MORIELMoriel Ministries - God is my teacher

But there"s another question I"d like to ask you. That question is, “If Jesus was the Messiah, why didn't He bring in worldwide peace?" Why was there a Holocaust? Why were there Inquisitions and pogroms? Why is there starvation in Africa? Why is the environment being destroyed? Why has the world become systematically worse with everybody in it and so commonly the Jews getting the worst of the worst? How could He be the Messiah? Why didn't He bring in worldwide peace? Where is the Messianic redemption? It"s ridiculous to believe He"s the Messiah, the world wouldn"t be the way it is. Things have only gotten worse for us. How can you believe in Him? That"s the question.

Let"s turn – not to any Christian source, not to any Gentile source, not to any human source – let"s turn to the word of God, the Hebrew prophet Daniel 9, “Daniye"l Hanawbe". In Daniel 9 we read verses 26 and 27…

Hamashiach hitzarek lavo v"l"moot lifneh hahorban shel ha beit ha migdash ha shenit.

The Messiah would have to come and be cut off – be killed, before the destruction of the Second Temple. "But that"s your Christian interpretation". No, I"m not looking at Christian interpretations; that"s what the text says, and try reading Sanhedrin 96 to 98b. Why do the rabbis say there"s a curse on reading Daniel 9? For the time of the Messiah"s coming is foretold in it. And as we read, the Sanhedrin wept, “Oy! Oy! The Messiah has come? No, the temple is destroyed and He"s not come! Woe unto us!" God cannot break His word. The ancient sages understood this was about the Messiah. He had to come and die. “Wars and desolations are determined to the end". (Dan. 9:26)

In Judaism the rabbis go to the greatest lengths to try to reconcile two irreconcilable pictures of the Messiah, “HaMashiach ben Yosef" and “HaMashiach ben David", “the Messiah the Son of Joseph" and “the Messiah the Son of David". The “Conquering King" and the “Suffering Servant" we call “ben Ephraim". Some rabbis said one will resurrect the other. It"s two Messiahs. Is it two Messiah"s or one Messiah with two comings? Daniel was right; it was one Messiah with two comings. He was shown the future. This is what Moses spoke of, this is how it will happen: He will come, He will be cut off, He will be killed. “Wars and desolations are determined until the end", then He will come again.

He takes his sling and his stick and off he goes. €œWho left you with those few sheep? Why are you asking questions? You came to see the battle, you came to watch us lose again!" No, I"m tired of watching you lose; I want to see somebody win. So the story goes on.

The Philistine taunts him. He"s confident, he"s aggressive, he"s arrogant, and David runs towards him. €œYou come against me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel." Not the armies of Israel €“ I agree they"re a bunch of losers. I'm not coming to you on behalf of the so-called Evangelical church in Britain anymore, I agree €“ they"re all losers led by incompetents and cowards. I agree. I'm coming to you in the name of the God of these incompetents. There"s a big difference.

We know how Goliath was armed and how he was armored. He had jeets, a breastplate, a shield, a helmet, but there was one place he could not defend. Every Goliath, no matter how big, how aggressive, how well-armed, how well-protected €“ it doesn"t matter €“ everyone of them have one place on their head they cannot protect or defend. They all have a point of vulnerability. And somewhere there is a stone that will bring them down €“ you just have to know where the spot is and which stone.

Hey, Mohammed, you say Allah will give you victory in the Jihad against the infidel? I ask you why after six jihads a 150 million Muslims can"t beat 4 or 5 million Jews? €œIt's because of America". Is God afraid of America? The Jews beat you in "67.and got that land before America even began to help them. He can"t answer; down he goes.

Hey, Mohammed, you have €œUmmah" €“ you"re €œone nation and one people"? Well the book of Genesis says you"re a divided nation and a divided people. Why did Kuwait get invaded by Iraq? Why did King Hussein of Jordan exterminate Arafat"s Palestinians in Black September? Why did Iran and Iraq go to war if you"re one people? You don"t see the Christian democracies declaring war on each other, but no Muslim country"s a democracy. You kill each other. Your religion doesn't work, ours does. Down he goes.

Hey, Monsignor! I notice your bishop is under  indictment. You know, that"s your colleague. Yeah, the one who €œloved" children. You know, St. Paul said that"s a doctrine of demons, Monsignor. We"re not talking about one bad apple, we"re talking about a rotten barrel. Every day it"s in the newspaper. It"s gone up to the cardinal and now up to the Vatican. Paul says it"s a doctrine of devils, Monsignor. Read the newspaper. Down they go.

Hey, Rabbi Burkowitz! Mind You now the New Testament says Jesus the Rabbi from Nazareth said one day the Jews would return to Israel and to Jerusalem. How come God had to use Jewish atheists and agnostics? How come He used the Zionists who were Socialists? To them religion was only culture €“ they were atheists. The people on the moshavs and the kibbutzes were atheists. How come God had to use atheists to restore Israel instead of rabbis? How come you rabbis condemned Theodore Herzl and the Zionist movement? If you were the shepherds of God's people, how come God had to use Jews that didn't even believe in God to bring His people home? Down they go.

No matter how big, no matter how aggressive, there"s always something they cannot defend. There is always a spot of vulnerability €“ that"s the target. Don"t look at how big he is, don"t look at his armor, don"t look at his weapons, don"t look at his aggression, just focus on that target and find the appropriate stone. That's what it takes, that"s all it takes.

I have a third question for my Islamic friends, particularly the educated ones, those that have done degrees in law, medicine, dentistry, engineering, science, mathematics in the West. Some have gone to Oxbridge, some have gone to Ivy League universities in America, some have gone to the Sorbonne in Paris, there are educated Muslims in the West, some of them born in the West, some came to study in the West, but there are educated Muslims. We have to remember that when the Western world was in the Dark Ages under medieval Roman Catholicism Islam had its Golden Age. So I appeal to the educated, thinking Muslim, please consider this question carefully.

Islam likes to claim that a 5th Century forgery of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas " there"s two of them, but the later one, the 5th Century " was the true gospel and the ones that are the orthodox in Christianity " Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John " are false ones. Even liberal higher critics, higher critical scholars who simply study the Scriptures as history and literature do not accept any 1st Century authenticity to that later Thomas gospel. But we also have higher critical scholars in Islam. They are called "Orientalists".

Now Orientalists are not allowed to teach or to publish in Muslim countries, generally speaking. There might be some exception I"m not aware of, but certainly their lives would be threatened by the Muslim brotherhood or something like this. In Saudi Arabia they would bemore than arrested. These are academic theologians; they are critical scholars; they study the Quran, the Hadith as history and literature with an academic eye, looking for things like source criticism, form criticism, the same tools higher critical scholars have applied to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. They"re Orientalists. They simply ask questions. They"re not studying the Quran as doctrine per se or as revelation, they"re simply looking at it as literature the way critical scholars look at the Bible, really, as literature.

I know I study the Bible as both doctrine and as literature and history. The Orientalists raise some questions. I"m not talking about Christians phrasing questions or about Jews raising questions, I'm talking about educated, westernized Muslim scholars " professors, people with doctorates in Islam " usually from Cairo, Egypt who are now to be found at Oxford, Cambridge, the Sorbonne, Princeton in America, and so forth, and prominent universities, prominent professors, academically credible scholars, the Orientalists " your scholars. They ask questions simply about the historicity and literary origin and development of the Quran and Hadith. One question would be, "How can the Quran say that every night when the sun becomes tired it descends into a muddy pit and rises again the next day?"

Remember, during its Golden Age, Islam were the astronomers of the era. Ptolemian astronomy dominated the world and it was largely dominated by Islam all the way until the time of Galileo and Copernicus and Kepler. Certainly if Allah is God, and Allah created the universe, and Allah created the sun, and if Allah told the angel Gabriel to give the Quran to Mohammed, Allah would've known the sun does not set into a muddy pit every night when it gets tired, This looks like an ancient Near Eastern fable, a superstition, but it"s a question that should be asked. It"s the question that should be answered but that is a question that I will leave to Muslims to answer. My question rather concerns the relationship between the Quran and the Katub, the Bible.

The name of the mother of Jesus was not "Mary" but "Miryam",  and the sister of Moses" name was also "Miryam". They were both named "Miryam". But they live 1,300 years apart, 13 centuries separated, Miryam the sister of Moses from Miryam the mother of Isa " Yeshua. And so your scholars, the Orientalists, these academic theologians who study the Quran in Arabic who are at the most prominent universities in the Western world because the Islamic world will not allow them to publish what they teach, ask the question, "If 1,300 years separated Miryam the sister of Moses from Miryam the mother of Jesus " Isa, Yeshua " why does the Quran say they are the same woman?" Isn"t that absurd? I'm not trying to offend you, but isn't it ludicrous? How can the Quran correct the mistakes in the Bible if they"re thirteen centuries apart? We have other archeological evidence showing that Moses long predates Jesus. Nobody questions it. No Muslim scholar in the world would question it today. The Wahab wouldn't question, yet the Quran says it's true.

According to the book of Esther in the Hebrew Scriptures, Haman was a senior court minister in the ancient Persian court in Susa. He was an Agagite, a descendent of Amalek according to the Hebrew Scriptures accepted by Jews and Christians. The Babylonian captivity of the Jews was followed by the Persian conquest of Babylon. We"re talking about five centuries before Christ. Yet we are told in the Quran that Haman was a minister in the court of Pharaoh. There were no pharaohs in the 5th Century before Christ as such. The period of Pharaoh was long over. In the Scriptures Pharaoh goes back to the time of Moses, not forward to the time of Esther and Mordecai.

These are fundamental inconsistencies out of harmony not only with the Jewish and Christian Scriptures but out of harmony with established, recognized history, supported by the archaeological record, things that Muslims today do not believe themselves. Yet the Quran teaches them. Who dares to raise these questions? Is it me, a Christian? No, I'm simply looking at what the Orientalists say, your own scholars. How can an educated person, how can a dentist, how can a civil engineer, how can a physician, how can a barrister, how can a chartered accountant, how could a computer engineer, how can a mathematician, how can an educated, thinking person who went to a university like Princeton or Cambridge or the Sorbonne believe the sun sets every night when it gets tired into a muddy pit?

I don't believe all Muslims are ignorant fundamentalists. I saw a film on television, a documentary, where there were people in Pakistan " rural Pakistan " whose wives were sick and they would not allow their wives to be treated by a physician unless the physician was a female. And in some cases the women would die for wont of medical care because they would not allow a male physician to treat or examine their wives. Now of course, in the West, educated Muslims would balk at such things as primitive. I'm not speaking about primitive Muslims on the frontier on the Punjab, I"m speaking about Muslims who live in Birmingham, or who live in Nottingham, or who live in Manchester, or London, or Los Angeles who went to a prominent university who are engaged in a prestigious profession. How can you reasonably believe that Mary the mother of Jesus and Miryam the sister of Moses are the same woman when they are over 1,000 years apart? The Orientalists don"t believe it.

It"s no wonder their publications are banned throughout the Islamic world. You"re not allowed to ask those questions in the Islamic world. If you want to ask academic questions about Islam, you have to come to the free world. I have heard Muslims like Achmed Didot try to pull apart the Jewish Christian Bible based on higher critical arguments used by liberal Christian scholars. I was supposed to debate Mr. Didot in Johannesburg in the town hall, but he had a stroke and I went to his house and I shared my faith with him unsuccessfully. He tried to share his faith with me, also unsuccessfully, but I've heard his arguments. He draws on Christian liberal higher critics. All I am saying is apply the same standard. Take academic approaches to literary criticism to form criticism, the source criticism, to historical analysis and apply those same tools that Didot applies to the Bible, to the Quran and you will find something that any thinking Muslim would say lacks credibility. You are an educated Muslim. How can you believe this?

The first question I have is this: In my youth I studied biomedical science and something has developed now that was in its sub-infancy when I was a student. It is mitochondrial DNA which no one was sure even existed until fairly recently. It is not in the nucleus. When I was in university we were told there was RNA, but not deoxyribonucleic acid in the cytoplasm, it was all in the nucleus; only RNA was known to be in the cytoplasm. People began to speculate that you could have in the mitochondria of cells, mitochondria like the power houses of the cells where the work is actually done, the biochemical level, it"s where metabolism takes place for the most part, we have a form of DNA that is non-mutative because it does not go through the nucleus. And it will go from generation to generation to generation as long as you get a good strand.

The Book of Mormon has the fundamental teaching of two ancient Jewish tribes arriving, one about 600 B.C., in North America or Central America. They had a war – Nephi and the tribe that became known as the Lamanites – and the Lamanites won. The sinful tribe had won. And God punished them for their sin by darkening their complexion, making it reddish – red Indians. Yet they defeated the tribe who"d been faithful, for some reason, so the book of Mormon tells us. This is fundamental to their beliefs. When Jesus said, “I have other sheep not of this fold", (Jn. 10:16) He came to North American Indians.

Anthropologists, however, have long speculated that North American Indians were people who crossed the Bering Straits from Siberia. They were Asians who came from Siberia down via Alaska, Canada, and into North America, and from there to Central and South America. Some people like Thor Heyerdahl tried to prove they could have crossed the Atlantic, but essentially the anthropologists disagreed.

One of the benefits of mitochondrial DNA is its capacity to conclusively prove ancestry. There were a number of Mormon scientists, specifically microbiologists and biochemists, who were well-versed in biogenetic engineering who are interviewed on a video I watched about DNA and the Book of Mormon. Some of them had been apologists or advisors to the Mormon apologetics society called “FARMS" at Brigham Young University, but these were Ph.D. scientists, all Mormon. And they were interviewed and they looked at the evidence independently. These Mormon scientists said the following: “Mitochondrial DNA absolutely and conclusively proves from all the specimens taken all over Canada, North America, United States, Central and South America from dozens of Indian tribes that these people have the same mitochondrial DNA as people from Siberia."

There is nothing in common with Semitic DNA. We can look at Jewish DNA, we can look at Sephardic-Jewish DNA, Yemanite-Jewish DNA, we can even look at Arab DNA, Persian DNA, other Semitic DNA, but the mitochondrial structures are different. The nucleotides just don"t add up, The sequence is completely – completely – of another strain of people. Racially and ethnically it cannot be the case. And these Mormon scientists said on the basis of the mitochondrial DNA evidence that they can no longer accept the Book of Mormon as factually true in its historicity. Some of them work with mitochondrial DNA in their own secular work all the time. A few of them have been honest enough to say there have always been questions about the personal honesty of Joseph Smith, who of course was accused of being a swindler and was killed in the aftermath of an alleged swindle in America back in the 19th Century.

My question to you, my friend – and I'm speaking to you as a friend, not as an enemy – if Mormon scientists, if Latter-day Saints scientists – some of them from Brigham Young University – people who are involved actively in microbiology about biogenetic engineering have considered the mitochondrial DNA evidence and have arrived at the same conclusion as non-Mormon microbiologists, that the anthropologists are proven right and vindicated, that North American Indians cannot be from an ancient Semitic people who were Jewish who were called “Lamanites", but in fact are descended from the same people who presently inhabit Siberia, how can you expect me to believe the Book of Mormon when your own scientists say its credibility has been made into Swiss cheese?

I'm just asking a question. I invite you to watch the video. If you"re in Utah, go to Salt Lake City to the Lighthouse. You"ll find it in the yellow pages or on the Internet. They"ll give you a copy of the video. If you really want to see a copy, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakb14843bfb130338a46b2809b2cacb8aa').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyb14843bfb130338a46b2809b2cacb8aa = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyb14843bfb130338a46b2809b2cacb8aa = addyb14843bfb130338a46b2809b2cacb8aa + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textb14843bfb130338a46b2809b2cacb8aa = 'e-mail us';document.getElementById('cloakb14843bfb130338a46b2809b2cacb8aa').innerHTML += ''+addy_textb14843bfb130338a46b2809b2cacb8aa+''; . If you"re a Mormon, e-mail us; we"ll make sure someone meets with you and shows you a copy.

That's my question. The belief that the Lamanites were ancient Jews and there were people arriving about 600 B.C., how can you possibly say that is correct when the mitochondrial DNA says otherwise and your own scientists – Ph.D. scientists – so acknowledge it? It"s a fair question, the believability, the plausibility of the fundamental premise of the Book of Mormon.

You claim to be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Let"s see what the last thing Jesus Christ said in the New Testament because as Mormons, of course, you believe in the King James Bible. The last thing Jesus said in the book of Revelation 22 is that anyone who adds to this book, God will add to them the plagues that are in the book. (Rev. 22:18) Now that does not only apply to the book of Revelation, Moses was told the same thing – “Do not add to the words". (Dt. 4:2) First Corinthians 4:6 says the same thing, “Do not exceed what is written" in the Judeo-Christian Bible. And of course in Matthew 15, Jesus said the same thing, “Do not teach other doctrine other than what"s there, they"re the inventions of men". (Mt. 15:1-14)

The Book of Mormon must add to the New and Old Testaments in order for the Church of Latter-day Saints to exist. And fundamental to it, it claims this story of the Lamanites being ancient Hebrews. But your own scientists say otherwise. Please answer my question: How can you expect me to believe something your own scientists do not?

What we do first is put things in context, which means that we review things just to establish the context for the other subjects which begin with Part Two.

We"re looking, of course at “The Gospel in the Last Days". In a sense what we"re doing now is a sequel – a part two – to something we did a number of years ago. You may remember a number of years ago people were talking about “prepare for blessing", and “revival"s coming", and “prepare for the victory" and all this kind of stuff, and of course it didn't happen. And we had a conference at that time telling people to prepare for persecution and we"ll have to see which has happened: Has persecution come or has revival arrived? Well, revival has certainly not arrived, but as we"ll look at in a minute, persecution has. We"re preparing for persecution. And at that time we pointed out to people the same kinds of challenges that were faced by the Early Church will be faced by the church in the Last Days. The same things happen. I"m not going to go into it in any depth, just very briefly review.

by James Jacob Prasch
The Church lost sight of their Jewish roots. Then what happened? Paganism invaded Christendom €“ the emergence of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, perverting the original Christianity of the New Testament, which was a Jewish Hebraic faith. They went back to their old gods once they lost sight of their Jewish roots!

But I have a second question. I"ve read a number of Mormon books: The Pearl of Great Price, The Book of Moses, and The Book of Abraham, which the Mormons claim to be divine revelation. However, Egyptologists – people who can read hieroglyphics in Britain and America and as well as in France have looked at this book which Joseph Smith claimed he was given wisdom how to translate. So we have Joseph Smith's translation of it, but we also have the original of it which he acquired somehow. (There are different stories as to how.) Every Egyptologist who has read it says it is an ancient funeral rite and has nothing whatsoever vaguely resembling Joseph Smith's translation of it.

I can read Greek well enough to tell which translations of the New Testament are accurate and which ones are not so accurate. I can read Hebrew well enough to tell which translations of the Old Testament are accurate and which ones are inaccurate. I can read Spanish well enough to tell which translation of the El Cid or Don Quixote are accurate and which one isn"t. I can read French well enough to tell which translations or Voltaire"s Candide are good and which ones aren't. I"m not a linguist, I"m not a language expert, but I can speak a few languages and read a few languages, and I can tell what's accurate; at least basically accurate, and what isn"t. Some languages I do better than others, but these are Egyptologists. These are people who don't make mistakes. The most they would have are discrepancies in professional opinion, but they would still agree on one thing: Joseph Smith"s mistranslation is completely bogus; it's about a funeral rite. How can you believe it? But more to the point, how can you expect others to believe it?

Whenever I have shown this to Mormons they could not really respond except with their testimony because Mormons have said their testimony is supposed to be irrefutable, words to the effect that quote/unquote, “You have a burning in your bosom and you testified to me that the Church of Latter-day Saints is true". Does the burning in your bosom testify to you that a funeral rite is what Joseph Smith mistranslated it as? Does the burning in your bosom really testify to you that the microbiologists are wrong including your own? It's a fair question.

You know, you can find Islamic terrorists who will commit suicide in what they call a “Jihad". We can argue with them saying it's not rational. They can give you a subjective argument, “I believe it is". I once saw a Buddhist monk on television in Saigon pour kerosene on his head and light a match. He was about the most sincere man I ever saw in my life. You can be sincere and be sincerely wrong. Other religions would say the same thing, they have a burning in their bosom and they testify to you that the Tibetan Book of the Dead is true, or the Bhagavad-Gita is true, or the Quran is true, but does that make it true because someone claims to have a burning in their bosom, or indeed may have a burning in their bosom? I don't believe someone would immolate themselves if they did not have a burning in their bosom.

When I was in Manti, Utah I saw people from the Church of Latter-day Saints all wearing T-shirts and sweatshirts. Printed on these shirts was the following statement: “Brigham Young said it, I believe it, that settles it," So because he said it, you believe it, and that settles it. So I decided to see what it was he said that they believe and the matter is settled.

I was reading through The Journal of Discourses of Brigham Young. One of the most interesting things I found were in volume 17 of The Journal of Discourses of Brigham Young, where Joseph Smith is cited as having said there were Quakers who lived on the moon. They dressed like Quakers and lived to be 1,000 years old. Brigham Young not only affirmed this, but said that there are such people also residing on the Sun. You people are not stupid or uneducated, deal with the issue. Brigham Young said it? You believe it? That settles it? Do you really believe there"s Quakers living on the moon? Do you really believe there are people just like Quakers who live to be 1,000 years old who reside on the Sun? He said it, do you believe it? Does that really settle it? That"s my question, do you really believe that and do you really expect me to believe that?

Personally I find it very, very difficult to believe that there are people living on the Sun dressed like Quakers living to be 1,000 years old. Please tell me why I should believe it. Many of you people are educated, you"ve been to Brigham Young University, some of you have postgraduate educations, you seem clean-cut, nice, honest people – if you are, that is my question. How can you believe it and how can you expect me to believe it? I'm not mocking you, I'm not mocking your religion, I simply am wanting to know about its credibility, its believability.

Now don't get me wrong. If there"s really Quakers on the moon I will want to believe it, but I don't think there is. Your religion says because Brigham Young said there is there must be and that settles it. Well it settles it for you, but if it settles it for you can you show me why it should be settled for me? Do you really believe it and do you really think it is plausible for other people to believe it? It"s an honest question in The Journal of Discourses.

Representative Contact Info Australia Margaret Godwin, Administrator
Tel: 61 (03) 5633 2300
Fax: 61 (03) 5633 1578
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak828673a2f74c516a34d9aa292d382068').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy828673a2f74c516a34d9aa292d382068 = 'moriel' + '@'; addy828673a2f74c516a34d9aa292d382068 = addy828673a2f74c516a34d9aa292d382068 + 'vic' + '.' + 'australis' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au'; var addy_text828673a2f74c516a34d9aa292d382068 = 'moriel' + '@' + 'vic' + '.' + 'australis' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au';document.getElementById('cloak828673a2f74c516a34d9aa292d382068').innerHTML += ''+addy_text828673a2f74c516a34d9aa292d382068+''; Moriel Australia
P O Box 112
Trafalgar, Vic 3824
Australia Denmark Ole Michaelsen
Tel: 50732233
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloake5c0d5f451d078a05a94049dfbb40ce1').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addye5c0d5f451d078a05a94049dfbb40ce1 = 'olvomi' + '@'; addye5c0d5f451d078a05a94049dfbb40ce1 = addye5c0d5f451d078a05a94049dfbb40ce1 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_texte5c0d5f451d078a05a94049dfbb40ce1 = 'olvomi' + '@' + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloake5c0d5f451d078a05a94049dfbb40ce1').innerHTML += ''+addy_texte5c0d5f451d078a05a94049dfbb40ce1+''; Moriel Denmark  
Kastanien 12 st.  Tv.
7120 Vejle ODenmark Israel Elon Moreh, Representative
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak2712e8489c3aaa077da0e6d3694a3097').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy2712e8489c3aaa077da0e6d3694a3097 = 'moriel.israel' + '@'; addy2712e8489c3aaa077da0e6d3694a3097 = addy2712e8489c3aaa077da0e6d3694a3097 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text2712e8489c3aaa077da0e6d3694a3097 = 'moriel.israel' + '@' + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloak2712e8489c3aaa077da0e6d3694a3097').innerHTML += ''+addy_text2712e8489c3aaa077da0e6d3694a3097+''; Moriel israel
PO Box 249
Nahariya, Israel 22102 Japan This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak08da98a6f1e8f78e3697d9ae84cae8d0').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy08da98a6f1e8f78e3697d9ae84cae8d0 = 'morieljapan' + '@'; addy08da98a6f1e8f78e3697d9ae84cae8d0 = addy08da98a6f1e8f78e3697d9ae84cae8d0 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'co' + '.' + 'jp'; var addy_text08da98a6f1e8f78e3697d9ae84cae8d0 = 'MorielJapan' + '@' + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'co' + '.' + 'jp';document.getElementById('cloak08da98a6f1e8f78e3697d9ae84cae8d0').innerHTML += ''+addy_text08da98a6f1e8f78e3697d9ae84cae8d0+''; New Zealand Margaret Godwin, Representative
Tel: 61 (03) 5633 2300
Fax: 61 (03) 5633 1578
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak74244f78e416fec277c92b18d481b1c5').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy74244f78e416fec277c92b18d481b1c5 = 'moriel' + '@'; addy74244f78e416fec277c92b18d481b1c5 = addy74244f78e416fec277c92b18d481b1c5 + 'vic' + '.' + 'australis' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au'; var addy_text74244f78e416fec277c92b18d481b1c5 = 'moriel' + '@' + 'vic' + '.' + 'australis' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au';document.getElementById('cloak74244f78e416fec277c92b18d481b1c5').innerHTML += ''+addy_text74244f78e416fec277c92b18d481b1c5+''; Moriel Australia
p O Box 112
Trafalgar, Vic 3824
Australia Northern Ireland Skip Gillespie, Representative Moriel Northern Ireland
18 Victoria Drive
Belfast, Bt4 1QT
Northern Ireland Republic of Ireland Martin Kelly, Representative Moriel Eire
P O Box 33
Donegaltown Donegal
Eire Singapore Margaret Godwin, Representative
Tel: 61 (03) 5633 2300
Fax: 61 (03) 5633 1578
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak550efe0d32675183f3f7353b1de57e45').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy550efe0d32675183f3f7353b1de57e45 = 'moriel' + '@'; addy550efe0d32675183f3f7353b1de57e45 = addy550efe0d32675183f3f7353b1de57e45 + 'vic' + '.' + 'australia' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au'; var addy_text550efe0d32675183f3f7353b1de57e45 = 'moriel' + '@' + 'vic' + '.' + 'australia' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au';document.getElementById('cloak550efe0d32675183f3f7353b1de57e45').innerHTML += ''+addy_text550efe0d32675183f3f7353b1de57e45+''; Moriel Australia
p O Box 112
Trafalgar, Vic 3824
Australia South Africa David Nathan
Mobile +27 84 470 6995
Landline: + 27 11 849 4963 Moriel Ministries South Africa
PO Box 1075
The Falls
Benoni
1522
South Africa United Kingdom Alison Dodd,  Administrator
Tel:  +44 (0) 0844 351 0547
Fax:  +44 (0) 1628 532 006
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakfe1898b36039c80f4a5ab8070ee893ed').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyfe1898b36039c80f4a5ab8070ee893ed = 'allison' + '@'; addyfe1898b36039c80f4a5ab8070ee893ed = addyfe1898b36039c80f4a5ab8070ee893ed + 'moriel' + '.' + 'org' + '.' + 'uk'; var addy_textfe1898b36039c80f4a5ab8070ee893ed = 'allison' + '@' + 'moriel' + '.' + 'org' + '.' + 'uk';document.getElementById('cloakfe1898b36039c80f4a5ab8070ee893ed').innerHTML += ''+addy_textfe1898b36039c80f4a5ab8070ee893ed+''; Moriel United Kingdom
P. O. Box 201
Maidenhead,  Berks  SL6 9FB
UK David Lister, Administrator
Tel: (412) 321-6154
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakc8a89766a2247291a6aec55f59a9e65f').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyc8a89766a2247291a6aec55f59a9e65f = 'morieldavid' + '@'; addyc8a89766a2247291a6aec55f59a9e65f = addyc8a89766a2247291a6aec55f59a9e65f + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textc8a89766a2247291a6aec55f59a9e65f = 'morieldavid' + '@' + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloakc8a89766a2247291a6aec55f59a9e65f').innerHTML += ''+addy_textc8a89766a2247291a6aec55f59a9e65f+''; Moriel USA
P O Box 100223
Pittsburgh, PA 15233
USA Unless otherwise noted, all materials are copyright © 2014 or earlier by Moriel Ministries. All graphics and other content contained on this site may not be copied without prior permission. Commerical use strictly prohibited. Questions, comments or bad links should be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak0df7d6310c29370a8929a7fd5998dd77').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy0df7d6310c29370a8929a7fd5998dd77 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy0df7d6310c29370a8929a7fd5998dd77 = addy0df7d6310c29370a8929a7fd5998dd77 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text0df7d6310c29370a8929a7fd5998dd77 = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloak0df7d6310c29370a8929a7fd5998dd77').innerHTML += ''+addy_text0df7d6310c29370a8929a7fd5998dd77+'';

But I have yet another question for my Mormon friends. The question is on Brigham Young's doctrine of atonement. Brigham Young's doctrine of atonement said that the doctrine of atonement cannot be changed. Now don't get me wrong. I agree with mainstream Mormons that the fundamentalist Mormons, the Temple Lot Mormons and the other ones, are bizarre in what they believe and say and do. However, in reading the original writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, they do seem to be the true Mormons " the bigamists and the polygamists. They are actually doing what Brigham Young did. Brigham Young had 23 wives thereabout?

When I met these fundamental Mormons in Manti, Utah, one had 8 wives. He walked up the street with them " completely illegal in that state " and I wondered what kind of a woman would share her husband with 7 other women. I discovered what kind would: An underage women from a fundamentalist Mormon family herself. They were engaging in acts that were legally considered pedophilia by the mainstream Mormons. When they were challenged " not by me but by other Mormons, the other Mormons challenged them " they said, "What are we doing that Brigham Young didn't do?" That was a fair question. But my concern was not their bigamy or their polygamy " some even had polyany, multiple husbands " my concern was the doctrine of atonement.

Bigamy and polygamy were outlawed after the leadership of the Church of Latter-day Saints said they had a new revelation and they shouldn't do it anymore at a time when the institution of bigamy and polygamy was preventing Utah from becoming a state in the United States. It"d only been a territory after it tried to become an independent republic and the military came and there was a war " a shoot-out. So all of the sudden now it became monogamous. In the 1960"s when the civil rights movement came along, all of a sudden black people could now be Mormon priests. Previously they couldn't. It seems they have a revelation at convenient times in history when the social pressures, or political ones " legal ones, demand it. But the doctrine of atonement was one that your Brigham Young said could not be changed.

Do you really believe as Mormonism teaches, that black people are the descendents of fallen angels cast out of heaven? And do you believe what Brigham Young said in the doctrine of atonement, that black people are ugly, mischievous, depraved, of low intelligence (and a number of other things too rude to mention), and that any Mormon who marries one must be killed, and this doctrine of atonement cannot be changed? Black people are ugly, mischievous, depraved, etc. and by "black" not only people of African descent, anybody that"s dark-skinned, and any Mormon who marries one must be killed. That is the Mormon doctrine of atonement. Brigham Young said it, you believe it, that settles it?

Do you really believe he was right? Do you believe black people are the descendants of angels cast out of heaven because they wouldn't choose between Christ and Satan? Do you really believe that there"s something wrong with them inherently, that they"re ugly, mischievous, depraved, and that if a Mormon marries one they should be killed? Brigham Young said this doctrine can never be changed. Well if he said it, that should settle it, you should believe it. Do you really believe it? Is that settled in your mind? And do you really think I should believe it? Do you really believe the doctrine of atonement and do you really think that I should believe it? That is my question. I think it's a fair one and a necessary one.

So far I"m asking you when mitochondrial DNA says "no Lamanites", Middle Eastern Semitic or Jewish origin, rather the anthropological origins are from Siberia of North American and Central and South American Indians, and your own scientists admit it, if they don't believe then why should I and why should you? That's my first question.

My second question is reading things in The Journal of Discourses that I"ve only given you one example of something that seemed strange, do you really believe there"s Quakers on the moon and on the Sun, and do you really expect me to believe it? Do you really, really expect me to believe a funeral rite mistranslated into something else by Joseph Smith, that has no relation to what it actually says in the Bible. The Bible is specific about nations, kingdoms and when the archeologists have dug " and I"ve lived in Israel for a number of years " they have found these cities, many of them. They"ve found Meggido, they"ve found Timnah, they found Tel-Hazor where the Bible says they were, and they find coins. Where is one single coin from any of these ancient civilizations given the fact that the coins of these ancient American civilizations are named in the Book of Mormon; where are they? The pre-Columbian history department of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC, the national museum of the United States, says there is no, absolutely no, archaeological evidence for the claim of the Book of Mormon. But I"m expected to believe it. Please tell me why. The archeological record supports the Bible.

Now I know the Book of Mormon is written in the language of the King James Bible, only the King James Bible is a translation of Greek and Hebrew. In fact, it"s a translation of a translation. What language is the King James? It"s 17th Century English. It"s not the original. TheBook of Mormon is made to look like the King James and that kind of language. but where is the evidence?

How can Hinduism and the Bible agree, when God says do not make any carved images of anything? €œDo not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.

Exodus 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. Leviticus 19:4 "'Do not turn to idols or make gods of cast metal for yourselves. I am the LORD your God. Deuteronomy 4:16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, Deuteronomy 16:22 and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the LORD your God hates.  

Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol--a thing detestable to the LORD, the work of the craftsman's hands--and sets it up in secret."  John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."Issue of Re-IncarnationThe next distinction between Christianity and Hinduism are the beliefs of what happens once we die. While Christians believe in salvation of he soul and Hindu"s in "freedom" of the soul, the Hindu believes this is achieved through rebirth (re-incarnation). While most of us here in the west would say, €œyou only live once," such a saying would be viewed as odd for a Hindu. If you mess up in this life, the Hindus believe you get another chance. You might be reborn to a lower form of life (a lower caste even), but at least your punishment is not eternal. Christianity is quite different. Only those who are "born again" will inherit eternal life through Jesus Christ. Those who are outside of God's protection in Christ will be subject to an eternal destruction in a lake of fire. This may explain why the Hindu God(s) are more tolerant than the Christian God. If there is reincarnation and if there is no hell, Hindus can afford to be patient and to learn the long, hard way: by experience rather than by faith and revelation.  Issue of ScriptureIn Christianity, the Word of God comes from only one source - the Holy Bible. The Word of God has a strict code of morals and basic life for humans to follow, just as the Hindu Gods in the Hindu scriptures do. However, the Hindus rely on many written sources for their faith: the Vedas, the Puranas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavad-Gita, and the Manu Smirti.  

Let us begin, please, with my first question. In the first epistle of St. John 1 :7 we read that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin. The blood of Christ "cleanses" " Greek "katharizo" " takes away all our sins. All sin. We are told in the New Testament we are saved by grace through faith. (Rom. 5:2; Eph. 2:8) The Greek word for "repentance" is "metanoeo" which came in the Middle Ages to be understood as "to do penance", but the Greek word means "to repent". The blood of Christ cleanses from all sin when we repent and accept Him. That is what the New Testament teaches. My first question to my Catholic friends is this: If the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, can you explain why the Roman Catholic catechism imparted by the Roman Church " nihilo obstat from the Vatican " why it says you can atonement in purgatory for you own? Indeed, you must. And why the temporal consequence of sin can in part be negated by indulgences?

That, we all know " the indulgences" were the way the construction of St. Peter"s, the Vatican, was financed. The Dominicans said when a coin into the box rings, a soul in purgatory springs. You can have sex with Mary, the mother of Christ and be forgiven if you have the right price. That's what they said. Catholic scholars have admitted this. (The Dominicans, of course, the perpetrators of the Inquisition.) Again, I"m not attacking, I"m only stating facts that Catholic historians admit.

If the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, why is it that you have to atonement in purgatory for your own? The New Testament says perfect love casts out all fear. (1 Jn. 4:18) All fear. Why should someone die in fear of going to purgatory? In fact the Roman Catholic Church says in the catechism that if you say you're going to heaven and you know you're going you"ve committed the sin of presumption. Now the New Testament says we can have a confidence we"re going to heaven (1 Jn. 4:17) if His blood has cleansed you from all sin, if you"ve truly repented and accepted Him. Please tell me, my dear friend, and again I'm only asking the question of you I once asked of myself, if His blood cleanses from all sin, why do you have to atone for your own in purgatory? And why can you go out and do something or buy something or get something that will give you an indulgence to reduce your sentence? Where is any such thing found or taught in the New Testament? Where did Jesus or the apostles teach it?

In the Middle Ages the Roman Catholic Church added the Apocrypha, the intratestamental literature to the canon of Scripture because there is one verse in the book of Macabees that says it's good to pray for the dead, which they took to mean getting people out of purgatory. However, the Early Church never held the Apocrypha to be part of the canon of Scripture " even the Roman Church didn't. Secondly, it was a Jewish book written in the Greek language to Jewish people. We"re told the Old Testament saints were in the bosom of Abraham waiting for the Messiah to come. In the context in which it was written that plainly meant praying that the Messiah would come so the Old Testament saints could go to heaven. It doesn"t mention purgatory. The term "purgatory" is found no place, even in the Apocrypha or in the church fathers as such. Not the Early Church fathers and not in the New Testament at all.

His blood cleanses from all sin. Boldly we can approach the eternal throne the Scripture says. (Heb. 4:16) If we can boldly come before the throne of grace, how is that the sin of presumption? Is the New Testament wrong? If His blood cleanses from all sin, why should I believe in a religion, as I once did, that says I have to atone for my own?

St. Paul points out in his epistle to the Galatians if an angel of God comes with another gospel, don't believe it. (Gal. 1:8) If even an angel like Gabriel or Michael, an archangel, came and appeared to you and told you there was another gospel, another way of salvation, another good news of salvation by some other means other than Jesus paying the price for your sin on the cross, don't believe it. His blood cleanses from all sin. But I'm expected to believe it if I were Roman Catholic.

That is my question. If His blood cleanses from all sin, why should I be part of a religion that says I have to atone for my own in purgatory, when according to the New Testament there"s no such place. It"s never mentioned or named.

My third question concerns prophecy. I"d like to read something from the book of Deuteronomy 18:20 €¦

"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die." You may say in your heart, "How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?" When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

(Actually, "you shall not pay attention to him".) People who claim to speak for Jehovah and predict things in His name that don"t happen are false prophets.

I have a number of issues, back issues, going back to the 1950"s from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Brooklyn, New York not 5 miles from where I was born, their headquarters Bethel. Published right there, I"ve passed that building many times with the big clock on it on the other side of the Manhattan Bridge. And I read in these back issues of Awake magazine and Watchtowers and it said all kinds of things: "The politicians who said World War I would bring in worldwide peace " it would be the war to end all wars " were false prophets, they shall die." Now of course those politicians didn't claim to be speaking for Jehovah directly, but The Watchtower says that they are still false prophets because they predicted things that didn't happen. If politicians who predict things that didn't happen are false prophets even though they didn't represent themselves as speaking for Jehovah,  how much more is somebody who claims to be speaking for Him a false prophet.

And so the Awake magazines and the Watchtower magazines that I"ll happily send you a photocopy of it you write us or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakac7f7fd6368f19f4f6d045df53a14fb5').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyac7f7fd6368f19f4f6d045df53a14fb5 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyac7f7fd6368f19f4f6d045df53a14fb5 = addyac7f7fd6368f19f4f6d045df53a14fb5 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textac7f7fd6368f19f4f6d045df53a14fb5 = 'contact us';document.getElementById('cloakac7f7fd6368f19f4f6d045df53a14fb5').innerHTML += ''+addy_textac7f7fd6368f19f4f6d045df53a14fb5+''; , says that various people in other religions, many of them calling themselves Christian, have done the same thing, predicted things that didn't happen and those who follow them are following false prophets and are in rebellion against Jehovah. So The Watchtower Society says if somebody predicts something that doesn"t happen, get away from them or you"re in rebellion against Jehovah; especially if they claim to be Christian or speaking in His name. And they have a whole list of incidents where it"s happened.

I agree with them. They are absolutely right. People who predict things in the name of Jehovah that don"t happen are false prophets. Jehovah commands and demands that we get away from and don't come anywhere near them and if we don't get away from such people we are in rebellion against Jehovah. That is what The Watchtower Society teaches, that is what the book of Deuteronomy 18 commands, and they are right.

This is my question: I have a copy right in my hand at the moment of something called The Millennial Dawn published by the Watchtowerpublishing company originally in 1889 but re-published since. It"s Volume 2, The Time Is At Hand. It goes back to Charles Taze Russell. It says the following " I"m reading from page 101 in the chapter called Times of the Gentiles.

"Be not surprised then when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the kingdom of God has already begun. And that is pointed out in the prophecy as due to begin, the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the battle of the great day of God Almighty, Revelation 16:14, which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of the present rulership, is already commenced."

On the previous page 100 €¦

"So in this day of Jehovah, the day of trouble, our Lord takes His great power hitherto dormant and reigns, and this is that will cause trouble throughout the world and will not so recognize it for the time being. But by the end of 1914 they will recognize it. The present government of the world is going to be overthrown completely, and the kingdom established, the battle of the great day of the Lord. It will end in 1914, the battle of Armageddon."

Today Jehovah's Witnesses will tell you, "Oh, well Christ turned His attention to the world in 1914". But in 1889 they said He turned His attention to the world in 1878. I have it in your own literature. What you are now saying happened in 1914, your founder Mr. Russell said happened in 1878 " that"s when God turned His attention. And he prophesied, speaking in the name of Jehovah, claiming to be Jehovah"s spokesman, claiming that organization " your organization " is Jehovah"s organization, and said directly that the battle of Armageddon would end by the end of 1914 and the kingdom of this world would be overthrown and the millennium would have come.

Well, World War I was ugly and brutal, but it was not the battle of Armageddon. It didn't even take place in the Middle East and World War II was much worse. And some of that did take place in the Middle East. My question is if Jehovah forbids us to follow people who predict things in His name that don"t happen, if The Watchtower forbids us based on the command of Jehovah to follow people who predict things in His name that don't happen, if Awake magazine forbids us to follow people who predict things in the name of Jehovah that don"t happen, why are you doing it? It"s a fair question. If Jehovah says don"t do it, if your own organization says don't do it, if you"ve printed multiple issues of Watchtower and Awake magazine that I have that say don"t do it, why are you doing it?

I can prove Charles Taze Russell, Judge Rutherford, Nathan Knorr, one of your leaders after another did the very thing others are condemned for, that they have made you trust and believe in things that have not happened, they themselves saying you shouldn't pay attention to people who do such things. Well, they"d have to include themselves. "An unjust balance as an abomination to the Lord" it says in Proverbs. (Pr. 11:1) Please explain to me why you"re not in rebellion against Jehovah by doing something you admit Jehovah says don"t do?

I"ve had some Jehovah's Witnesses try to tell me, "Well, we have more light now". Neither Deuteronomy 18 nor Awake magazine nor The Watchtower made allowances for mistakes. The other false prophets and other religions could say the same thing! "We made a mistake, we have more light now." But if they had the light of Jehovah to begin with they wouldn't have made a mistake.

Please tell me why you want me to rebel against Jehovah by joining your organization and follow people that your organization says should not be followed. That's a fair question. Please answer it, then we"ll talk further about other things.

If you want this copy of what they published " of what you published, I"ll happily send it to you. I"ll show you things that your organization predicted for 1968, for 1974, 1975, for 1937.

There"s a house near the beach in San Diego, CA, a big, beautiful salubrious mansion called "Beth Sarim" in Hebrew " "house of the princes". It was built by Judge Rutherford for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to live in when they would be resurrected. The Jehovah's Witnesses said, "We have to have a house for them to live in",   so they built them one in San Diego under Judge Rutherford. Beautiful house. For many, many years the Jehovah's Witness organization still owned it. It was built in the 1920"s ahead of the 1930"s when He was supposed to come by a specified date. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should have been living in it. But of course, when Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not show up, Judge Rutherford moved into it himself and lived in it the rest of his life.

Something is wrong here, dear friends. That"s the "Beth Sarim"? I thought that was built for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They said they were going to be resurrected, they were going to live in it. When they didn't, Rutherford moved in himself? How can you justify this? Why are you following people who do something your own religion teaches against, your own organization denounces? Please explain it to me. I think it's a fair question.

I really want to know the truth. If your organization is the truth, I want to know it, I want to join it, I want to be committed to it. If it"s really the one with the truth, I want to be committed to it. But explain to me why I should join an organization founded and led by people who predict things that don't happen when Jehovah says to get away from them and when your own organization says don"t follow them. Please answer that question. Why should I join it and follow such people? And while you"re at it, why have you joined it and why are youfollowing them when Jehovah said don"t do it, when they themselves said don"t follow people who do what we do? I"ll prove it to you in your own literature. All you"ve got to do is write me.

Welcome to Moriel Ministries' Online Sermons page. Here you will find a selection of sermons by J. Jacob Prasch and other Bible teachers which can be streamed online to your computer. Most of Jacob's sermons are also available for purchase from any of the Moriel online stores accessible from the menu at the top of the page. You can also go here for a collection of sermons which have been transcribed and available for download or reading online, here for a list of sermons which you can listen to, and here for a list of sermons you can watch online.

Hello, my dear friends. I"m speaking, of course, to our Catholic friends, and I mean friends. I have many Catholic friends and, on my mother"s side of the family, Catholic relatives, including my mother. My mother is of Irish-Catholic background. In her family there are members of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland and in America and in Canada. I've always had a love of the Catholic people, and I spent 11 years of my youth in Catholic schools through my mother's insistence. But like many other young people at that time I began to question the established religious values of the time and began to do my own seeking and my own searching.

Now I should tell you my own family is a mixture of Roman Catholic and Jewish, and partially for that reason I'm able to speak and read the Hebrew language, and I've also learned Greek. I looked at other faiths " Judaism, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism " most of all I studied the Scriptures with an emphasis on studying them in the original languages. I don't say I'm the greatest scholar or theologian in the world, but I do know what I believe and why I believe it.

I have a book here, Rome Has Spoken, written by two academic Roman Catholic nuns Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben " they"re the editors. They are both Ph.D.'s, both Roman Catholic nuns, both quite scholarly women. The book is published by Crossroad Publishing Company and it"s a very, very interesting book, a compilation of Vatican- and papal-issued statements from different times in history.

I"d like to ask you some questions as a Roman Catholic, questions of the sort I once asked myself, questions that other people like me have asked. But before I do that I"d like to read you some quotes from Roman Catholic documents " official Vatican documents " that areimprimatur and nihil obstat, official Roman Catholic documents.

In the year 420, Boniface I, Bishop of Rome: "Instead of what is lawful for what has been decided by the apostolic see to be reconsidered, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, the current pope vigilist was found guilty of heresy and formally excommunicated from the body of the faithful. And at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, Pope Honorius had confirmed the impious opinions of the heretic Sergius and anathematizee the pope from the church." According to Roman Catholic history, Roman Catholic documents, popes have been kicked out of office and excommunicated by councils of the church. It was not the belief, according to the Roman Catholic Church, that the pope at that time was somehow infallible in what he was proclaiming.

Of course now they claim, since 1870, when he speaks ex-cathedra he is, but I've never heard in modern history of a Pope being fired " sacked by the church. But things began to change by the medieval church, and again I'm only reading from Roman Catholic history that the creedom of 1140, where matters of faith are concerned, a General Counsel " a kind of magisterium " is greater than a pope. For though the Roman pope has sometimes erred, this does not mean that the Roman Church has. In other words, popes can say things that are erroneous and the church doesn"t have to support them.

By 1200 A.D. Pope Innocent III: "Every cleric must obey the pope, even if he commands what is evil; for no one may judge the pope." In the year 1200 the papacy decreed you have to obey the pope even if he tells you to do something which is evil and that no one may judge it, although the earlier councils of the church fired popes. A religion that came to teach you have to follow a man even when he's telling you to do something evil.

In the year 1302, Pope Boniface VIII, "Unam Sanctam": "We declare, affirm, and define as a truth necessary for salvation that every human being is subject to the Roman Pontiff." In the year 1302 it was decreed by Pope Boniface VIII that to have salvation " that is escape hell and go to heaven " you have to be subject to the pope.

Let"s move to the modern era.

1854, Pope Pius IX, "Ineffablis Deus": "If anyone shall dare to think otherwise the most Blessed Virgin was from the first moment of her conception preserved immune from all stain of original sin. if anyone dares to think otherwise that has been defined here by us, let him know that he certainly has abandoned the divine and Catholic church." The church is proclaimed as divine and if you don't believe that Mary was sinless you"ve abandoned it. That was in 1854. Why was it not taught earlier? The term "theoticos" ""mother of God" is not in the Bible or in the Greek text anywhere, it"s not in the Vulgate. Pius IX was the same pope who issued a papal encyclical in which democracy was condemned " "Quanta Cura".

In the first Vatican Council in the year 1870, "Pastor Aeternus": "We teach and define that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in the exercise of his offices pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority a doctrine of faith and morals which is to be held by the whole Church. It is by reason of the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished His church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals." Since 1870 there"s been an official doctrine that the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra from the chair of Peter cannot make a mistake; a human being who cannot make a mistake even though earlier church councils said that popes can make mistakes even in matters of doctrine and some were excommunicated for it.

Quite a book. A book not containing Protestant documents, a book compiled by Roman Catholics containing Roman Catholic documents.

Again, Boniface VIII, "Unum Sanctum", 1302: "We declare, affirm, and define as a truth necessary for salvation that every human being is subject to the Roman Pontiff." If you"re not a Catholic you can"t go to heaven they said.

There was a Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896: "Let such as these take counsel with themselves and realize that they can in no wise be counted among the children of God unless they take Christ Jesus as their brother and at the same time the church, that is the church of Rome, as their mother." Jesus as your brother and the Roman Catholic Church as your mother. And if that is not the case, you"re not a child of God. John 1 says to all who believed Him, who believed in His name, to all who received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God. (Jn. 1:12)

1948. the Holy Office, "Cum Comperum" reminded Catholics of canonical prohibitions against unauthorized prohibition and so-called ecumenical meetings with non-Catholic Christians and in shared worship. They were warned against it in 1948, now all of the sudden it"s to be pursued in order to get people to become Catholic. That tells me something. At one time they were afraid of Catholics being lured away from the church by associating with other Christians; now they think the time is ripe to lure other Christians into the Roman Church.

The Second Vatican Council in 1964, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church: "Those who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and moved by grace tray in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience, these too may attain eternal salvation." Which directly, of course, contradicts the earlier pronouncement Unum Sanctum.

Contradiction upon contradiction; things have devolved and changed. Yet the constitutional motto of the Roman Church is "Semper Idem" " "always the same". Well, it"s not; it"s changed, changed, and changed. What the Roman Catholic Church is today it became at the Council of Trent, basically, in the aftermath of the Reformation. We can document it from their own documents. Some Catholic scholars admit it. Yet in a way it is Semper Idem. Once they make another doctrine they can"t change it. There are two kinds of doctrines in the Roman Church:proxima fide and de fide You can change a proxima fide doctrine like making the mass from Latin into English, but a de fide doctrine " transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgence " they couldn't change that stuff.

And so looking at these contradictions, coming from a Catholic background on my mother"s side of the family, I have to ask some questions of my Catholic friends " sincere questions. Again, I"m not attacking you, it would be attacking my own family, indeed my own mother. I'm not attacking you, I'm simply trying to arrive at the truth. I'm only asking you questions that I once asked myself.

But I have one final question for my Roman Catholic friends. And I assure you I have many friends, I am not speaking antagonistically or with hostility to any Catholic people. I'm only asking you these questions which I"d like you to answer, I invite you to answer. Engage with me, there"s one more I"d like to ask you.

I am told that the doctrine of the mass says Jesus must die and again and again and again sacramentally. The same sacrifice that took place on Calvary happens in the mass: He dies sacramentally. He has to die again, again, and again. Remembering that the Lord"s Supper – communion, the Eucharist as Catholics would define it – comes from the Jewish Passover which is a memorial, you remember something already happened, the Roman Church rather says, “No, it continues to happen sacramentally."

I'm reading from the epistle to the Hebrews 7:27, Christ…

who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Why is there daily mass when it says we don't need a daily Mass? The Old Testament sacrifices that took place daily with the priests in the temple were symbols of what the Messiah would do. Given the fact that He came and did it, we don't need it anymore according to the epistle to the Hebrews.

The epistle to the Hebrews 9:12…

and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He…
…that is, Christ…
…entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

If it"s “eternal" it means it"s forever and ever without end, without beginning as such – it"s eternal. He did it once and for all for all eternity. Why is there a mass?

Chapter 10 of Hebrews, verse 12…

but He…
…that is, Christ…
… having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,
One sacrifice for sins for all time. Verse 14…
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

If something is perfection, by definition it cannot be improved upon. How can you improve upon perfection?

Given the fact that Rome claims Peter was the first pope, can it be explained why, in his epistle in 1 Peter 3:18, St. Peter says Christ diedonce to bear the sins? Once – perfection – for all eternity! We don"t need a priest to do it again and again like in the Old Testament, the Priest has come. It"s a good question.

A famous priest who was a Catholic theologian, the author of eight books, on a video admitted he didn't have the answer. Understand something: What astounded me coming from a Catholic background on my mother"s side was that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for teaching as precepts of God the inventions of men. (Mt. 15:9; Mk. 7:7)

The last thing Jesus said in the Apocalypse is don"t add to the Bible. (Rev. 22:18-19) In his First epistle to the Corinthians 4:6 St. Paul said, “Learn not to exceed what is written". Moses says don"t add to it, (Dt. 4:2) Jesus said if you do you"ll be condemned to hell. Find me indulgences, purgatory, or the mass in the New Testament. Penance? Whose sins you shall forgive? That was talking about leading people to Christ. Show me one place in the book of Acts where the early Christians went to confession to a priest. Or a better question, show me a priest.

There is no such thing as a priest in the New Testament because we are all called priests by Peter. (1 Pe. 2:5; 2:9) St. Peter said we are all priests with Christ as the High Priest. There is no “priest", the word is “presbyter" where you get the word “Presbyterian". It meant the elders of a congregation. There was no priesthood other than the priesthood of all Christians. Jesus said call no man your father as a religious title. In Matthew 23, St. Matthew quotes Jesus As saying, “Call no man your father". (Mt. 23:9) Jesus forbade us to call the pope a “holy father" or to call the priest “our father". He forbade it as a religious title. “Call no man your father". There"s no priest, He said don"t even call somebody that, One is your Father who is in heaven.

With sincerity I've asked these questions. Who do I believe, Mary or the Vatican? Who do I believe, St. Paul or the Vatican? Who do I believe, St. Peter or the Vatican? Who do I believe, St. Matthew or the Vatican? Who do I believe, Jesus Christ or the Vatican? I had to make a decision, so do you. Whom will you believe?

When I accepted Jesus I came to realize two things. I came to realize that the Christianity I was brought up in by my mother was not the one of the New Testament. I also came to realize that the real Jesus was a Jewish Jesus, He was the Jewish Messiah. Having been educated in Catholic school but sent to the Jewish community center, I was astounded at the blindness of the Jew and the blindness of the Catholic. I once was blind, but by the grace of Jesus, now I see.

You repent of your sin, you put your faith in Him and accept that He died for you, ask Him to come into into your life, and follow Him on the basis of His Word, He will do for you what He's done for many Roman Catholics – He will save you. What Mary was promised you can have.

Please contact us. My name is James Jacob Prasch. Please This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakba5f558eb173761a89566bbf7fc30968').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyba5f558eb173761a89566bbf7fc30968 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyba5f558eb173761a89566bbf7fc30968 = addyba5f558eb173761a89566bbf7fc30968 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textba5f558eb173761a89566bbf7fc30968 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloakba5f558eb173761a89566bbf7fc30968').innerHTML += ''+addy_textba5f558eb173761a89566bbf7fc30968+''; , e-mail us, with your questions. We have people who will be more than happy to talk to you. If you"re a priest or a nun we"d be happy to engage with you. Please contact us. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakd2a6aca4feaaec6cdefab4c3b45057f6').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyd2a6aca4feaaec6cdefab4c3b45057f6 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyd2a6aca4feaaec6cdefab4c3b45057f6 = addyd2a6aca4feaaec6cdefab4c3b45057f6 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textd2a6aca4feaaec6cdefab4c3b45057f6 = 'E-mail us';document.getElementById('cloakd2a6aca4feaaec6cdefab4c3b45057f6').innerHTML += ''+addy_textd2a6aca4feaaec6cdefab4c3b45057f6+''; or write us here in Britain:

Moriel P.O. Box 201 Maidenhead SL69FB

God bless you and thank you for listening.

But I have another question: if €œYasha"yah Hanawbe" €“ Isaiah the prophet in chapter 11 said €¦

The nations will resort to the root of Jesse €¦

€¦the €œsores Yisay"..

€¦the peoples €¦

€¦the €œammim".

The rabbis have always said the €œSores Yisay" is the Messiah. Jews and Christians, their scholars have always agreed: €œthe nations", €œthe Gentiles". €œthe peoples" will come to the €œRoot of Jesse".

I look at an anti-Semitic world. I look at a world where becoming a Christian in Saudi Arabia somebody is beheaded or hung. A world where in Sudan nearly 2-1/2 million Christians have already been killed and more facing the prospect of death. Yet Gentiles of so-called Christian nations remain almost silent, no one calling for a boycott on Saudi Arabia oil or an academic boycott on the many nations that persecute Christians:  Islamic countries. But when the one nation in the Middle East that protects the rights of Arab Christians, Israel, the one nation that protects the rights of Arab Christians defends themselves from this same militant Islam that murders Christians, everybody wants to condemn Israel. It's not logical, it"s not rational. Israel is treating most Christians (apart from Jewish ones), apart from Jewish believers in Jesus, they treat most Christians better than Christians treated them, except in the United States and, to a degree, in Britain. Most nations have never given Jews the kind of freedom that Israel gives to Christians. It"s not rational that they hate Israel; it's not rational-behaving people who receive three quarters of the Nobel prizes for the advancement of science, chemistry, physics, and especially biomedical sciences that have saved countless lives. Why would you hate these people? It"s not rational.

All over the world there"s anti-Semitism. Even people saying they"re Christian, there"s anti-Semitism. Although all four Gospels make it clear that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate €“ the Roman government has legal responsibility for His death €“ and although Jesus said, €œI lay My life down, nobody takes it from Me", (Jn. 10:18) and although Christians believe that God said He was going to put the Messiah to death as an atonement for sin, although Jesus never blamed anybody for His death, and although the apostles said it was the Roman government together with the Sanhedrin but it was not the Jewish people, although blaming the death of the Jesus on the Jews is directly contrary to history and to the teaching of the New Testament, they"re still saying the Jews killed Jesus. It"s not rational. No, this anti-Semitism is not rational, but there"s something even more irrational.

€œWe hate you, Jew! You"re a kike! You"re a yid! You"re a sheenie! Get out of here! We hate you! You"re no good! We don"t want you in our land and to go to your own land you have no right there either! You have no right to exist! But we"re going to worship your God." We hate you but we love your Messiah; we"re going to follow your Messiah; Why will Eskimos worship a Jewish God? Why will Pygmies worship a Jewish God? Why will Scandinavians worship a Jewish God? It makes no sense. If you hate these people, why do you worship their God? Because €œthe nations will resort to the root of Jesse".

My question, might dear Jewish friend, is you and I both hate anti-Semitism but you and I are at a loss to explain it or at least intellectually. We can come up with some explanations but the entire history of it coming back to the same thing again and again? It"s not logical. But if you hate somebody, why would you follow one of them? Why would you believe their books and worship their God? There"s only One, One, and One alone who could make people worship the God of a nation and race they otherwise hate.

Now I"m not saying true Christians €“ born-again Christians, real evangelicals €“ I"m not saying that they hate the Jewish people. If you look at the countries with a high evangelical population you'll find even in the Holocaust it was countries like Holland and so forth, in Denmark, that protected the Jews. It was mainly the Catholic and nominal Protestant countries that persecuted them.

The American Jewish Congress, the American College of Rabbis, knows very well the backbone of Jewish support for Israel in America is not the Jewish community, there's only 6 million in North America at most. It is the evangelical Christians who are pro-Zionist. Most of them. Not all Christians are anti-Semitic. You see, the same as there are people who will hate you because you are a Jew, claiming to be Christian, there are other Christians who will love you because you are a Jew. They will say, €œHow can we worship a Jewish God and believe in a Jewish Messiah and read a Jewish book and stake our eternal destiny, our faith on it and hate these people who gave it to us?" They"re not all irrational, but you shouldn"t be irrational either.

Many people calling themselves Christians are behaving irrationally. They"re worshiping a Jewish God and believing in a Jewish Messiah while hating Jews. It"s irrational. But don"t you be an irrational Jew. It"s a rational question that deserves a rational answer. If He is not the Messiah who would make the Gentiles worship your God, who is? Why else do they worship your God if He is not the one who God said would make them do it?

But there"s another question I"d like to ask you. That question is, "If Jesus was the Messiah, why didn't He bring in worldwide peace?" Why was there a Holocaust? Why were there Inquisitions and pogroms? Why is there starvation in Africa? Why is the environment being destroyed? Why has the world become systematically worse with everybody in it and so commonly the Jews getting the worst of the worst? How could He be the Messiah? Why didn't He bring in worldwide peace? Where is the Messianic redemption? It"s ridiculous to believe He"s the Messiah, the world wouldn"t be the way it is. Things have only gotten worse for us. How can you believe in Him? That"s the question.

Let"s turn " not to any Christian source, not to any Gentile source, not to any human source " let"s turn to the word of God, the Hebrew prophet Daniel 9, "Daniye"l Hanawbe". In Daniel 9 we read verses 26 and 27…

Hamashiach hitzarek lavo v"l"moot lifneh hahorban shel ha beit ha migdash ha shenit.

The Messiah would have to come and be cut off " be killed, before the destruction of the Second Temple. "But that"s your Christian interpretation". No, I"m not looking at Christian interpretations; that"s what the text says, and try reading Sanhedrin 96 to 98b. Why do the rabbis say there"s a curse on reading Daniel 9? For the time of the Messiah"s coming is foretold in it. And as we read, the Sanhedrin wept, "Oy! Oy! The Messiah has come? No, the temple is destroyed and He"s not come! Woe unto us!" God cannot break His word. The ancient sages understood this was about the Messiah. He had to come and die. "Wars and desolations are determined to the end". (Dan. 9:26)

In Judaism the rabbis go to the greatest lengths to try to reconcile two irreconcilable pictures of the Messiah, "HaMashiach ben Yosef" and "HaMashiach ben David", "the Messiah the Son of Joseph" and "the Messiah the Son of David". The "Conquering King" and the "Suffering Servant" we call "ben Ephraim". Some rabbis said one will resurrect the other. It"s two Messiahs. Is it two Messiah"s or one Messiah with two comings? Daniel was right; it was one Messiah with two comings. He was shown the future. This is what Moses spoke of, this is how it will happen: He will come, He will be cut off, He will be killed. "Wars and desolations are determined until the end", then He will come again.

Psalms 119:105 WELCOME TO MORIEL MINISTRIESMoriel is an international multi-faceted ministry of Jewish and non-Jewish regenerate believers one in Jesus the Messiah.

Moriel is committed to the evangelization beginning with The Jews but also of people of other faiths including Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,   and theologically deviant expressions of Christendom including Roman Catholicism (which we view as aberrational much as we deem Talmudic Judaism to be likewise largely unscriptural). To this end Moriel plants churches, and operates missions especially among impoverished children in the Third World. While mainly rejecting the later midrashic writings of the rabbis, Moriel is also a teaching ministry seeking to exegetically interpret scripture with the Judeo-Christian hermeneutic of the apostolic   church including the midrashic exegesis used by Jesus and Paul (midrash is a term found multiple times in the Tenak or Old Testament).

Lastly, Moriel is active in the area of discernment withstanding the popular apostasy in the contemporary church that The Word of God warns would precede the return of Jesus. We remain firmly aligned to the conviction that contemporary events in The Middle East , Europe, and in the church make the present time in history different from other eras when people thought it was the last days. We affirm the belief that Jesus is coming again and prophecy of His return is radically being fulfilled increasingly.