it rejects the Church and its Tradition, then it must search for a tradition or a source elsewhere. So many in these more radical groups end up turning to Jewish groups like Chabad. This is why so many from the less balanced forms of Messianic Judaism end up going Chabad or denying the trinity or Yeshua altogether. What is their end? Will honoring the Sabbath then save them?

    It is not laughable for one to actually think that they understand the nature of the early Church (or early Judaism) better than the ones who actually lived then, knew the apostles and ministered side by side with them. Two thousand years later, you are laughing at them and truly believe that you are closer to the fountain than they? Humility goes a long way with the Lord. But pride is a stumbling block to everyone.

    Believers from all stripes have done many foolish and even evil things over the centuries. And Messianic Judaism in its more rooted and balanced forms is a truly wonderful thing, which I believe should be practiced by the Church far more than it is. But the fringe forms are doing great damage to that which I believe the Lord is bringing forth. When you insist on promoting yourself through a continual bashing of virtually all others from pretty well any denomination you betray your cause. And I think that most outside observers would agree that it stinks of pride and carnality. And it appeals to the carnal side of folks. Over the years, I have always witnessed this spirit in groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, World-wide Church of God / Armstrongism, etc. They appeal to the carnal side of folks by tearing down the average believer and Church and expression etc.

    Scot, I am asking you not to use this forum any further for the bashing of the Church etc. I really enjoy your thoughts regarding the end times and Islam etc., I think you contribute much needed insight there, but lets try to keep it limited to that.

    Bless you, Joel

49. Larry LA Says:
    January 23rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    Joel,

    Wow, I’ve been expecting this. I can also say that I have always witnessed this spirit every time Catholicism is criticized. I have to disagree with you. Some may consider Dave Hunt a “Catholic basher” (for example in A Woman Rides the Beast), although I believe he sincerely loves Catholics. And Dave Hunt has no connection whatsoever with Messianic Judaism, Chabad, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. I’ve known Scot for almost 2 years now, he is not proud, he repeatedly speaks lovingly of our brothers and sisters from every Christian flavor (watch his videos if you haven’t already). And Scot has a great sense of humor, he was only laughing at the situation that Brian said amen to your comments on Ignatius and the Eucharist. Bless you brother.

50. Joel Says:
    January 23rd, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    Larry,

    I know Scot him and like him personally. We spoke together at a Church. But that’s beside the point. I simply will not be one who creates a forum for bashing others and their Churches / Traditions etc. This goes way beyond Catholic related issues. Regular references to those who go to any Church as “sheeple” and Christo-pagans… You may see this as acceptable, but it comes across as arrogant and insulting to those against whom it is said. Others who hold these views and visit here regularly, such as FX for instance, believe as you and Scot does, but he never insults those who do not. Just an observation. The Torah is summed in love God, Love others. So keeping Sabbath or not eating Shrimp is far less important to God than is not insulting others who do not understand the Bible as you do. I am generally very open here, but I simply don’t want, as I said to be a party to bashing others. I think my request is very fair.

    Bless You, Joel

51. Larry LA Says:
    January 23rd, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    Joel,

    Sorry you feel like this, I understand. I personally don’t take it as insulting, bashing or arrogance.

    Love God and love others is taken straight from the Torah. It was nothing new to the disciples.

    Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

    Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

    The problem is that Love of God has been used throughout millennia as a motive to kill people and other atrocities. What Yeshua did was that He reinforced what loving God (Him) means, He defined what love is: he who loves Me, keeps My commandments, those who hold to the testimony of Yeshua and keep the commandments of God, etc.

    The “new testament” had not existed yet, so the commandments refer to the Torah. A son doesn’t love his father when he says, daddy I love you, but when he obeys his father. Regarding the feasts, Shabbat is the first of the feasts. Shalom.

52. Joel Says:
    January 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    Larry,

    All agree that loving God entails obeying him. Our disagreement is what God’s commandments to Gentiles are. You argue that they must obey the whole Law. Most would look to Acts 15 as proof that this was not His intention. Even if it were, shaming others into keeping sabbath etc is not the way to do it. Calling someone a Christo-pagan cannot be taken as anything other than an insult and will be taken as prideful by those to whom it is spoken toward. If I referred to all Messianics as Judeo-wanna-bes, it would be taken as an insult. This is common sense. Let us love God of course, but let us one another as well.

    Bless ya,

    Joel

53. nancy Says:
    January 24th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    yep…It’s hard to refute the logic here Larry…

    If your whole point is…”We keep Sabbath not for salvation but because
    we want to express our Love for God”…beating people up would be
    counter productive….don’t ‘ya think?

    ….I’m not saying it would not work…It has for centuries, but why does
    this method of persuasion work? It instills fear…love has nothing to do
    with it.

    Now, taking you at your word…you do keep the “Law” for the sake of
    Love because you are comfortable with your conclusions…
    Let’s leave everyone else the same freedom to study this issue and
    come to their own understanding. Col 2, 13-17….. because it’s not
    a salvation issue, (right?)

    Blessings

54. Brian Says:
    January 24th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    Scot, it’s an honor to be mocked for being Catholic. The Eucharist is most sacred to me, us. The Church, “body” should be one.

    Jesus not only said do this in remembrance of me, but first “he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body. Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them,”This is my blood..” (Mk 14:22-24) This IS my body and this IS my blood.

    The Jews then had a similar reaction to many today, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” (John 6:52-55) Again, Jesus did not use a metaphor, but actually re-emphasized the fact that his body is “true food” and blood “true drink.” He said this despite many disciples saying “this saying is hard; who can accept it?” and “As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.” However, this did not mitigate Jesus’ words. But, Jesus questioned the disciples and Apostles, “Does this shock you?” Then, he taught them “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.” That is, Jesus was offering no sort of cannibalism as their fleshy minds had interpreted it, but the holy mystery and sacrament of the Eucharist.

    And what was one of the last manifestations of the risen Christ to his Apostles on earth? On the road to Emmaus.. “And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.” “Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.” (Lk 24:30-31) Not a coincidence, in one Jesus’ very last post-resurrection lessons, he revealed himself in the breaking of the bread.

55. nancy Says:
    January 24th, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    Brian,
    Scot was “smacked” for mocking and he should have been.

    But, being fair, his point is correct…when Scot keeps passover he
    is partaking in the same event that Jesus was in Mark 14.

    You don’t have to twist scriptures to see this.

    blessings Catholic Brother

56. Brian Says:
    January 24th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Nancy, certainly the Last Supper was a Passover meal. No one is disputing this. It’s interesting, however, that scripture only records the part of the Passover that Jesus altered. Ironically, many scriptural literalists have to twist his words to be metaphorical, and Catholics accept his words at face value, ie this is my body, this is my blood.

    Peace!

57. nancy Says:
    January 24th, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    Brian,
    well…now you are talking over my non-Catholic head…I’m assuming
    you believe the bread and wine are literally the flesh and blood of Jesus?

    If so,…so be it!

    How do you know Jesus was altering the Passover meal? ….other than
    explaining how he planned to fulfill it.

58. Larry LA Says:
    January 24th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    I explained Acts 15 in the other thread, the issue (the greek word is singular) discussed at the Jerusalem Council was not about keeping the Torah or not, but the circumcision of the Gentiles.

    I never beat people up over keeping shabbat (torah) and I don’t recall Scot doing it either. Scot is on the road now, not able to respond apparently. I don’t remember him calling people Christopagan, what he was referring to was that the system is Christopagan which is nothing but the truth.

    nancy: It is as you said, we keep the Torah NOT to be saved, but because we ARE saved and we love the Father. Absolutely, people should not be forced or beat up over anything.

    Brian: as nancy said, the Feast that was celebrated was Passover, it was nothing new, had been celebrated for 1,500 before Yeshua. Yeshua did NOT alter anything. He was having a meal and He explained the Apostles what the Passover was all about, what it was pointing to, what they had been celebrating for centuries, it is all about Me, the bread, the lamb, the wine, the blood, symbolize Me, they’re pointing to Me, I am that bread (matzah, without leaven or sin) and the wine is my blood, of course it was symbolical. Yeshua also called himself I am the door, but no one would think of him as a literal door.

    What the Harlot does, the counterfeit bride, this Christopagan system, practices “mysteries”, the “mystery of the Eucharist”, etc., which is mysticism, babylonian, pagan worship. She is called Mystery Babylon, she is seen with the golden cup that she says it’s filled with the blood of the lamb (literal blood=vampire-like behavior), when in fact it is the filth of her adulteries. She is drunk with the blood of the martyred saints. Lord have mercy.

59. Joel Says:
    January 24th, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    Larry,

    The purpose of Acts 15 was very clear. It went beyond mere circumcision. Women did not need to be circumcised. This was about Gentile obligations versus Jewish identity. But again, this is not the place to argue about these things.

    Regarding calling names etc., if you don’t think that calling fellow believers “pagans” of any kind is problematic then I just cannot respond. It is between you and God I suppose. I am simply calling it as I see it. And I am not anti-Messianic or Hebrew roots. Far from it. Calling a system Christopagan or a whore etc, infers that those who adhere to it are Christo-pagans or little Harlots. Its really that simple.

    And while this position is unfortunately a very common one, it is largely rooted in the gutter scholarship of Alexander Hislop. The Catholic Church / the Eastern Orthodox Church is not only not pagan, they are actually far more Biblical than most Protestants would like to admit. But I doubt that you are even open to considering this. Most folks have made up their minds on this one. But ultimately, using the reasoning that those who call Catholics or others pagan, I could also “prove” that Judaism is pagan. That’s right. Muslims try to claim that the Trinity or the incarnation are ideas rooted in paganism. But it is nonsense. As are claims that Catholics are pagan. But few are even willing to truly examine the facts. Lastly, any claim that the Eucharist is pagan comes from a fundamental ignorance of the basics of Christian history and belief. The records of the earliest Church shows that they thoroughly embraced a Eucharistic emphasis that was far more than just Passover. In any case, its this kind of argument that I want to avoid here. It rarely leads to anything positive in my opinion.

    Bless ya,

    Joel

60. Larry LA Says:
    January 25th, 2009 at 12:05 am

    Joel,

    With all due respect, I think it is proved beyond the reason of a doubt that the issue at the Jerusalem council was ONLY about circumcision (check my post in the other thread), it is as clear as day, but it’s up to us which “fathers” we believe.

    There can only be one “set” of fathers, we cannot have 2 sets of fathers, only harlotry provides multiple sets of parents. You were mentioning “church fathers”.

    Malachi 4:5 “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.”

    This was partially fulfilled when John the Baptist came and was baptizing people in the Jordan river. The word “fathers” refers to Ancestors, specifically the teachings of the Ancestors, particularly Moses, the Torah. Without Law (Torah) there is no sin. Those people were “repenting of their sins”, actually teshuvah (return) to the Torah of God, I bet they were shouting something like, forgive us oh Lord, we have transgressed your Torah. There were no “church fathers” then, the “fathers” are not even the Apostles for they hadn’t been called out yet, not even Yeshua (Jesus) hadn’t started his ministry yet, there was only the Torah.

    So, how can we call some bishops in the 1-2 century “church fathers”? The word “church” eklesia in Greek appears in the Greek “Old Testament” Septuagint, but it is not translated “church”, but assembly, congregation of believers. It was NOT created at Pentecost and was not created by the “church fathers”, it existed prior to the “new testament” and was and is being built by God, it is not an earthly organization, like Yeshua said, my Kingdom is NOT of this world. There cannot be 2 houses, because if there were, they would be divided. There is only one House, the Israel of God or the Commonwealth of Israel and we as Gentiles are grafted in.

    The completion of Malachi’s prophecy is happening today all over the world. It is probably the greatest movement of God, the movement of restoration of Torah, return to Torah, to the “fathers”. I like the spelling, Res-Torah-ation. Believers (NOT pagans) are coming out of the Harlot like God asked, come out of her my people, you find these congregations throughout the US, S. America, Europe, Israel, Middle East, even China.

    This is not beating people up, it is not bashing or insulting people, you can unknowingly be in a Christopagan system and God himself is calling with love to come out of her. This is not legalism, it is not being better than others. On the contrary, the Harlot and her daughters are doing this, legalistic guilt-driven assemblies saying they are better than the previous assembly they were birthed out of. And I agree with you, Judaism today is Apostate. But the Father sill loves us, both Apostate Judah (the non-believing Jews) and us, now this is mercy, this is love. Shalom to all.

61. Joel Says:
    January 25th, 2009 at 8:21 am

    Larry,

    Will you read some books if I recommend them? What you are unknowingly doing is rejecting the record of the leaders of the early Church and those that actually knew the apostles for your own very limited wisdom. Reality and humility says that one cannot know the nature of the early Church better than for instance Clement who was actually a Bishop while the apostles were alive. He knew the apostles and served side by side with them. His letter almost was considered Scripture. Yet you are setting yourself up as more knowledgeable and insightful about the early Church than he or others like him. Even to the point of off-handedly rejecting anything that they would have to say.

    Simply put, the early Church was organized, and led by a college of Bishops. If you disagree, then study it out. The evidence is throughout the New Testament. The Church was a singular and visible entity. You were either in or out. There were no lone rangers who did what they wanted. If they did, they were considered heretics or schismatics. But even this took some years to happen.

    “With all due respect, I think it is proved beyond the reason of a doubt that the issue at the Jerusalem council was ONLY about circumcision (check my post in the other thread), it is as clear as day”

    Larry, listen to yourself here. Is this how to dialogue? You’ve “proven” nothing except to yourself. I and the overwhelming majority of those who have read and studied this passage disagree with you. The issue was about what was required of the gentiles. The Apostles chose not to make the Law a requirement for gentiles. If they desired to observe Torah, they could go to any synagogue and do so, but it was not required. There: I just proved it beyond doubt. Very clearly.

    The mandate given to Jews was different than the mandate given to Gentiles. This is why the Two-house folks want to try to make all gentiles into secret Jews, that way everyone is obligated to observe Torah. The erase the very notion that there are both Jews and gentiles in the Church. Just Jews.

    Larry, I agree that it is a good thing for gentiles to observe the holidays and sabbath. But it is not required. I started on the Messianic thing sixteen years ago. I saw the foundational flaws even then. There are those who will go back and actually get circumcised as adults because they think that this is required. Others will begin to teach that any who do not keep Torah are in sin. Now there are those who are increasingly going for polygamy. The Messianic movement is a good thing, but if it divorces itself from the Church, then it becomes foundationless. The end result will be that many will fall away. Trust me, it is already happening. When one adopts the belief that the entire Church is the Harlot (a false paradigm that the Bible does not teach) then you set yourself up as an adversary to the entire Christian world. Trust me when I say that the end result will be a new religion altogether, and many many many will deny Christ. Its already happening. Let me know if you are willing to study more and I can recommend some books to help you understand why I have deep issues with all of this. But please, do not turn this forum into a place to argue endlessly about this.

    I would be happy to discuss why the Catholic Church is NOT the Harlot. Because once that false paradigm is dispelled then the whole wall of superiority of the wanna-be-Jewish-Gentile-Christians over the non-wanna-be Jewish-Gentile-Christians is broken down. By the way, the term “mother of all Harlots” does not mean that she is the mother who has given birth to all of the other little harlots. Rather it is a classic eastern expression that simply means the biggest, the greatest Harlot that has ever been. Its exactly like, for instance, when Saddam Hussein said that the first Gulf War was going to be the “Mother of all Battles”. He did not mean that it would birth many other little wars, but that it was going to be the biggest War that has ever been. So also the Great Harlot is the greatest Antichrist system that has ever existed. Bigger than the Babylonian system, bigger than the Persian system, bigger than the Greek or Roman System… Islam is the greatest Antichrist system that the earth has ever known. There is room to have disagreements with Catholics and other Protestants or other Messianics etc. But those disagreements are nothing compared to the inherent enmity that exists between Christians, Jews as espoused in the Quran. All things in proper perspective. But when one insists on calling most of the Church a Harlot or little harlots, then you have only divided Christ’s body. And you violate the deepest desires of God’s heart:

    Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. John 17:20-21

    Bless You, Joel

62. Scot Dryer Says:
    January 26th, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    Joel,
    If you would like to publically debate the matter, in a round table I have the cameras and will fly to the location of your choice. Kansas City International? You will have to ban me from this forum before I stop exposing the church lie that you uphold. The ekklesia is a remnant inside ALL of the pagan\earthly religions: Islam, Judaism & Christopaganism and a thousand other fig leaves which represent coverings that are not of his spirit. If you would like we can ONLY use the apostolic writings and the epistles.

63. Scot Dryer Says:
    January 26th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    I think I get it…you are able to discuss catholic traditions but I am not able to discuss the commanments of YHWH. Hmm…satan is the father of all of the worlds religion who are ALL about to CoeXist while trying to make those who believe in Yeshua and obey the commandments NOT exist.

64. Joel Says:
    January 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    Scot,

    My request was pretty simple. I asked you not to bash others simply for not believing as you do or to at least show some humility when you present your ideas to others. Specifically this is what I said:

    Scot, I am asking you not to use this forum any further for the bashing of the Church etc. I really enjoy your thoughts regarding the end times and Islam etc., I think you contribute much needed insight there, but lets try to keep it limited to that.

    Per your response here you are not open to this, and as such I may have to ban you if you are unable to respect my request. I really hope that this is not the case. YHWH’s commandment are summed up in; love God, love others. Calling others little spiritual whores and pagans, mocking them and laughing at them in derision may be your idea of loving them, but I simply do not see it that way. Think about it Scot, honestly. I just cannot allow it to continue. I hope that you understand where I am coming from.

    Bless You,

    Joel

65. Larry LA Says:
    January 26th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    Joel,

    I understand this is what you believe. I have already read many of the things you believe and teach and like you said “Most folks have made up their minds on this one.” I can only pray that you would reconsider.

    One of the biggest deceptions today is to blame everything on Islam which is not Scriptural. The Bible teaches that judgment begins in the House of the Lord. Both the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Southern Judah had fornicated with the idolatrous religions of the nations arround them and God’s punishment was heavy. The exact same thing happened with the early “church”, they were not better than Israel or Judah.

    Like Scot said, the clearest passage on who/what/where the Whore is, is Revelation 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. This is not Mecca, Dubai, etc., it is clearly Rome, even Dave Hunt teaches it. I also like Dave Hunt when he challenges us to see who bashes who, it is Catholicism who bashes whoever is not Catholic, calling us heretics, NOT part of the body of Messiah and issued Anathemas for us on each point where our theologies differ, actually you Joel made similar statements above about us that we will end up falling away, etc.

    Again, you seem to stick to something neither Scot nor I have said or even implied. No one is calling no one, little harlots, little pagans, God Himself calls them MY PEOPLE when He says, come out of her My people. Both Scot and I after the Father’s example call them the same, God’s people, our brothers and sisters in Messiah. Shalom.

66. Larry LA Says:
    January 26th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    Joel,

    Regarding the fact that the issue discussed at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was only about whether or not to circumcise the Gentiles, pardon me, I should’ve said “it has been proven”, not by me, but by many others before me, it is nothing new. I assumed that you read studies on Acts 15 AND Torah, because it is absolutely necessary to study this passage (and other “difficult” passages in the Apostolic Writings (new testament)) together with the Torah, in order to get a correct and scriptural understanding.

    If you remember in Acts 15, the issue in question was brought up by some of the Pharisees. We need to properly understand what Pharisees were teaching, including Shaul (Paul) who was one of them. This includes Torah, but also Halacha (”the walk”, the interpretation and application of the Torah). If you’re interested, I can email you such study. Peace.

67. Larry LA Says:
    January 26th, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    I gotta post this as well, I found a post by a Catholic brother under Dave Hunt’s A Woman Rides the Beast on youtube:

    “Your denomination is not “the Church” of the bible! There’s no other church Jesus gave to the world. Protestants & fundamentalist “mean well”, but theyre not “the Church” & have no authority by God.
    Basically, all protestantism & fundamentalism are, are merely offshoots of “The Church”, which is the Catholic Church-> the body of Christ on earth. There is no other church, and protestant assemblies, though well intentioned, are merely “inventions’ begun after Luther. Period”

    This is regarding the so-called classic eastern expression “Mother of Harlots”, “Mother of all Battles”. Offshoots=Daughters, the Catholic brother gets it, but what he actually gets is one of the biggest lies and deceptions. And this is actually what Catholicism teaches that they are the Church and we are nothing but heretics.

68. Joel Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 7:54 am

    Larry,

    There’s simply to much to say to respond. If I said something to my wife and she said that it insulted her and I responded by saying that it shouldn’t insult her, because I don’t mean it that way and keep saying it, it only proves that I am an insensitive stubborn jerk that could care less about my wife. The loving thing to do would be to apologise for hurting her and watch how I say things in the future. I am not asking you to stop believing what you believe (even though it is wrong and easy to disprove biblically). I am just not willing to allow this forum to be a place where bad doctrine and condemning statements are pushed.

    I am completely open to the ongoing discussion regarding the various components and issues pertaining to this subject. In other words, I think that it is appropriate to debate issues such as is the Harlot Rome and why or why not etc. I am open to debating issues such as the Eucharist or the issues of Church structure in the early Church. I am not trying to shut down this form of discussion. I am trying to shut down name-calling and bashing of others.

    For the record, you have completely misunderstood the statement of the Catholic. He is not calling any non-Catholics heretics. The CC calls protestants “removed brethren”. The simply believe that the Church is a visible organization on the earth. You are either in or out. But that does not mean that you are not saved or not part in Christ. In other words, the CC defines the center, but not the necessarily the edges. But my challenge to you would be to begin researching the early Church. Read the Ante-Nicene Fathers to find out if the early Church was structured and ordered or if it was a loose network of like-minded home groups. I am not Catholic but I have to say that the Catholics are right on this one. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches bear the closest structural continuation of that which Yeshua and the Apostles began. We broke away from that. Scot will say that he is neither Protestant nor Catholic, but the fact of the matter is that his beliefs and history are deeply rooted in Protestant systems of thoughts and post-enlightenment perspectives on authority etc.

    Would you be willing to read a few books to study these issues if I recommended some?

69. Scot Dryer Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    Larry,
    Failed arguments always result in recommending books. Shameful. Christianity is the Religion of Samaria of our day…different altar (rome), different commandments, and different feast days. Just as there were believers that defiled themselves in that pagan idolatry in the past, there are the same today.

    Joel,
    You are in error for upholding the traditions of men over the commandments of Abba…love Him first (by obeying him) and then love your neighbor as yourself and in that order. You are also in error to equate Catholicism\Protestantism\Christianity with the church. This whole argument is based on pointing out sin which happens to be inside of you. Never did I say “Joel you are a pagan” or anything of the sort. Neither does being anti-catholicism equal being anti-catholic, for messiah is anti-catholicism yet pro-catholic. I did however and will continue to do so as commanded by the scriptures expose the sin in love by pointing out the pagan aspects of what you call “the church.”

    The sin of thinking that we are capable of defining the church is keeping you from seeing that catholicism\christianity cannot be the church. Defining the church is Messiah’s business not ours.

70. Larry LA Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    It breaks my heart, that’s all I can say and I wasn’t expecting this from Joel. I’m still a little bit in shock, but in the back of my mind I was expecting this. Shalom.

71. Michael Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    Scot and Larry,

    Some of the things you bring to the table are valid points. For my part, I’ve enjoyed reading some of your earlier posts, even though I disagree on certain points. But Scot, a few of your most recent posts have been discouraging due to their divisive nature. The increased mocking of various denominations and even Joel himself has only succeeded in limiting your effectiveness and influence in my eyes, and no doubt has discouraged others as well. Notice how others have quit posting on this topic.

    You are certainly correct to state that the church as a whole has taken on certain pagan influences. But the ‘Christopagan’ references you’ve made won’t change that. People are mostly flawed in both reason and action, and we stumble in many things over the course of our lives. As a result the church errs as well. But God forgives our stumbles when they occur in our quest for Him and for truth.

    The point is, are we being salt and light when we belittle others, even if they may be in error? You may not intend it that way….but it comes off that way. So when seekers read a series of posts like this one, will they see something in us that they want for themselves? Or will they view us in a poor light because of our argumentative attitudes? I think the latter, and it happens all too often.

    Correction must take place in a humble manner, or it is not received. It is the Spirit’s role to change someone’s mind, not ours. Ours is merely to present the evidence. If we push too hard, we push people away. Please think about this. Your contributions to the kingdom could be great, but your witness is diminished when it becomes this confrontational (even when you may be correct).

72. Mishael Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    Do you agree with the following statements?

    We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands. …I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. …See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. …This is the message you heard from the beginning: we should love one another.

    We receive from Him anything we ask because we obey His commands and do what pleases Him. And this is His command: to believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as He commanded us.

    If you love Me, you will obey what I command. …If anyone loves Me, he will obey My teaching. …If you obey My commands, you will remain in My love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in His love. …My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. …This is My command: Love each other. (Same speech, mind you.)

    If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And He has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

    This is love: that we walk in obedience to His commands. As you have heard from the beginning, His command is that you walk in love.

    Do these passages talk about loving God? Do these passages talk about obeying His commands as a means of showing that love? Do these passages then clarify His commands? Is there any mention of following the Law here to show Him love?

    Answer me honestly. I see no reference to the Law or the Torah, personally. Maybe I’m blind. Maybe the author who wrote these didn’t really understand what it means to love God.

    Maybe not.

73. Mishael Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    Sorry, that question was for Scot and Larry, not Michael.

    I’m just trying to understand how these verses can be explained away when they seem so clear to me - in regards to showing our love for God by following His commands.

74. Joel Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    Larry,

    All I can ask you is to study these things out for yourself. Read about the early Church and the nature of the Church. Read the writings of the earliest Church Fathers. They are a record of how the early Church was and what it was like. Study the arguments as to whether or not Rome is Babylon. Listen to the word of God and not what others tell you. I can quite easily show you that Rome is not Babylon Scripturally, but these are things that you will need to discover on your own, if you are open.

    Bless you,

    Joel

75. Larry LA Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    Michael,

    I really don’t know what else to say brother, other than peace. I thought I’ve explained myself in my previous posts.

    Mishael,

    You’re going in circles there brother. You’ve taken verses on love, and I understand we love love, but you have to break the circle there. You say that love is to obey commandments and commandments are to love, that takes you back to love, and love again you say is obeying commandments, etc.

    Here it is: Love God and love others is straight from the Torah: Deuteronomy 6:5 Leviticus 19:18, so here is your Torah reference.

    What happened with Judaism back in the time of Yeshua, it had become very legalistic and in many instances forgotten love (which again was mentioned in the Torah, actually love and grace are mentioned more in the “old testament” than in the “new”). Yeshua was reminding them what the Torah was about, loving God and others. This does NOT cancel the Torah! It just explains things.

    Rabbi Hillel, who lived before Yeshua was teaching similar things for similar reasons, actually Hillel had a very similar message like Yeshua’s Beatitudes, you can read his teachings. Yeshua’s message is very clear and simple if you understand Judaism and the culture back then, if you love God, you obey Torah and obeying Torah is not a burden, it’s not something legalistic to beat up people with, it’s an expression of love, it’s freedom actually, it’s rest.

    Actually Yeshua makes Torah even tougher, it is written thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say, if you look at a woman with lust, you already committed adultery with her in your heart; same with thou shalt not kill, etc. Again, the Rabbis of the time were falsely teaching that it is not a sin to think sinful thoughts, as long as you don’t act upon them. Yeshua clears up the confusion.

    These commandments, the Torah, Yeshua was referring to when He said, if you love Me, you obey My commandments. Also in Revelation, John talks about those who hold the testimony of Yeshua and keep the commandments of God, the “new testament” hadn’t existed yet, all the apostles and early disciples were Jews and were keeping the Torah, the Bible back then was only the “old testament” and the commandments, the Torah.

    Joel,

    I appreciate your concern, but I thought I’ve made myself very clear where I stand. Speaking of insulting, I feel insulted when you say “my own very limited wisdom” and that “others tell me what to believe”. You don’t know me, so respectfully I ask, do not make assumptions. Peace.

76. Joel Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    Larry,

    I am heartly sorry for hurting you by inferring that your wisdom is limited in any way. But mostly I am saddened by the fact that you are not open to look at the historical facts on these things.

    Peace.

77. J.W. Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    Yeshua said “but I say to you” speaking with authority because he is God. He also said “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your father in heaven is perfect”

    Can you be perfect?

    This was not to make a tougher Torah to follow but to to show man’s inability to stand up to Gods perfection, the need for a Messiah and savior. We can only be perfect by the blood of Christ.

    Lets stop stabbing our own bodies

78. J.W. Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    Father in heaven

79. Larry LA Says:
    January 28th, 2009 at 12:58 am

    Joel,

    I was never mad at you brother, but apology accepted

    J.W.,

    “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your father in heaven is perfect” is exactly what it means, He was not showing anything here, this is a commandment, this is the standard we are called to, no metaphorical or hidden interpretation here. This is also reflected in the perfect Torah of God.

    While we do stumble and fall, we return to the Father and his Torah, to his perfect standard and we are being changed after His image every time, it is a long process, it doesn’t happen over night.

80. J.W. Says:
    January 28th, 2009 at 9:59 am

    I agree that the goal is to be conformed after the image of Christ. But the law makes no one perfect, it reveals sin. When we stumble and fall we turn to Christ as our mediator who fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law.

    How do you pick and choose which aspects of Torah to follow?

    How do you Interpret Hebrews 7 & 8 specifically 7:11-19, 8:7-13 ?

81. Joel Says:
    January 28th, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Exactly JW. A larger problem is that issue of Tradition. The observant Jews believe that they are to live Torah observant. However, they also have the Oral Torah as they refer to it or the Talmud and the numerous halakhic rulings that follow. This can only be done via a system of authority. It is not every man for himself. But it is necessary as the Bible alone does not give us nearly enough information as to how to obey the various laws and how to accommodate such Torah observance to modernity. So for instance, toilets would be illegal under Torah. Torah says to go outside the camp to bury your waste. Women cannot leave their private rooms during their time of the month for a few days. I suppose feminine products and toilets must thus then be “pagan” innovations. As a result the only thing that many Torah observant Christians have to depend on is Jewish rulings on these things. For this reason they are often found to be studying Chabad stuff. Yet these folks have been building on errant traditions for two thousand years and openly reject Christ. The irony is that these “Messinaics” would study Chabad and then bash any believer such as myself for appealing to the Church Fathers, even if it only be as a matter of historical record. The Apostles also had an oral tradition that was passed onto their successors and the Bishops of the early Church. This oral tradition was referred to as The Tradition in the early Church. Yet most modern believers are unaware of this Tradition. Today many simply believe that they can just believe or teach whatever they wish. Just me and the Holy Spirit. The irony is that this is so utterly American college-kid that it is scary. It bears no resemblance to that which would have been recognized by the early Church who were part of a living organization and in submission ot authority. The point being that everyone has extra-biblical traditions, whether they admit it or not. The question is which Tradition are we adhering to? Which Tradition informs us when we attempt to understand certain difficult passages? As a Christian, I adhere to the Tradition as it was transmitted by the apostles. This tradition gives us such doctrines as the Trinity, the fact that Christ was both fully God and fully man, the actual Canon of Scripture and other essential doctrines. Having rejected the early Church, these independent teachers have made themselves the ultimate authority when it comes to interpreting Scripture and if that fails there is always Chabad to add insight. The irony of all of this is so immense, I sometimes feel like I am in bizzaro world.

    2 Thess. 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

    1 Cor. 11:2, “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”

82. nancy Says:
    January 28th, 2009 at 8:29 pm

    “Today many simply believe that they can just believe or teach whatever they wish. Just me and the Holy Spirit. The irony is that this is so utterly American college-kid that it is scary. It bears no resemblance to that which would have been recognized by the early Church who were part of a living organization and in submission to authority.”

    Joel, now you are sounding like Scot.

83. Joel Says:
    January 28th, 2009 at 11:20 pm

    Nancy, I have to call you a squirrel for that one.

    Do you understand the point that I am making though? We Americans are so independent as a people. But Christianity was never a “just me, the Bible and the Holy Spirit” kind of thing. It was always a community with common beliefs and creeds and authority etc. It remained united for a thousand years. One denomination if you will. Then the Church broke into East and West and then came the Protestant reformation. Since that time, the sound of splintering and glass breaking has not stopped. There are now something like 40,000 denominations. Eventually have one denomination for every believer. Yet Jesus prayed that we would be unified in order that the world would know that the Father send him. To exacerbate the problem however, folks like George Barna or Scot are increasingly calling on everyone to leave their Churches and just be part of independent home groups that reject all other Churches and their Christo-pagan practices. Again the end result is that we have more splintering and division. And yet we actually think that we are getting closer to the early Church - which was a solitary unified organized entity. That to me is the irony.

84. nancy Says:
    January 29th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    Joel,
    Nothing that has happened has surprised or caught Jesus Off Guard.
    He knew what would happen. This is one of the reasons why the Spirit
    is so important..The Spirit is the great unifier…and HIS role can not
    be diminished (Eph. 4)

    I personally (I’m not GOD) see no problem with Scot’s thinking as long
    as He keeps it private and personal. He crosses the line when He begins
    to bind his understanding on others, and then he becomes divisive
    with his antagonistic name calling…(BTW, why do you think so few people challenge him?… I thinks it’s because many agree with HIM)

    Joel, I reject the idea that the “CHURCH” was ever pure. I don’t believe
    that is possible (on Earth) This is why It is so important to me to grasp
    what It means to “not be under Law”. There is no Law…We don’t need any Man to teach us how to follow the new Law. (It’s written on the Heart)

    The apostles were there to ease the transition…we have their letters to
    the Early Believers. Have you ever wondered why there is no list of
    things to do when you were to gather was a formal, organized assembly.
    Yes…we have bits and pieces…and that is my point…If it were so
    important for future generations to follow a pattern…why wasn’t it
    made crystal clear? Why would you have to be a scholar to figure it out?
    My rationale….. because it’s not a salvation issue…we are told how to
    inherit eternal life…Believe that Jesus is who He says He is…accept his
    gift…call him LORD and obey Him regarding LOVE…to the best of your
    ability. (there is a wide range of acceptable worship as long as our hearts
    don’t condemn us)…our lives are suppose to be our worship.
    We ARE told how to forfeit this gift of eternal LIFE. This is what
    I would like to see preachers and teachers focus on…

    Remember Jesus’s warning concerning our lack of love and concern
    for our fellow man…the good Samaritan (who BTW, had a whole lot
    wrong when it came to religious form) but Jesus held Him up as an
    example. (Mark 10…please read this again and pay attention to what
    Jesus is saying…. “do this and you will LIVE”)….(Matt. 25:42-46)

    The woman at the well…she wants to talk religious form…Jesus wants
    to offer her “living water”.

    Forgiveness…if we can’t forgive we won’t be forgiven…this is HUGE.
    Why not focus on this…(Luke 6)(Matt 18)

    We all need to get our priorities straight. Humility is lacking in all of us.

    It IS “Loving” to point to belief systems that are dangerous…But even
    then, the “danger” needs to be articulated clearly, and supported with
    scripture. (In my opinion)

    I agree with you regarding our independent spirits…but I don’t see this
    as a problem…We were told to submit to one another…not a system.
    Paul did speak of submitting to our “leaders”, but the catch is…how
    were you to know who your “leaders” were without the “Spirit”? Also,
    Leaders in the “universal called out assembly” were not like the leaders
    in the World or “Flesh”…there was no “lording over”….
    When I find those who are walking in the Spirit…(no matter where they
    worship)…if they request something of me, I usually submit. (I’ve been
    tested in this)

    Your “squirrel” in Jesus,
    Blessings

85. nancy Says:
    January 29th, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    Just to clarify…How do i know when someone is “walking in the Spirit”?

    I examine their Spiritual fruit…Do they believe in Jesus? Do they call
    Him Lord?

86. Joel Says:
    January 29th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    I hear you Nancy. The problem is that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in Jesus and call him Lord yet deny the Spirit any indwelling presence in their lives. So when one person says that they are being led by the spirit and is arguing with another who claims the same thing, then what is the standard that they can appeal to? The Bible? Yes, but what when they disagree on how to interpret a particular passage? Then they can turn to the record of the early Church. Beyond this, one could ask which books one may appeal to when one is trying to argue from Scripture. Some Messianic groups now affirm the spurious Book of “Jasher”. To whom may we appeal when we want to settle which books to go to? The Church is the one that gave us the canon that we now rely on. So if one denies the authority of the early Church, one also denies the very canon of Scripture as well. The Bible did not define itself. The Church did.

    Also, we indeed do have an accurate record of the structure of the meetings of the early Church. The Didache, Clement, Ignatius and Justin Martyr all provide us with detailed info about the early meetings and the structure of the Church. This does not infer that the Church was “pure” but it was established by Christ and the Apostles. Jesus himself promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into “all truth”. As such, this truth was preserved and maintained within the Church. Now, the question becomes how far one may rely on the Church until what time in history. I choose to trust that the Church preserved the apostolic teachings and traditions for at least a few hundred years. The earlier that we get, the better.

    All of you follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; respect the deacons as the ordinance of God (Ignatios, early 2nd century)

    Our Apostles also knew through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the title of bishop. For this reason, therefore, since they had perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the aforementioned persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry…. For it will be no trivial sin on our part if we depose from the bishop’s office those who have in a blameless and holy manner offered the gifts. Happy the presbyters who have gone on their way before this, for they obtained a ripe and fruitful departure; since they need not fear that anyone should remove them from their appointed place. (I Clement)

    The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone, for there were many still remaining who had received instructions form the Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus, after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sotor having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth (ireneaus)

87. nancy Says:
    January 30th, 2009 at 1:00 am

    “Now, the question becomes how far one may rely on the Church until what time in history. I choose to trust that the Church preserved the apostolic teachings and traditions for at least a few hundred years. The earlier that we get, the better.”

    Joel,
    You have every right to chose to trust whatever seems right to you.
    If you are convinced in your heart…I won’t be Judging you!

    By the same token, be patient with those of us who are not comfortable
    with your choices…that does not make us “anti-authority” or “lone-wolves”…any more than rejecting Scot’s understanding makes us
    “disobedient” and anti-Old Testament.

    I do find these accounts interesting to read…but my faith is in GOD’s
    ability to use Men as he purposes to preserve His Word (as he sees fit).

    Oral traditions are educational to read, but not scripture (for me).

    False teaching was present while Paul wrote his letters…by the end of
    His Ministry He had very few friends left. Many believers have thrown
    out Paul’s writings…I know a few! I have little faith in Church History.

    As for those who reject the role of the Spirit…I can’t help that any more than you can.

    Regarding the authority of the early Church…I can’t accept your logic
    on this one…I believe GOD chose the canon and men were His
    instruments. If I’m wrong…grace will cover me.

    I chose to focus on what I believe to be very important (love) and
    the foggy stuff I don’t worry about…One day it will all be clear and I
    will be looking forward to that day.

    Blessings

88. Larry LA Says:
    January 30th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    nancy,

    The Church, ‘ekklesia’, is a Remnant inside ALL of the pagan\earthly religions: Islam, Judaism & Christopaganism and a thousand other fig leaves which represent coverings that are not of his spirit.

    I offer a few selected quotes from some of the early “Church Fathers” and teachings.
    1. Here are three canons from the Council of Laodicea (Fourth century):
    • Canon 29. “Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.”
    • Canon 37. “It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them.”
    • Canon 38. “It is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.”
    2. In Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, Justin Martyr emphasized that what had previously belonged to Israel was now the property of Christians. The Jewish Scriptures were a central part of this transference. They are “not yours but ours,” Justin stated emphatically to Trypho. That is, the Church has replaced Israel as Adonai´s children and Adonai´s people. Here’s a direct quote from Justin Martyr: “For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this [New Covenant] is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law–namely, Christ–has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance.”
    3. Jerome (author of the Latin Vulgate) and Augustine called Jews “accursed by God.”
    4. Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch, said that “Christianity did not base its faith on Judaism; but Judaism on Christianity.”
    5. In 339 AD, it was considered a criminal offense to convert to Judaism.
    6. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, Italy, praised the burning of a synagogue, as an act pleasing to God.
    7. Tertullian and Origen called the Jews “Christ killers” and “deiciders (God-killers).”
    8. The most influential Roman Catholic theologian, Augustine, called Jews “sons of Satan.” Augustine was highly influenced by Marcion, a heretic who called Adonai “an evil god” and who claimed He was not the Father of Yeshua.

    The following are quotes taken from Martin Luther’s Concerning the Jews and Their Lies (published 1542).
    • “The rabbis should be forbidden to continue teaching the Law.”
    • “Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.”
    • “I brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule–if my counsel does not please you, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us…With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience.”
    • “Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:
    ♦ First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire…
    ♦ Second, that all their books–their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible–be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…
    ♦ Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…
    ♦ Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…”

89. nancy Says:
    January 30th, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    Larry,
    I really am lost…(maybe it’s this enormous Nursing exam I’m suppose
    to be studying for…I’m taking aspirin now)

    Please explain why you addressed the above to me…I really thought
    we agreed on this. Where have I missed the target? What have I said?

    BTW, did I mention that I was married to a Man of Jewish Heritage?
    More specifically, His People are Holocaust survivors/escapes.
    (I love Jews…in a very personal way)

    If you are trying to explain your position on “Church”…I’m really lost.
    Could you start over?

90. Joel Says:
    January 30th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    Larry,

    I assume that you are actually addressing me and not Nancy. Some of what you copied and pasted is absolutely legit, some of it is out of context and bogus. But none of it makes a difference in terms of what we are discussing. You are obviously misunderstanding my whole point. I am in agreement with the more balanced Messianic groups that the Church forgot its Hebrew roots and certain quarters fell into deep and grievous anti-Semitism. But as is so often the case, when people attempt to correct an imbalance, they often over-react, and the pendulum swings too far in the opposite direction. This is happening in many of the more radical Hebrew Roots groups today. The result is a demonization of all non-Hebrew roots Christians or non-Sabbath keeping groups etc. This is obviously equally as great of an error and emanates from the same wrong spirit as those early anti-Semites. As the Church returns to its Hebrew roots, one cannot also become anti-Church or reject the Apostolic Church and many clear historical facts along the way. Claims for example that the Eucharist is pagan and that it was not embraced by the apostles is just one such example.

    Bless you, Joel

91. Larry LA Says:
    January 30th, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    nancy,

    The first paragraph was addressed to you. What you, Joel and most Christianity call “the church” cannot be ‘ekklesia’, ekklesia has existed since Abel was killed by Cain.

92. nancy Says:
    January 30th, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    Larry,
    What do you prefer to call Believers in Jesus?

93. Larry LA Says:
    January 31st, 2009 at 1:34 am

    nancy,

    This is not about the name that we use, it is about an entity that existed before Yeshua, a remnant within religious systems.

94. nancy Says:
    February 1st, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    Larry,
    I’m sure your point is valid, but I’m slow (brain is on overload)….
    I don’t understand your point.
    If you are referring to the “church” being the “called out”… I’m with you!
    If you are referring to all of GOD’s children being the “called out”…I’m
    still with you. But I’m fuzzy over why this is important NOW with the above dialog. Just for the record…I am not in the “Church is organized” camp. Jesus knows who belongs to HIM…all I can do is examine fruit.

    Blessings

    BTW…what do you call Believers in Jesus?

95. Larry LA Says:
    February 1st, 2009 at 10:44 pm

    nancy,

    I just think it is really important to know what “church” is and what is not. Some Christians are in “the church”, some are not, even though they go Sunday to that building they call church, same with Messianics, some are in the church, some are not.

    The name probably doesn’t really matter, but since you brought it up, the word ‘Christian’, as you know, is more like a cultural thing today (like ‘Jewish’, Adam Sandler is Jewish, but that doesn’t really say much about his relationship with God), everybody’s a Christian, actually many of the persecutors in the past were Christians and we haven’t seen the end of it.

    As you know, the first believers in Yeshua were Jews and I think they were called Netzarim (Nazarenes) or followers of the Way, and only later the Gentile believers started to be called Christians (you know the word comes from Greek). So, it’s up to you, I don’t really mind any of them.

96. nancy Says:
    February 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 am

    Larry,
    It’s kinda like the word “gay”…It’s not really fair that a perfectly wonderful
    word was hijacked.
    That’s how I feel about the word “Christian”. It was ours first…I plan to keep it!

    thanks for explaining,
    Blessings

Leave a Reply