another one for Nick

March 26, 2008

IF   the wages of sin is death
AND   Jesus totally paid that debt for everyone
THEN   WHY do Christians still DIE? Jesus already paid that debt, why are they still dying?
AND ALSO   Why would anyone then be sent to hell, as Jesus has already paid for all sins past, present, and future.

BUT…  Most people WILL BE sent to hell, according to the Bible. People who have already had their debt to Biblegod paid in full and canceled. People whose sins have been washed “whiter than snow” in the blood of the lamb. People who, in Biblegod’s eyes, are perfect and innocent due to the death of Jesus. These people will roast in hell- forever.

CONCLUSION:   Biblegod is sending to “debtors prison” billions of people whose debts have already been paid.

$$$  The Wages of Sin $$$

IF   the penalty for sin is  eternal torture/separation  from Biblegod
BUT   Jesus suffered torture/separation for only 3 days
THEN   Jesus didn’t pay the full penalty for sin.

THEREFORE   all Christians are STILL IN THEIR SINS!!!!! At the best, they’ve only had 3 days knocked off their sentence of eternity.
Let’s do the math…  Eternity – 3 Days = Eternity!!!
Yup, you guys are sooooo screwed!!!

note: these are not fro me, but statements from others


Here you go Nick

March 26, 2008

Below are some questions and statements from former coC preachers, who now teach against the bible.  Show me how to answer these and when you do my athesist friends – former coC preachers will bounce right back.  Matter of fact anyone willing to confront these – go for it.  See below

According to the Bible, Old AND New Testament, every claim needs to be established by at least two to three witnesses before it should ever stand a chance of being accepted as fact.A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (Deut. 19:15 NIV)
Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses.  (2nd Cor 13:1 NASB)
Given that, where were the witnesses to confirm Moses’ claim about God handing him a chiseled list of commandments on top of Mt. Sinai? He made a claim that God gave him tablets of stone containing The Ten Commandments. Where are the witnesses? There were none, for according to his own story, he was alone- by himself, no one else around- when God supposedly did this. There was no one to corroborate his extraordinary claim. Based upon that admitted FACT and what the Bible demands about how claimed facts are to be handled, the Ten Commandments should be thrown into the nearest dumpster, for as it stands now, the entire Ten Commandments rests upon the uncorroborated say-so of a single, solitary man
 The apologist will claim that Deut. 19:15 applies only to situations where God himself is not establishing the validity of a truth via the miraculous. In other words, they knew Moses was God’s messenger because he was able to perform miracles. Sound familiar? It should; this is what Nicodemus says about Jesus in John 3.  According to Christian theology, God can’t die, Jesus equals God, therefore Jesus can’t die- can’t cease to exist- and he didn’t, not in any real sense of the word. According to the Bible, when everyone thought he was dead he was actually hanging out in hades for three days having discussions. Therefore all that really happened was Jesus (i.e. God) went thru alot of pain for just a couple of hours, this pain is what must have “paid the debt of sin for all mankind”. And since God suffering pain is what did the trick, God could have just as well hit his own thumb with a hammer to presto-chango erase the sins of mankind, in which case Christians would all be wearing little hammers around their necks today! Christians claim that Jesus, the “second Adam”, Jesus the “perfect human”, died for sins. But according to Christian theory, his “divine” half couldn’t die, his “soul” couldn’t die, and neither could his “spirit”. Then what part of Jesus died to pay off this supposed debt of sin? Will Christians respond his other half, his body?  His HUMAN body? But it WASN’T human, was it, Christian? According to your theory, Jesus was only a half-breed, only HALF human. Sure, Jesus had a human mother, but his father was an extra-terrestrial  space alien from way beyond the clouds who raped Mary (who was already engaged to be married) and somehow got her pregnant. So IF it took a god to die to “pay off the debt”, seeing how gods CAN’T die by definition, that god theory goes up in smoke. On the other hand, if it took a perfect human to die to “pay off the debt”, Jesus was NOT human, by any stretch of the DNA, so therefore could never be a PERFECT human, just as a pig could never be a perfect dog. In fact, at best, he was only one-quarter human. Think of it this way: four quarters = a whole. If two quarters of Jesus (i.e. 1/2 of him) were god, that leaves the remaining half of Jesus a human being. But how did this “human half” of Jesus come about? Of this remaining half, this human-looking body, only half of it (i.e. 1/4 of the whole) could actually be human (via Mary’s DNA) while the other 1/4th of it was Biblegod DNA- definitely NOT human. So Jesus was no more a “perfect human” than Arnold the Pig could ever be a perfect dog, cow, or whale. At BEST, only 1/4th of Jesus could be physically human, with the other 3/4ths being non-human.


reply to a legalist…my comments in red

March 25, 2008

1.    I’m not sure where you get the “no women” passage. (  okay, my point is that is no evidence of woman being present – only men are named – the bible is silent on this J )   While some believe that the first century church met daily to eat the Lord’s Supper, I do not. I know they met from house and broke bread, but I understand that to be a common meal. ( you understand this to mean they had a common meal, what about others who see this as they met daily to “ break bread”  i.e., the Lords Supper, the question is will God send you to hell if your view of this is wrong ) What I do know is that the Corinthian church ate the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day ( can you prove they ate the Lords Supper every Sunday ) and based on their example we do likewise. ( do you meat daily per the example and break bread – common meal or the Lords Supper and have you sold everything you own per the example in Acts ) After all, they lived in the first century with the Apostles (Paul wrote two letter to them and visited them) and if they were not in line with God’s will, then they would have been corrected. It would have been easy for the apostles to say “eat the Lord’s Supper everyday” or once a month, year, bi-monthyly, etc. ( Jesus said “as often as” so did Paul ) But they ate the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. ( per one example and many also teach they met daily for the Lords Supper ie., breaking bread – but here you have to write this off by calling it a common meal because it doesn’t fit your theology – I could just as easy say that Acts 20:7 was a common meal ) So why shouldn’t we follow their example since they apparently got it right. ( do you follow the example of selling all of your goods as did some in the early church –There is nothing wronh with honoring Christ each Sunday, I think its great, but its legalistic to say one cant honor Christ say each Sunday and each Tuesday if he so desires, seeing this is “as often as” )Besides all this, we carry with us the resurrection of Jesus everyday. As a Christian, we live as resurrected people – raised from the dead (spiritually) and live (spiritually), seated in the heavenly realms with Christ. The Lord’s Supper is designed to bring Christians together to examine, anticipate, and proclaim the Lord’s death, until he comes. And we do that every Sunday, following the lead of the first century church. )( I think you were right with the opening sentence – we carry with us the resurrection of Jesus everyday. And Paul even warned people not to honor days…so maybe its best we honor Christ “as often as”)Now if someone wants to eat it two, three, five times a week, I suppose they could. ( I agree and there is no place stating it a sin to do so ) My question would be why? ( maybe some wish to honor Christ via the Lords Supper more than just each Sunday and no where caould that be considered a sin ) How are they justifying that with Scripture and first century example? ( Again , per the words of Christ “as often as” ) Can they give a reason for why they do what they do? ( what is the reason you have the Lords Supper each Sunday – to honor Christ or honor each Sunday , so will God send one to hell for honoring Christ more than each Sunday via the Lords Supper )Will God send someone to hell for eat the Lord’s Supper more than once a week? God can do whatever he wants…He is God after all. And no one can argue with his decision because he always acts justly. ( I agree, and you know better to play God and say God will send one to hell for honoring Christ more than each Sunday via the Lords Supper – thank you for making my point )


Do I like Johnny??

March 24, 2008

Do I like Johnny??  Yes, I do !   I honestly think he makes people think and I admire him for being so dedicated to the study of Gods word, but does this mean that Johnny is never wrong and I must see things his way or be doomed?   There is very little that I disagree with Johnny, but its enough that his factious ways would boot me to the curb for holding another view other than his.  Here are some of the things I would be booted to the curb for….I disagree with him regarding the Lords supper being something one MUST  do each Sunday.  I think its great to honor Christ each Sunday as he does, but scripture does not make this some law that one must “observe days”  to honor Christ.  I also disagree with his position on music – if silence mean one cant have music then silence also means one cant have other things not mentioned in the text, but here they bend the rules.  I also don’t agree totally with his view on baptism and denominationalism….


In response to Johnny’s program on Law

March 20, 2008

GALATIANS 2:15 “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law [ergon nomou] but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law [ergon nomou]; for by the works of the law [ergon nomou] no flesh shall be justified. (NKJV) Here we are introduced to the phrase “works of the law” for the first time in the letter to the Galatians. This phrase has been the foundation for much Christian doctrine and theological understanding. Most Christians believe that “works of the law” is a reference to observing the Law of Moses. They interpret Paul’s words here to mean that obedience to the Torah is no longer required. In fact, some take Paul’s statement to mean that obedience to the Law demonstrates a lack of faith.  Could it be that Paul’s use of the phrase “works of the law” was intended to refer to something other than the Law of Moses?The teaching brought to Galatia by the sectarians went above and beyond the requirements of the written Torah. GALATIANS 2:17 “If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. (NIV)Now Paul, in an effort to head off any counter argument that he was opposed to obeying the written Law of Moses, goes on the offensive against lawlessness (I John 3:4). He states that justification through the sacrifice of the Messiah does not give us license to sin. GALATIANS 2:19 For I through the Law died to the Law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (NKJV) GALATIANS 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died in vain.” (NKJV)Here Paul finishes his opening remarks and establishes the premise for his attack on the teachings of the “false brethren” in Galatia that follows in chapter 3. Paul’s position is that legalistic observance of the Law (whether according to the sectarians’ “Works of the Law,” the Oral Law of the Pharisees, etc.) for the purpose of establishing one’s own righteousness is worthless in the sight of God. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul contrasts the two ways for gaining righteousness: (1) Legalistic obedience to the Law versus (2) obedience to the Law due to faith in the Messiah. To understand Paul’s comments about the Law in Galatians, we must realize his position about the PURPOSE of the Law. He speaks of this extensively in his letter to the Romans: ROMANS 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says it speaks to those who are under the Law [hupo nomon], so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law [ergon nomou] no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the Law comes knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the Law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it – 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (ESV)Taken in context, Paul’s words here show his true understanding of the purpose of the Law. The Law was intended to show the conduct God expected from mankind. Any deviation from that specified conduct was sin. As the apostle John tells us explicitly in the New Testament, “sin is lawlessness” (I John 3:4). ROMANS 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law By “works of the law” (legalistic observance of the Law to gain God’s favor), no one will be justified in God’s sight. The reason why this is so is because “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). However, God has provided a way for our justification other than through perfect observance of the Law. (Rom. 3:20, 28).


Related to Johnnys show last night

March 20, 2008

Divorce is not always obtained on the basis of “sexual immorality.”  Does this always violate the divorce sayings in the synoptic gospels and Pauline writings?  Are there any valid reasons for divorce other than “fornication”?  Did Jesus teach that there are no exemptions to the marriage bond other than “fornication” or “adultery”?  When Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded the divorce sayings, did they consider the pronouncements of Jesus a dissertation on the subject of divorce and remarriage?  Did Jesus contemplate wife abuse, husband abuse, child abuse, desertion, and withholding of conjugal rights?  In Jesus’ response to the Pharisees in Matthew 19:1-12, did Jesus have in mind such crimes as murder and armed robbery?  Did He contemplate these atrocities in His Sermon on the Mount when He discussed the teachings of the Pharisees and Scribes about divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31-32)?  Are these hypothetical cases?  Or are these circumstances that need review in making a judgment about the innocent party?  Are these acts of violence included in the word “fornication”?  Or did Jesus exclude every crime except “sexual immorality”?  Or were these words of Jesus simply “overstatement” or “exaggeration” to emphasize the original intent of God?  These are questions that require response.  When one limits divorce and remarriage to “sexual immorality,” one often creates impossible situations for individuals who suffer from circumstances beyond their control.  .One of the divorce sayings (5:31-32) that Matthew records is found in this well-known Sermon.  Some of the most startling uses of exaggeration are found in Jesus’ Sermon.  Through this practice of exaggeration, He captures the attention of His listeners and forcefully brings home His point.Jesus did not seek to lay down a legal pronouncement to cover every hypothetical crisis in the lives of men and women.  To teach that He did is to read more into the text than Jesus himself taught.  How does one know this?  First, it is significant that Mark and Luke leave out the “exemption clause” (Mark 10:10; Luke 16:18). On the other hand, Matthew includes this controversial clause in the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ battle with the Jewish leaders (Matthew 5:32; 19:9).  Then, Paul, in his first letter to Corinth, sets forth “desertion” by the unbeliever as another “exemption clause” (1 Corinthians 7:15).   Did he contradict the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9?  Did he contradict Mark 10:10 and Luke 16:18?  Did he understand that Jesus was not giving a dissertation on marriage and divorce?  Did he understand overstatement and hyperbole in the teachings of Jesus?  Listen to Paul’s advice about desertion: “But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15).  Would this principle also apply in wife battering?  If not, why not?


Here are some good links !

March 19, 2008

These links below are of Church of Christ men and others, who do NOT believe, nor act like Johnny and company.  Please read and study from each link and you will see how weak Johnny and company really are.  I hope most of all that Johnnys followers read this and see that Johnny isnt right about everything.

http://answeringchurchofchrist.wordpress.com/

http://rouses.net/blog/

http://churchesofchrist.wordpress.com/

http://www.unity-in-diversity.org/

http://www.leroygarrett.org/

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/refintro.htm

http://www.freedomsring.org/

http://www.freedominchrist.net/


Leave The Legalist!

March 19, 2008

Most Cult leadrers can be identified by three characteristics:

  1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship or center of attention as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power. 
  2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform; brainwashing
  3. exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

There is an attempt to manage an individual’s inner communication. Often the leader creates an increasingly intense sequence of events such as seminars, lectures, focusing upon others while lifting up himself, and encounters which makes leaving him extremely difficult, both physically and psychologically. A second characteristic of Johnny Robertson a cult leader is mystical manipulation or planned spontaneity. This is a systematic process through which the leader can create in cult members what I call the psychology of the pawn. The process is managed so that it appears to arise spontaneously; to its objects it rarely feels like manipulation. Further aspects of Johnny Roberston a cult leader are “sacred science,” “loading of the language,” and the principle of “doctrine over person.” Sacred science is important because a claim of being scientific is often needed to gain plausibility and influence in the modern age.. The term loading the language’ refers to literalism and a tendency to deify words or images by running clip after clip and repeating words after words – sort of like how the local legalist play their mini clips and repeat them over and over, to push them in your head.  Often behavior is virtually automatized, language reduced to rote and cliche, yet the cult member expresses a certain satisfaction or even happiness?  


Baptism Study

March 17, 2008

Here is a post I pulled from another site:   This is pretty much what Johnny and company believe.  We will use the comment section to present possible rebuttals.

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)  by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Misconception #1: “Baptism Is Only a ‘Figure”The first misunderstanding is that n’ that one has already” Baptism is only a figure; it is merely a ’sign that one has already  been saved.” As we have heard others also say, who believe that baptism is irrelevant to salvation, “Baptism is just an outward showing of an inward grace.” It’s true that the Bible does use many figures, shadows, or types that represent things of a much greater nature: Romans 5:14, for example, speaks of Adam as “a type of Him [Jesus] who was to come.” But what is this “figure” of 1 Peter 3: 21 referring to? To find the answer, we need to back up to the previous verse, which speaks of the flood of Noah’s day. It is the flood that is the figure for the water of Bible baptism. The New International Version makes this very clear: “…eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you…” (vv. 20,21). The New American Standard Bible says, “and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you. …” Corresponding to what? Again, it is referring back to the flood of Noah’s day, as mentioned in the previous verse, in which eight persons “were brought safely through the water.” Baptism, therefore, is not the type; but rather it is the antitype. It is what the shadow ( of the flood) is pointing to. The New King James Version, incidentally, states, “There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism…..”Just as the eight souls in the ark were separated from the world of sin by the waters of the flood, which eliminated that sinful world, the waters of baptism separates a person from his own sins and brings him out from a sinful realm into the righteous kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col. 1: 13) because baptism (along with faith and repentance) puts one into contact with the blood of Christ and the benefits of the Lord’s atonement (cf, Rom. 6:3,4). Misconception #2: “Filth” Means “Sin” A second false notion many have about 1 Peter 3: 21 is that “the filth”  spoken of is referring to sin; and then they continue by saying that  “Since baptism does not remove the filth of the flesh, then it doesn’t remove sin.” Again, though, using other Bible translations will be helpful to better understand what this “filth” is standing for. The Revised Standard Version and the New International Version refer to “the filth of the flesh”  as ” dirt from the body. “  The New American Standard says, “dirt from the flesh.” Therefore, this “filth is not sin; but, rather, it is dirt”; and the point being that baptism saves–but not merely by getting clean in the water It saves as an appeal to God for a clear conscience. When Ananias told Paul in Acts 22: 16 to wash away his sins through baptism, it wasn’t the water that could literally do that; it was the blood of Jesus. But even the concept of being washed by the blood of Christ is figurative, for the forgiveness actually takes place in the mind of God when we meet His righteous demands that will enable us to benefit from the Lord’s atonement. Still, though, water baptism is one of the steps necessary to benefit from Calvary . We can also liken this to Naaman’s need to dip seven times into the Jordan River to be healed of his leprosy (2 Kings 5). Surely, it wasn’t merely the water of this muddy river that healed him; but, nevertheless, it is what the Lord required of him to be healed–just as God requires of the alien sinner to be baptized into water to have sins forgiven. Misconception #3: “Answer” Lastly, many people have misunderstood I Peter 3:21 on the basis of the word “answer.” As part of the verse says, “the answer of a good conscience toward God. “ Perhaps they feel that by “praying a sinner’s prayer,” the answer” they receive will result in a good conscience and their salvation. We need to point out, however, what this term ” answer” really means. For many who use only the King James Version and have never heard this term defined before, it might come as a surprise. According to Vine, the Greek word for “answer” “was used by the Greeks in a legal sense, as a “demand or appeal.” Bullinger defines it as “a question, an asking; enquiry after, seeking by enquiry .”It, therefore, appears to be just the opposite ( an enquiry)  than how many would view it (as an answer). Baptism, therefore, is “an appeal to God for a clear conscience,” as the Revised Standard Version states. The New American Standard Bible and the New English Bible also use the term “appeal.” The New Berkeley Version has “earnest seeking,” and The American Standard Version has “interrogation.” So baptism saves as a means whereby one is making his “appeal to Go for a clear conscience”; and since “appeal” also means ” a call for aid, support, mercy, etc. , an earnest request or entreaty, ” then we can conclude that baptism is part of the means whereby one “calls” on the Lord. As Peter had stated many years prior, in quoting Joel’s prophecy, “…everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21). They called in Acts 2 by believing, repenting, and being baptized (vv. 36-38). And this is also why Paul was told by Ananias to “…Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22: 16). The good conscience, which has been cleansed by the blood of Jesus ( cf, Heb. 9: 14), comes after one has been baptized into Christ to then rise to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3,4); and 1 Peter 3: 21 certainly makes it clear that this salvation is not possible until one is first baptized.


Johnny Roberston Doctrine

March 17, 2008

Common mistakes most callers make is not knowing the doctrine of Johnny Robertson and company-church of Christ doctrine, and this alone gives Johnny and company the upper hand.   In the coming weeks, we will present some of their teachings and show some of the common mistakes callers make when calling in on their programs.   What I do find surprising and a bit shocking is how little the local denominational churches know about church of Christ doctrine, so it’s no wonder that their assemblies do not know how to reply to Johnny and company.  I will admit that many of Johnny and company arguments are good, and some are hard to refute, but a careful analysis of each subject/doctrine from both sides will help strengthen the community/callers and also educate others as to what these men teach/believe and how you can answer them.   We will start with their teaching on baptism, and present their believes and present possible rebuttals.  Take note that their doctrine of baptism can not be refuted to the degree one can prove that baptism isn’t part of salvation.  I have tried, and so have many others and I haven’t yet seen anyone prove them wrong as far as baptism and salvation are linked.  But, we can draw the line with Johnny and company when they exclude everyone from salvation who didn’t have an understanding that baptism and salvation are connected.  This will be addressed in a later post when we start going over the doctrines of Johnny and company


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.