Moriel Ministries - BLOG

Issue of Denial of Sin, Salvation and Hell  Since individuality is illusion for the Hindu, so is free will. If free will is illusion, so is sin. And if sin is illusion, so is hell. Perhaps the strongest attraction of Eastern religions is in their denial of sin, guilt and hell. Thus the two essential points of Christianity — sin and salvation — are both missing in the East. If there is no sin, no salvation is needed, only enlightenment. We need not be born again; rather, we must merely wake up to our "innate divinity". If I am part of God. I can never really be alienated from God by sin.  Issue of MysticismBody, matter, history and time itself are not independently real, according to Hinduism. Mystical experience lifts the spirit out of time and the world. In contrast, Judaism and Christianity are essentially news, events in time: creation, providence, prophets, Messiah, incarnation, death and, resurrection, ascension, second coming. Incarnation and New Birth are eternity dramatically entering time. Eastern religions are not dramatic.  

The ultimate Hindu ideal is not sanctity but mysticism. Sanctity is fundamentally a matter of the will: willing God's will, loving God and neighbor. Mysticism is fundamentally a matter of intellect, intuition, consciousness. This fits the Eastern picture of God as consciousness — not will, not lawgiver.  

When C.S. Lewis was converted from atheism, he shopped around in the world's religious supermarket and narrowed his choice down to Hinduism or Christianity. "Religions are like soups", he said. "Some, like consomme, are thin and clear (Unitarianism, Confucianism, modern Judaism); others, like minestrone, are thick and dark (paganism, "mystery religions"). Only Hinduism and Christianity are both "thin" (philosophical) and "thick" (sacramental and mysterious). But Hinduism is really two religions: "thick" for the masses, "thin" for the sages. Only Christianity is both.  Issue of YogaHinduism claims that all other religions are yogas: ways, deeds, paths. Christianity, the Hindu would say, is a form of bhakti yoga (yoga for emotional types and lovers). There is also jnana yoga (yoga for intellectuals), raja yoga (yoga for experimenters), karma yoga (yoga for workers, practical people) and hatha yoga (the physical preliminary to the other four). For Hindus, religions are human roads up the divine mountain to enlightenment — religion is relative to human need; there is no "one way" or single objective truth.  

There is, however, a universal subjective truth about human nature: It has "four wants": pleasure, power, altruism and enlightenment. Hinduism encourages us to try all four paths, confident that only the fourth (enlightenment) brings fulfillment. This is best achieved through the act of  yoga.  

Hello, friends, my name is Jacob Prasch and I have met a number of Mormons. I have attended the "Miracle of Mormonism" pageant in Manti, Utah where I met mainstream Mormons and I met fundamentalism Mormons " polygamists, bigamists. I've met Mormons in Great Britain, I"ve met Mormons in Italy, I"ve met Mormons in Israel, an extension of Brigham Young University. I have talked to Mormon clergy. And I know how anxious Mormons are to see people convert to Mormonism, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as they call it. They"re anxious in their missionary zeal to establish new "stakes", as you call them, new stakes and to see the beliefs of Mormonism extend and perpetuate.

When anyone comes to me trying to persuade me to believe in a religion, I always examine it carefully and prayerfully, and I look at it and I consider their claims with a fair and open mind. And Mormonism is no different. I considered your religion with a fair and open mind and I have actually investigated it. I have read, I"ve talked to Mormons, I"ve read what the Mormons have told me in light of the Judeo-Christian Bible, and in my interest to pursue the truth and to find out if the Church of Latter-day Saints is true, I"ve made some discoveries from a variety of sources including your own literature " especially your own literature " and as a result of this I have some serious questions.

I hope in listening to this you'll be able to help me answer these questions. Just This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakf40c69d2ad234200c164eecb099e507f').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyf40c69d2ad234200c164eecb099e507f = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyf40c69d2ad234200c164eecb099e507f = addyf40c69d2ad234200c164eecb099e507f + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textf40c69d2ad234200c164eecb099e507f = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloakf40c69d2ad234200c164eecb099e507f').innerHTML += ''+addy_textf40c69d2ad234200c164eecb099e507f+''; at our ministry, my office, and I would love to hear from you. Or you can write me at either the American or British or Australian office, and I"ll be more than happy to get back to you. In fact I"ll be delighted to talk to you. Come on our website, send me an e-mail, answer these questions.

The person who directed you here is also interested in having these questions answered. We felt it"s right to give you as a Mormon the opportunity to answer for yourself.

by James Jacob Prasch

For the days are coming, saith the Lord, when I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah - not like the Covenant that I made with their fathers. (Jeremiah 31:31).

Two thirds of Scripture is comprised of the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament writings called in Judaism by the acronym TENACH, meaning a combination of  Torah  (Pentateuch),  Neviim  (Prophets), and  Ketuvim(literally "Writings", such as Psalms, certain histories, and wisdom literature.)

Born again Christians generally accept that the primary aim of the Old Testament is to point to the coming New Covenant that would be implemented by the promised Messiah.

Romans 11 tells us that the invisible root of the church is Israel, so we can understand that the two thousand years of Old Testament history under the Law was laying the foundation for what would become the church.

Romans and Galatians tell us that the chief (but not only) purpose of the Law was to teach that we cannot be saved by it and so point us to the Messianic redeemer who would fulfil the law on our behalf and make atonement for our inability to uphold God's standards by His own sacrifice on the cross for our sins.

Hebrews tells that the Levitical priesthood and temple system is a typology of Jesus our High Priest. Read in light of the gospels, the Patriarch Isaac and every prophet of Israel from Moses to John the Baptist is a prophetic type of Jesus, with their ministry, words, or life experiences foreshadowing Yeshua in some way.

The entirety of the Old Testament from Genesis 1:1, the non-canonical Jewish apocryphal writings, and a total of three thousand years of history, at least, from Abraham onward (but actually from the creation onward), all point to Jesus and the New Covenant He would give.

A cursory reading of Jeremiah 31:31 and it surrounding context reveals this passage to be the clearest prophetic prediction in the Old Testament that a New Covenant would be given and that it would be unlike the then existing old one.What the Reformers forgot about Hermeneutics Jeremiah 31:31 is the clearest prophecy in the Tenach that God would one day make a New Covenant.

In western Protestantism we have a very western perspective of Christianity and its historical development. Yet when we read the Book of Revelation, we see that Jesus shows us the church and its history not from a western or indeed any earthly perspective, but from an eternal heavenly perspective.

Hence, however important the lessons of church history, we need to observe and contemplate that history in a spiritual context from the viewpoint of scripture and not from a Hellenistic or occidental culture, nor through the prism of a Hellenistic or occidental concept of history and how to interpret it.

Revelation reveals to us the church and its role in a salvation history that theologians call  Heilsgeschichte, as Christ sees it and chooses to reveal it to us.

The first thing that Jeremiah 31:31 tells us is that the New Covenant was made (literally "cut") not with the predominantly western church, but with Israel and the Jews. The Hebrew term here for covenant is  brit, meaning both "covenant" and "testament". Thus, the New Testament is a Jewish covenant document for a new covenant, the same as Torah is a Jewish covenant document for the Old Covenant.

The New Covenant as a covenant was never made with the  per se  church to begin with, and its covenant document was similarly never given to or through the Gentile church, but through the faithful remnant of Israel whom at that time constituted the primitive Jewish church.

The Reformers failed to redress and correct the replacement theology of Roman Catholicism; instead they wrongly replaced Israel with a Protestant church instead of a Roman one.

They also, like Romanism, began to treat a Jewish covenant document as a Greco-Roman one in the manner in which they understood and interpreted it.

While the Book of Revelation, for instance, is in the apocalyptic genre that evolved through combining both Hebraic and Hellenistic literary forms during the intertestamental period, its imagery and typology are strongly Judaic.

The appearance of  Yeshua  as High Priest in Chapter 1, in a Levitical setting, gives us a pictorial revelation of Jesus as High Priest that Hebrews gives us as a doctrinal revelation. Later in Chapter 3 in the message to the Church of Philadelphia we see  Yeshua  in a Davidic role.

Throughout Revelation we see thematic and typological replays of the creation motif from Genesis, and motifs from Exodus, Joshua, Daniel, Ezekiel and other Old Testament Books.

As with John's Gospel, Matthew, James, 2 Peter, and Hebrews - Revelation is a book with a Hebraic literary orientation, although the church is predominantly Gentile.

In other words, God relates His final message to the church through Hebrew eyes.

This relates to Paul's description of our salvation to both Jew and Gentile believer as a recapitulation of the Hebrew Exodus (1 Corinthians 10:1-3), and to Paul's teaching on the final state of church as rediscovering its Jewish root (Romans 11:18 & 25).

The Scriptures also describe Christ's relationship to, and coming for, the church as a Jewish matrimony (Revelation 20, Song of Solomon, Ephesians 5, Matthew 25).

Repeatedly, God in His Word reveals the essential truths of His relationship to the Church within a Judaic frame of reference, and God's revelation of the eschatological destiny and history of the church as seen in Revelation is no exception.

The problem we address here is that, with a few exceptions, the mainstream Christian traditions that sprang from the Reformation depart from scripture and do not do this; they simply ignore the Judaic content and treat it as Hellenistic literature. While we can appreciate some of Luther's reasoning (as Revelation's message was partially for an appointed time), he rejected the book of Revelation as use-less and uncanonical.

The  Swiss Reformers  largely were radical preterist historicists seeing Revelation as having had a total, instead of partial fulfillment in the early church and a continuous meaning throughout church history, simply spiritualizing away the elements which had no parallel or historical fulfillment in the early centuries of Christian history.

It is both ironic and contradictory that since a cornerstone of Reformed theology (due to influences of 16th century humanism) was a stoic hermeneutical approach to biblical interpretation taking a strict grammatical-historical line, Re-formed theology departs from its own principles and automatically 'spiritualizes' anything about Israel as being for the church.

It does so moreover, not seeing the text applying additionally to Israel as well as to the church, or by a qualified application to the church by way of principle or figure, while retaining the original meaning for the Jews in theSitz im Leben  (the cultural and historical setting a text is addressed to and written in) of the text.

It rather does so in the stated replacement of Israel and the Jews by a mainly Gentile church owing little or nothing to its biblically stated Jewish roots - in direct contravention to Romans 9-11. This becomes particularly strange since Luther regarded Romans to be the very heart of scripture and its message, yet his thinking virtually omitted the plain teaching of chapters 9 to 11.

It is also strange that - in their proper reaction against the medievalscholasticism  of the Roman Church with its peculiar form of papalgnosticism  (later defined as "Sensus Plenior"), where typology and allegory were used to illustrate and illuminate doctrine and not base doctrine on it - the medieval church formulated doctrines to please itself by wild allegorization.

Indeed, we see the same practices continuing today not only in Roman Catholicism, but in the  neo-gnosticism  employed by the Vineyard Movement and by such New Age influenced pseudo Christian groups as 'Promise Keepers' who build their case not on exegesis (reading  fromScripture) but eisegetical (reading  into  Scripture) allegorization.

So, reacting against these abuses of typological and allegorical method, many upright conservative evangelicals today will act in the same manner as the Reformers did - they simply throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

Consequently a Jewish Bible is divorced from its own cultural roots and interpreted outside of the framework in which it was given by methods devised in the 16th century by humanists.

These grammatical-historical methods are adequate for reading the epistles as letters.

The epistles provide the apostolic prism through which other scripture is to be read. But the epistles themselves use Midrash, typology and allegory in commenting on other scripture such as narrative, apocalyptic and Hebrew poetry.

Grammatical-historical methods are essential and adequate to comprehend basic biblical truth such as the way of salvation and Christian conduct, but in-adequate to grasp the deeper things contained in the Word of God such as Ezekiel, Revelation, Zechariah, and the invisible thread of eschatological undertone that runs through the gospels when viewed from an ancient oriental Jewish perspective instead of a Hellenistic western perspective.

Understanding the complete meaning in these texts will be increasingly important as we approach the  parousia  with more and more overt signs of the return of Jesus on the horizon.

This has nothing to do with the Alexandrian or even Antiochan schools of the early church, or the writings of  Philo, or the Christianised gnosticism ofOrigen. Nor have Midrashic "Pesher" interpretations anything to do with a papal  Sensus Plenior.

It has to do with interpreting the Word of God within the parameters in which God gave it.

Strict models of adherence to grammatical historical exegesis was designed by the reformers as a safety mechanism to protect us from deception. Too often, the instrument of protection has become an instrument of deception in itself.

We must remember that the reformers were humanists and their exegetical approach is humanistic, meaning it is man centered.

While we do ask God to guide us in the our interpretation of His Word by His Spirit, grammatical-historical exegesis applied in isolation from Second Temple Period Jewish hermeneutics has reduced understanding the Bible to a mere intellectual exercise.

Utterly atheistic liberal scholars, who are secular humanists (unlike the reformers who were Christian humanists) misuse these same grammatical-historical methods to construct Satanically inspired apostasy.

Shall we reject grammatical-historical apostasy because  James Barr  uses it to demonstrate what he sees as the folly of evangelicalism (which he derogatorily labels "fundamentalism")? Of course we should not.

The epistles should be read as letters and no other method would be valid for interpreting the epistles. Even in handling other forms of biblical literature, while we must use Midrash, midrashic method does not invalidate grammatical-historical method; it simply sees it as the first step.

We should not reject the validity of the grammatical-historical method because of its misuse by apostates. By the same token, neither should we reject Jewish hermeneutics.

As with the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Satan only corrupts things worth corrupting. Despite its limitations, we should not reject the grammatical-historical approach of interpreting the Bible handed down to us by the Reformers simply be-cause unbelievers corrupt and misuse such methods to engineer heresy, and neither therefore should we reject Jewish hermeneutics because cults, or Romanism, or liberal higher critics, or latter day gnostics like John Wimber or  Promise Keepers  misuse allegory and typology to engineer error and deception.

While the problem has its origins in the Reformation, we still see it currently with other-wise good evangelical scholars such as  Dr. Walter Kaiser  (who is not even a replacementist), and various Reformed theologians (most of whom are replacementists).

These brethren, to their credit, strive to uphold biblical orthodoxy against heresy and unbelief, but in the process, like the Reformers, treat a Jewish book as a Hellenistic one, losing sight of the root and missing the depth of content which is found when the texts are read through a more Hebraic understanding of the Christian Faith.

Like certain messianic writers in the  Mishkan  theological journal, I have always found the ideas of  Roy Blizzard  and  David Bivin  implausible and the amount of attention their work receives as being out of all proportion to what it warrants. Others in the Jerusalem School, such  Joseph Frankovicwho (while admittedly having a very long way to go in the use of Jewish hermeneutics in the New Testament) is at least asking the right questions.

Other messianic scholars such as  Dwight Pryer  and  Arnold Fruchtenbaum, while not focused on Jewish hermeneutics, are well focused on Jewish  Sitz in Leben  and are finding parallelisms between early rabbinic and early Christian thought, and viewing the New Testament in that light. Hence, we see some  bona fide  progress in rediscovering the Jewish roots, and not just a lot of the nonsense that transpires on the extreme axis of the messianic movement, where an attempted repackaging of Hebrew Christianity in the wrappings of "yitishkeit" (Ashkenazi diasporic Jewish culture) is attempted - lifting up Jewishness, instead of 'Yeshuaness'.  Yitishkeit  is anyway but one expression of Jewish culture.

While a proper messianic synagogue "siddur" liturgy, led by a proper messianic rabbi and kantor(such as  Stuart Dauerman  in Los Angeles or atNetiv Ya  in Jerusalem), may be of missiological value in recontextualizing the gospel message to see Jews saved,  Yitishkeit  is not the original culture of the Bible and is of very little value in rediscovering the Hebrew roots of our faith.

Yitishkeit  is no substitute for a Holy Spirit directed scholarship to unveil the Jewish character of the Word of God, and our capacity to properly understand it as its divine author intends it to be under-stood. The mysteries that the faithful church are intended to understand concerning the Last Days, and how to prepare for them, are in the Apocalyptic books of the Bible and are sealed up until the appointed time (Daniel 12:4).

They will never be unsealed until the Hebraic roots of our faith, the Hebraic character of scripture, and the Jewish hermeneutics used by Jesus and the apostles are rediscovered.

Astonishingly and impressively, it was actually Reformed theologians - the Puritan fathers, such as  John Lightfoot  and  John Robinson  who at least began to realize these truths over three centuries ago.

In Reformed thinking, correct biblical exegesis is a matter of God using human intellect through the grammatical-historical exegetical method, which shuns spiritualization in reaction to the gnosticism of medieval Roman Catholic scholasticism (which often constructed doctrines out of wild allegorical interpretations resembling  Philo, but having little in common with the Hebrew allegory and typology of scripture or the clear uses of Jewish Midrash in the New Testament's handling of the Old).

Yet, when it comes to Israel and the Jews, Reformation theology winds up doing the very things it set out to correct - they spiritualize the meaning, allegorically reading into the text what is not in there; Israel becomes the church to the negation of what the text literally says. Instead of Christians being spiritually grafted into Israel as the New Testament teaches (Romans 11), in this error the church  replaces  it.

Instead of applying what the text says to the church in addition to applying it to Israel, like the super-cessationist Roman church with its replacementism, they simply allegorize it in violation of t heir own principles.

Curiously however, they do not do this consistently (another flagrant violation of their own principles as grammatical-historical exegesis in theory demands consistency in approach); they will only do it where it pleases them. For instance, to them the curses of the Old Testament remain literally for Israel, while the blessings are spiritualized for the church - despite the fact that most of western Christianity is as backslidden and rejecting of the true Christ as Israel and the Jews ever were.

God is a God of justice who hates unjust scales (Proverbs 11:1).

If He is finished with the Jews, I would like to know just one reason why He should not also be finished with the church.

Fortunately for Israel and the church, the validity of a divine covenant depends not on the infidelity of man, but rather on the fidelity of God.

True, God turns His grace for a season away from Israel towards the Gentile nations (Romans 11:19-20), but this is both partial and temporary (Romans 11:25-29).

A time comes, and is already arriving, when God turns His grace away from the nations back towards His ancient people Israel (Romans 11:25); yet who would ever suggest on this basis that Israel will replace the church?What the Reformers forgot about Covenant and Ecclesiology Jeremiah 31:31 tells us the New Covenant will not be like the one God made with the Patriarchs of Israel or Moses.

Jeremiah was up against the problem of a theocratic state gone wrong. People were circumcised as babies and because they were incorporated into the national covenant, assumed that they were in a right relationship with God.

Other prophets like Amos were up against similar problems - people brought their sacrifices to the temple forgetting that these needed to be accompanied by genuine faith and repentance for their offerings to be accepted.

John the Baptist was up against the same situation of certain people thinking that, because they were biological descendants of Abraham and the fathers and circumcised into the covenant, they were automatically included in a right covenant relationship.

The New Covenant to be inaugurated by the Messiah would correct these is-sues because it would not be a covenant of automatic corporate inclusion based on national, ethnic, or cultural identity, nor on the faith of one's parents - but rather individual response to the gospel.

Hence, New Birth would not be of man's will. Regeneration would occur as a result of the sovereign grace of God drawing someone to Jesus personally and their individual response to Him, by which God's Law would be written on their heart.Anglican errorsYet, as one example, we see that in the old Anglican Book of Common Prayer in the baptismal liturgy, a baby is pronounced "Born Again", and his or her parents told that the baby is a Christian because of the parent's decision and being born English into the English National Church.

Contravening what the New Covenant was to be, baptism is wrongly equated with circumcision, and a child is pronounced a Christian through the actions of his parents - that is, being reborn by the will of man instead of by the will of God, in direct rejection of John 1:13.

Thomas Hooker  proclaimed "A member of the Church of England is a citizen of the Commonwealth, and a Citizen of the Commonwealth is a member of the Church of England", equating a state church with its monarch as head, to Israel and the House of David.

What we in fact have is a Regal Papacy where the next titular head of the Anglican Church, Prince Charles, is a divorced New Ager with a combination of Buddhist, Hindu, and Islamic beliefs. For all of its errors, the Continental Reformation was the result of Christian conviction.

In England however, it is an historical fact that the Church of England was born out of the whoredom of a despotic womanizing king who murdered 70,000 of his own subjects.

The English Reformation began as a result of the ambitions of  Henry VIII. Absurdly, the British Monarchy still retains for itself the title "Defender Of the Faith", a title awarded by the pope for the persecution of Protestants.

Today, members of the British Royal family convert to Catholicism, the Arch-bishop of Canterbury marches in a pro-cession to Mary in Walsingham calling for reunion with Rome, while the Queen has appointed a Roman Catholic priest as Court Chaplain. Indeed, with the mass martyrdom of Evangelical Anglicans (such as Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, John Hooper, and Thomas Cranmer) by Queen Mary at the behest of the Roman Clergy after the death of Henry VIII, a doctrinal reformation in Anglicanism took place.

But the institution began for political and not theological or moral reasons. And now, with the theological and moral erosion of the Royal family, it is becoming politically expedient to return to Rome, as it appears there are no longer any doctrinal or ethical reasons not to do so.

Anglicanism was born from Rome (and not from scripture), it doctrinally and ecclesiologically never fully broke with Rome, and to Rome it is now returning. The root of this dates back to the shallow doctrinal foundation laid by the reformers that finally caved in.

Many errors result from this for Anglicans, and other mainstream Protestants, that non-conformist churches holding to believer's baptism avoid.

When a young Anglican who is pronounced "Born Again" as a baby actually becomes "Born Again" and able to accept Jesus personally, which new birth proclamation does his church wish him to believe is valid?

Was his vicar telling the truth when he told him he was a Christian and born again as a baby, or rather when he actually became a new born believer?

Telling people they are Christians when they are not (and actually still need to become Christians) is a sure barrier to seeing souls saved.

The mainstream Protestant churches founded by the reformers all have this structural dilemma.British Israel?Another error deriving from not recognizing that the New Covenant is made with Israel is the deception among Anglo Saxon and Anglo Celtic Protestants of  British Israelism, which has no biblical or ethnological basis whatsoever, and where, once again the throne of David is linked with a British Crown.

James McConnell  (who comes from a Sabellian heresy background with a 'Oneness' view of the Trinity, instead of an Athanasian view of Three Persons in One God - it is unclear if he believes in the Trinity biblically, or if he believes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all  Jesus) is a case in point.

McConnell, pastor of Whitewell - the largest Elim church in Belfast, openly challenged anyone to publicly debate him on his doctrine that the Bible teaches that the British are the ten Lost Tribes of Israel. This idea was accepted by Elim's founder,  George Jeffries, but rejected by Elim as a movement, even though the teaching came from  Jeffries. Now Elim's current leadership - courtesy of  McConnell  - gives place to it.State Religion & False DoctrineAnglicanism is but one expression of the errors of the Reformers. Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Reform churches all have the same built-in error - a state church where people become members, not by new birth, but by being born into a state church and culture, and having an initiation ritual performed as babies.

The precedent was not established by  Hooker, but by  Luther.

In order to genuinely reform the church along biblical lines, the first thing the reformers would have needed to do was dissolve the unscriptural Erastian marriage of church and state, and condemn as false Augustine's Cyprianic Doctrine of the Church, which sought to justify it.

Along with this, they would have needed to restore a biblical understanding of believer's baptism as the Baptist sects (who the Protestants normally hated) did.

Luther instead taught  Cuis Regio Eius Religio  ("What your government is, so your religion is") - if your government is Roman Catholic, so are you, and if Protestant, so are you, and continued sprinkling infants, pronouncing them "Christian" by the will of man instead of by the New Birth through the Will of God. The Reformers failed to reform beyond a very correct but inadequate level.Where does this error originate?"The church", by Greek definition  ecclesia, means "the called out ones", who may have to leave their culture, family, etc., to become Christians and thus members of the true church (Matthew 10:35-37).

The church is not those born into a national cultural-religious identity, but Born Again, quite possibly,  out of  their temporal, cultural and religious identity - even when that identity is nominally Christian.

The error has its source with the  Emperor Constantine  when he made Christianity into a religion of the state, and the false doctrine of  Augustinecalled "The Visible and Invisible Church", which sought to justify turning biblical Christianity into a national and cultural Christendom.  Augustinedrew many unbiblical and unfortunate mistakes together to rewrite Christianity as a hierarchical and Platonic religion. He drew on the errors of his mentor,  Ambrose, the mistaken influences of  Cyprian of Carthage, and even imported certain gnostic influences into western Christianity from Alexandria, and embraced Alexandrian ideas of Christology and Pneumatology from the  Council of Chalcedon  which, although not heretical, were plainly wrong and problematic.

This doctrine said the church was made up of the saved and unsaved, instead of an exclusive fellowship of those personally professing a saving faith through the new birth. It did this by twisting the parable of Matthew 13:38-42 out of context to say that the field where both were planted was the  church, when in fact Jesus said it was the  world.

Thus, instead of allowing the saved and unsaved to grow up together in the world for Jesus to sort out upon His return, true and false Christians would be together in the church for Jesus to sort out upon His return.

This is not to suggest there were not false believers in the pre-Augustinian church, but rather entrance was to be the result of personal regeneration of which baptism was to be the emblem.

There are two types of biblical passages dealing with baptism: those supporting believer's baptism and those which are ambiguous.

Instead of interpreting the ambiguous passages in light of the unambiguous, the illogical practice of casting doubt on the clear meaning of the unambiguous by seeking to interpret the unambiguous in light of the ambiguous becomes wedded to eisegesis (reading into the Bible what is not in there) as a means to construct an argument which amounted to going back under the Old Covenant.

We must remember Satan's first at-tempt to destroy the church was to Judaize it (see Galatians).

By making the church the new Israel (Romans 11 speaks the language of incorporation, not replacement) and equating baptism with circumcision, the church is Judaized.

What Jeremiah and John the Baptist say Christ would come to undo, and what Paul says Christ did undo in Romans, Constantine and Augustine put back. From here, the medieval papacy evolved into the debacle that the Reformers re-acted against.

Yet, instead of truly reforming the church by removing the error, they too put it back.

Thus, in order to truly reform the church and restore biblical Christianity, the first thing the Reformers would have needed to do was to break the unscriptural marriage between church and state, reject the Augustinian error of the visible and invisible church designed to accommodate this illicit marriage, and reject the baptism of unregenerate babies (whose sins anyway God does not take into ac-count) that was its emblem.

By failing to understand the Jewish root of the church and failing to understand the new Covenant as a  Jewish  Covenant, with the New Testament as a  Jewish  Covenant document, the Reformers failed to restore biblical Christianity.

They did restore justification by faith and the supremacy of scriptural authority against tradition, but by no means could they have restored the church to its actual Apostolic foundations without re-discovering that the foundations of the church in Christ are Jewish.

Consequently, nominal Protestantism is as much a problem as nominal Old Testament Judaism ever was.

Liberal Protestantism is also as much a problem (and a heresy) as Roman Catholicism ever was.

While the news media accurately reveals the Roman Catholic priesthood as a flood with criminal homosexual paedophiles and dangerous perverts of every description, even the Roman Church as an institution would not sanction a Homosexual and Lesbian service in one of its cathedrals as the Anglicans have done, or officially sanction sodomite clergy like the Methodists.

Howbeit, for their own self-serving reasons, the Roman Church for decades, formally at least, refused to tolerate Free-masonry, while masonic membership ran wild among the Reformed and Presbyterian clergy, and often still does.

Erasmus of Rotterdam  These failures of the Reformers were recognised by their own harbinger, Erasmus of Rotterdam, who advocated rebaptism in the preface to his translation of Matthew's Gospel.

Erasmus wrote to the pope that it was rather the Anabaptists, who were persecuted by both Rome and the Protestants, that were the closest to a biblical Christianity. Erasmus, realizing the failure of Luther on a number of grounds, called the Reformation a travesty to which he preferred to remain a spectator. This came from one who repeatedly scorned the corruption and hypocrisy of Medieval Catholicism for its heresy on such brilliantly vitriolic and satirical works as "The Praise of Folly" and "Julius Exclusis".

While the Reformers were dynamic personalities, they were not dynamic thinkers. Luther drew his ideas from John Huss, Staupidz, and the humanists like Le F ¨vre. Calvin drew on Luther, Farel, Oeclampadius, and Bucer. The English Reformers like Cranmer drew on Calvin and Luther.

All of these however were the natural result directly or indirectly of Erasmus, the greatest Christian humanist. Unfortunately, church history has never done him justice and blamed him for being indecisive. In fact, as we see from what became of Protestantism, he was not indecisive, but rather foresighted and aware of how Protestantism would end up. We must also remember that the Reformers did not rediscover the gospel as their followers abjectly claim until this day.

Long before the Reformation, Wycliffe in England, Huss in Bohemia, and Savanarola in Italy, had large followings of imperfect, but true Christians who believed the Word of God, and were trying to get back to it.

These of course were genocidely exterminated by the papacy using the Dominicans and Holy Roman Empire before the Reformation, as Rome used the Jesuits and Hapsburgs in its holocausts against the true church after the Reformation. But there was never an era when the Lord did not have people for His Own Name, whom while making mistakes did love Jesus, live for Him, die and watched their children die for Him, and tried their best to hold fast to His Word and, as faithful witnesses, point others back to prior to the advent of the reformers.

It was simply the collapse of feudalism and the Holy Roman Empire, together with the rise of humanism that sprung from the Renaissance and the invention of the printing press to mass produce translated Bibles that allowed the reformers to survive where others were exterminated by Rome and her agents.

During the Reformation era and what followed it, it was the Baptist sects (some good like the Menonites following Menno Simons, and some lunatics like the Munster Anabaptists following the Zwickau prophets - roughly late medieval equivalents of Mike Bickle, Earl Paulk, and Paul Cain) who attempted, for better or worse, to return directly to scripture.

The Protestants following the Reformers instead went back not directly to scripture, but to Augustine. Thus both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism spring not directly from scripture, but from Augustine's Platonised reinterpretation of it to again equate Christian identity with the national and cultural identity; that is making the church the new Israel. The results were, predictably, death.

The death Constantine and Augustine brought to the early church by making the church a temporal political power, was brought to Calvin's Police State in Geneva, Zwingli's in Zurich, Knox in Scot-land, etc.

As a pagan Rome was replaced by a Papal Roman State, so a Papal Roman State was replaced by a Protestant Church State.

For all of their good points in the establishment of a parliamentary democracy founded on biblical principles, both the English Puritans and the American Pilgrim Fathers soon found themselves engaging in genocidal war crimes against poor peasants in Ireland and burning alleged witches in Massachusetts.Jesus said His Kingdom was not of this world.Constantine, the Medieval Popes, and the Reformers, said it was.

Central to the popular Jewish rejection of Jesus was His refusal to accept temporal political power before the millennium (which the Reformers rejected).

We must grasp the fact that the twin pillars upon which the contemporary errors of Kingdom-Now Theology with its triumphalist over-realized eschatology and Dominionism are built are both the neo-gnostic latter montanism of "charismania", and the theonomic reconstructionism of highly Reformed Protestantism, particularly hyper-Calvinism.

This is why we see radical replacementist charismatic extremists such as Rick Godwin (a restorationist who teaches Israel is nothing but wasted money and Jews have no right to exist in the land of Israel) drawing their anti-futurist historicist and preterist eschatology from extreme Calvinistic reconstructionists like David Chilton. With both, Israel becomes the church and a theonomic regime that replays the mistakes of the post Nicean Constantinian church, and becomes the political kingdom of God on earth - a New Israel, which therefore can accord no place to the old one.

It is curious that any time an extreme Calvinism, stressing the notions of manifest destiny (stemming from an extreme view of predestination), permeated the social fabric with a church-state influence, the tragic results were gross social injustice.

This can be seen historically in the pro-slavery and later segregationist policies of the American Southern Baptists, the Apartheid policies of the South African Dutch Reformed Church, or the anti-Roman Catholic (not against the Roman church, but against the people in it) discrimination of Orange Unionism with the Strict Presbyterians in Northern Ireland. Hyper-reformed theonomic reconstructionism represents Protestantism at its worst, just as papal theonomy was Rome at its worst.

The replacementist super-cessationism produces a Judaized church with a theocratic government as oppressive and of-ten as hypocritical as the Sanhedrin ever were. Hence, the Reformation was a theologically incomplete, and thus a spiritually incomplete event.

We might see it as an aborted effort to restore biblical Christianity, as opposed to an authentic reintroduction of it.

The same nominalism that threatened to destroy Old Testament Israel, and produced the false church of the Middle Ages, was a fundamental component of Protestantism from its inception due to the errors of the Reformers.

This was recognized by Protestantism itself, when, within a few generations, Zizendorf's Pietists in Germany and Wesley's Methodists in England were trying to reform Protestantism from within, as the Reformers began by trying to reform Romanism from within.

The demise of Protestantism spiritually dovetailed with the theological decline of grammatical-historical exegesis going from a humanistic tool in the hands of Christians, to a humanistic tool in the hands of atheists.

The Baptists who tried to return to the kind of genuine sola scriptura faith that Luther only thought he had, were terribly persecuted and not infrequently murdered by the Protestants.

Even today, such evangelicals as Baptists, Pentecostals, Brethren, and Free Church are not, by classical historical definition truly Protestant, (although they are by etymological definition in that they witness for truth).

They are not Protestant in that they do not hold to a state church or accept infant baptism. They are rather the doctrinal heirs of the Anabaptists whom Catholic and Protestant alike persecuted.

The source of all of this tragedy once more relates back to the replacement theology that makes the church the new Israel. The endless arguments of Systematic theology, Dispensationalism verses Covenant / Reformed dividing Evangelicals from each other, stem from this same failure to grasp Jeremiah 31:31 and what it is addressing.

Because Abraham is indeed "Father of All who Believe" (Gen. 12: 1-3, Gal. 3:8, Isa. 63:16), and we see tremendous expressions of God's grace in the Old Testament (as with King Manasseh) and tremendous expressions of His wrath in the New Covenant (as with Ananias and Sapphira), dispensational theology admittedly understates the continuity between the two covenants, and the hyper-dispensationalism of Darby is erroneous.

Still, more moderate expressions of dispensationalism do more justice to Jer. 31:31 and the eschatology and ecclesiology that derives from it than does Covenant theology.

Dispensationalism (for all the faults of its more extreme expressions) rightly sees a spiritual and theological relationship between Israel and the Church, but keeps the distinction between them.

The Reformed Covenant theology of Calvinism understates the discontinuity between the covenants and overstates the continuity - in its classical form making the church Israel's replacement.

From this we again have the Protestant theonomic reconstructionism, not only supposedly replacing Old Testament Israel's theocratic state, but certainly re-placing the papal theocracy, with its Constantinian/Augustinian roots, with a Protestant version of the same thing.

While we should use Christian influence to be salt and light bringing a biblical influence into this fallen world, whether the Pope, Constantine, Calvin, and their latter day doctrinal heirs David Chilton, Gary De Mar, Gary North, Rick Godwin, and William Rushdooney approve or not, Jesus' true Kingdom is not of this world.

From the Unholy Crusades to the Seven Years War, such Dominionism has never brought us anything but bloodshed, and never will.

By equating the Church with Israel to the negation of Israel, the Reformers simply failed to correct what Constantine, Augustine, and their Papal successors got wrong. The Reformers forgot that Jesus' Kingdom was not of this world and His followers were called to be witnesses and salt and light in terms of a moral influence and a testimony in it, but they are not called to be of it - nor were they to set their hopes on it in any sense other than hoping in a resurrection and the return of Jesus.

The most sorry manifestation of these old errors still with us is the current state of much of Pentecostalism.

While Baptists sought out to restore some of the things the Reformers failed to (such as believers baptism, congregational autonomy, and a separation of Church and State) Pentecostalism, by definition and heritage, set out to restore the things that the Reformers and Baptists failed to restore, such as Gifts of the Spirit, an emphasis on the approaching return of Christ and Premillennialism. Yet today, we see Pentecostal preachers like Andrew Shearman telling a Nottingham congregation in the U.K. that he repents of ever having sung the hymn "This World Is Not My Home", leading the young people to chant "This World Is Our Home".

Such false and dangerous teachings may have no connection with the classical Pentecostalism Shearman now denigrates, but certainly is compatible with the classical Protestantism that the early Pentecostals reacted against.

A new generation of Pentecostal ministers who reject the beliefs of their fathers, yet still define them-selves as Pentecostals, are remembering to forget the things the Reformers also forgot.

They are not Protestant in that they do not hold to a state church or accept infant baptism. They are rather the doctrinal heirs of the Anabaptists whom Catholic and Protestant alike persecuted.

The source of all of this tragedy once more relates back to the replacement theology that makes the church the new Israel.

The endless arguments of Systematic theology, Dispensationalism verses Covenant / Reformed dividing Evangelicals from each other, stem from this same failure to grasp Jeremiah 31:31 and what it is addressing.

Because Abraham is indeed "Father of All who Believe" (Gen. 12: 1-3, Gal. 3:8, Isa. 63:16), and we see tremendous expressions of God's grace in the Old Testament (as with King Manasseh) and tremendous expressions of His wrath in the New Covenant (as with Ananias and Sapphira), dispensational theology admittedly understates the continuity between the two covenants, and the hyper-dispensationalism of Darby is erroneous.

Still, more moderate expressions of dispensationalism do more justice to Jer. 31:31 and the eschatology and ecclesiology that derives from it than does Covenant theology.

Dispensationalism (for all the faults of its more extreme expressions) rightly sees a spiritual and theological relationship between Israel and the Church, but keeps the distinction between them.

The Reformed Covenant theology of Calvinism understates the discontinuity between the covenants and overstates the continuity - in its classical form making the church Israel's replacement. From this we again have the Protestant theonomic reconstructionism, not only supposedly replacing Old Testament Israel's theocratic state, but certainly replacing the papal theocracy, with its Constantinian/Augustinian roots, with a Protestant version of the same thing. While we should use Christian influence to be salt and light bringing a biblical influence into this fallen world, whether the Pope, Constantine, Calvin, and their latter day doctrinal heirs David Chilton, Gary De Mar, Gary North, Rick Godwin, and William Rushdooney approve or not, Jesus' true Kingdom is not of this world.

From the Unholy Crusades to the Seven Years War, such Dominionism has never brought us anything but bloodshed, and never will.

By equating the Church with Israel to the negation of Israel, the Reformers simply failed to correct what Constantine, Augustine, and their Papal successors got wrong. The Reformers forgot that Jesus' Kingdom was not of this world and His followers were called to be witnesses and salt and light in terms of a moral influence and a testimony in it, but they are not called to be of it - nor were they to set their hopes on it in any sense other than hoping in a resurrection and the re-turn of Jesus.

The most sorry manifestation of these old errors still with us is the current state of much of Pentecostalism.

While Baptists sought out to restore some of the things the Reformers failed to (such as believers baptism, congregational autonomy, and a separation of Church and State) Pentecostalism, by definition and heritage, set out to restore the things that the Reformers and Baptists failed to restore, such as Gifts of the Spirit, an emphasis on the approaching return of Christ and Premillennialism.  

Yet today, we see Pentecostal preachers like Andrew Shearman telling a Nottingham congregation in the U.K. that he repents of ever having sung the hymn "This World Is Not My Home", leading the young people to chant "T his World Is Our Home". Such false and dangerous teachings may have no connection with the classical Pentecostalism Shearman now denigrates, but certainly is compatible with the classical Protestantism that the early Pentecostals reacted against.

A new generation of Pentecostal ministers who reject the beliefs of their fathers, yet still define themselves as Pentecostals, are remembering to forget the things the Reformers also forgot.

With its replacementism drawn from the post Nicean Fathers, Medieval Romanism said the Lord's Kingdom is indeed of this world, and the kingdom was them.

So too, today's Reconstructionists and Restorationists, drawing on the Reformers failure to correct the ramifications of Constantine's Erastianism (control of the church by the state, usually with a mutual control of the state by the church to some degree) also say the Lord's Kingdom is of this world and that it is also them, courtesy of their replacementism. As the adage goes: "Failure to learn from History assures we are doomed to repeat its mistakes and reap the same manner of consequences for doing so."What the Reformers Forgot about God's Election of Israel and His GiftsA final dimension to the replacementist misconstruction of the New Covenant as prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31, is the relationship between replacementism and cessationism - the belief that the charismatic Gifts of the Holy Spirit ended with the Apostles. Romans 11 warns against these twin errors and directly connects the two errors as sharing a common source. Romans 11:29 tells us "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance". Paul's use here of the Greek term for repentance is a mere translation of the Hebrew concept of "teshuva", meaning to turn or return.

He argues that Jews remain beloved and God will not revoke either His sovereign call of Israel as a nation, for the sake of their fathers with whom He made the covenant, nor will He revoke His Gifts.

But which "Gifts" does he mean here? And why link God not revoking his gifts with His not taking back His election of Israel?

The answers are found simply by examining the context of Romans 11 and the structure of the epistle - itself intended to be read as a letter.

To begin with, there are no chapter breaks in the original manuscript. Chapter 11 is to be read in light of chapters 9 & 10, which precede it, and with a view towards chapter 12, which follows it.

Chapters 9 - 11 focus on God's election of Israel and His prophetic purposes for Israel relative to the church, with the law having been fulfilled in the Messiah. From here the text develops the theme of a remnant, both of Jews and, by implication, of Gentiles.Grafted into the olive treeThe text of chapter 11 reiterates three times that God is not finished with Israel and the Jews.

While individual Jews may accept Jesus (remaining grafted into their own olive tree), most reject Him (to be cut off from it and to be individually replaced by Gentile Christians who accept Him), or some reject Him but then come to accept Him (being regrafted into the olive tree).

But the tree itself remains the same. Believing Gentiles replace Jews who are not believers and are incorporated into Israel in a spiritual sense, but the tree is still Israel, with its final branches (the last Christians) being Jews once more, just as the first ones were.

After this, in Chapter 12, Paul exhorts the readers to be transformed with the renewing of their minds and be not conformed to the world.

Paul next deals with the issue of spiritual Gifts in body life. These include not only ministry gifts of leadership, service, and teaching, but charismatic gifts like prophecy (verse 5).

Thus, Romans 11:29 serves as a natural transitional link from what precedes it to the things which follow it. The exegetical context of the verse reveals a clear thematic progression of inter-related aspects of church life, one leading into an-other. Hence, the theme that all men (both Jew and Greek), being fallen, require salvation - introduced in the opening chapters of the letter to the Romans - logically and neatly leads in the middle chapters of Romans to the issue of the purpose of the law to illustrate our fallen nature and need for a savior.

Then, with the Law fulfilled in Jesus, the question necessarily arises about the purpose of the Jews, now that the Messiah has arrived to fulfil the Torah.

So Romans 9-11 form the next natural step. Paul addresses it on the basis of what he has built up to that point.

Again, we see a natural progression in themes with a logical chain of theological and doctrinal issues lining up neatly, one following another, to answer the new questions raised by the previous section.

Following this, Romans then deals with the next point in the order of logic: how our subsequent Christian life as individuals and our body life as the church should work to carry out this New Law of Grace. So, after his admonishments to holiness and humility, he speaks of Body Life and the role of individual members with individual gifts.

To this Romans 11:29 again becomes pivotal. Both the gifts and calling are things God will not take back from Israel or the church.

If God is finished with Israel because of its unfaithfulness, I would like to find one reason that a God, who hates unjust balances, should not be finished with the church for its unfaithfulness.

True, there has seldom been anything more than a remnant of Israel who remained faithful - of which Jewish believers are the faithful remnant for now, as for instance those not worshipping Baal were in the days of Elijah (Romans 11:1- 5).

Similarly, there has rarely been anything more than a faithful remnant of Christians who were truly faithful. As we have often maintained, it is fortunate for both Israel and the Church that the validity of a covenant depends not upon the unfaithfulness of man, but rather the faithfulness of God.Luther and the Third ReichGoing the way of Chrysostum's anti-Semitism rather than Paul's Philo-Semitism, Luther forgot Romans 9-11.

This was again very strange, considering Luther regarded Romans as central to the Bible's overall teaching and ultimate meaning.

Luther expected Jews to accept Christ when they were presented with an Evangelical Protestant Christianity as an alternative to the idolatry of Romanism. When they did not he preached that Jews should be hoarded into corals and forced to accept Christ at the point of a knife.

He taught Lutherans that they were to blame if they did not murder the Jews to prove they were Christians. This they did, culminating in the Holocaust. In Mein Kamf, Hitler loved quoting Luther.

The same Luther who inspired the Reformation also inspired the Holocaust, by forgetting Jeremiah 31:31 and Romans 11:1-29.

Instead of reforming the church from its anti-Semitic history to provoke the Jews to jealousy as God dictated (Romans 11:13-14), Luther ended his ministry as a vulgar old murdering tyrant - like the popes before him - merely replacing the Roman Catholic Jew Hatred of the Spanish Inquisition with a Protestant Jew Hatred which helped to inspire Germany's Third Reich.

His failure to separate church and state by not comprehending Jer. 31:31 but instead, as it were, Judaizing the church with Erastianism, led him to take a position on the German Peasant's Revolt where he called for the peasants to be stabbed in the back so as to preserve the church's marriage to the governing German nobility.

Luther's deranged viciousness propelled his own prot ©g ©, Melanchthon, to distance himself from him. Calvinists had a marginally more benevolent disposition to Jews, and later, in Holland and England, other Separatists were also somewhat sympathetic. But not Luther and the first Reformers.Spiritual Gifts not revokedThe other half of Romans 11:29 notes what God will not revoke: it is Spiritual Gifts, which Paul discusses in chapter 12. Here we see what the Holy Spirit is wanting to warn us against.

Romans 11 urges us not to forget that it is the root that supports the church (the root once more being Israel).

Romans 12 encourages us to exercise our Gifts in concert with the other members of the body. Just as the Lord foreknew the dangers of wrongly believing that God had finished with Israel, so also in the same verse the Lord warns of the dangers in wrongly believing that the Lord is finished with the gifts.

The bogus view that God is finished with the Jews is just as faulty as the bogus view that He has finished with the gifts.

Both errors have the same source: an incipient hyperdispensationalism claiming that a different set of rules exists now than existed in the apostolic church. This sees apostolic Christianity as primitive and 'the perfect' as having come in the form of a book (the New Testament), in the same way as the Moslems believe about the Koran, and Mormons do about the Book of Mormon (except of course that the New Testament is truly God's Word).

Because this faulty view resembles Islam or Mormonism in a qualified sense, (we are not suggesting that cessationism denies the gospel or is fundamentally heretical but simply behaves in the same character) it becomes in essence a belief in a kind of third covenant, in some way distinct from the previous ones, yet claiming an essential continuity with them by borrowing on the motifs of the previous ones, but none the less with certain elements of the Old having passed away.

This position is arrived at by an eisegesis of 1 Corinthians 13, wrongly claiming that the perfect to come is the New Testament Canon.

Exegetically however, if the perfect has already come according to what is in the text, then hope and faith must have also passed away and are no longer necessary either, only love.

Cessationists of course would not reject the need for faith or hope, so we fall to see how their argument can do anything other than collapse.

Even today we see cessationists like Peter Masters and Jerry Falwell reading things into scripture which are not there with the same eisegetical license as proponents of the Toronto Experience do with their getting of things out of scripture that God did not put into it.

The perfect in 1 Corinthians 13 refers, of course, not to the New Testament canon, but to the Return of Christ. In the Pre-Nicean patristic literature the Early Fathers, such as Irenaeus, in the era immediately after the Apostles, strove to defend the "Didache" or true apostolic teaching from the gnostic heresies that threatened to subvert the church.

They made clear that the miraculous manifestations of the Apostolic church did not cease with the apostles.

According to Hegesippus, as quoted by Eusebius, Irenaeus was in a line of doctrinal succession from the Apostle John at Ephesus through Irenaeus' mentor, the martyr Polycarp.

Likewise both the patriarchs of Arminian Protestantism (not holding to a particularist interpretation of election or unconditional eternal security) such as John Wesley, and Calvinistic/Reformed patriarchs such as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield alike testified in writing to Charismatic gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit as not being uncommon in their ministries - when, unlike Toronto, God was truly moving. Both D.L. Moody and R.A. Torrey, founders of Moody Bible Institute, in their biographies testified to an experience of Holy Spirit Baptism.

(I myself hold to "One Faith, One Baptism" - with many recurrent fillings, of which Spirit Baptism is but a chronological first which may happen at the point of, or following regeneration as a subjective experience - even though the Holy Spirit indwells believers at the instant of New Birth as an objective reality).

We can therefore conclude that radical expressions of cessationist pneumatology, like those of their hypercharismatic opposites with their unbalanced pneumatology, both have to engage in the same dangerous and unbiblical practice of eisegesis to argue for their extreme conclusions. Both moreover must ignore the re-corded history of those whom they claim as their doctrinal forefathers in church history.

For instance we see someone like Guy Chevreau, author of "Catch the Fire" promoting the Toronto Laughing experience claiming that such outbreaks happened in the Great Revival by quoting from Daniel Rowland.

When we read Rowland however, we see that these extremes of unruly laughter were stopped by the leaders because they were Satanic disruptions or counterfeits of what God was actually doing. Guy Chevreau literally wrote and published a direct lie to promote Toronto.

Hyper-reformed and hyper-dispensational cessationists will likewise point back to moves of God during the time of great and gifted preachers such as Jonathan Edwards, but simply ignore, and expect others to ignore, that so many of their founding fathers were out and out charismatics. This too is dishonest.

The root of this error again dates back to the Reformers. Because of the fraudulent hearings and bogus miracles claimed by Medieval Romanism, (and the money grabbing indulgence mongering that accompanied it) the Reformers - throwing out the baby with the bath water - had an aversion to all miracles, much the same as non-charismatics, seeing the heretical likes of Benny Hinn or Marilyn Hickey, will similarly shun all charismaticmanifestations today.

As we always point out, Paul warned that correct use of the gifts would induce the unsaved to want to be saved and the non-charismatic to want to become charismatic, but the misused or counterfeit 'gifts' would cause them to say we are mad and reject what we have (1 Corin-thians 14: 1-23).Priesthood of all believersFurther consequences of such errors are the implications for "the priesthood of all believers" as is taught in 1 Peter 2:5. We must again reiterate that before Satan attempted to paganise the church he first attempted to Judaize it with a class of ordained clergy claiming powers apart from the laity.

Biblically, while not every Christian is called to full time ministry or to a ministry in the pastorate or leadership, every Christian is a minister and a priest. The body is to be a ministering organism it-self with varying members having varying functions.

The error of replacing the Old Testament practice of a Levitical priesthood with a clergy class apart from the Priest-hood of all believers and combining it with the heavy shepherding, condemned in Ezekiel 34 and Matthew 23, is known as "Nicolaitianism" (eg. Revelation 2:6).  

To his credit Luther rightly reacted to the abominations of a transubstantiated Eucharist (that the bread and wine are worshipped as Christ incarnate and liter-ally eaten), whose basis was the Aristotelian "accidents" introduced into the church in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas and promulgated by scholasticism.

Along this line Luther and the Reformers stressed the universal priesthood of all believers against the idolatry and cannibalism of transubstantiation and the heresy that the Mass be taken as the same sacrifice as Calvary.

Luther believed in a kind of Consubstantiation which did not deny a literal presence, but did reject transubstantiation and the blasphemy of the Mass. The sacrifice of Jesus was efficacious once and for all, as Hebrews clearly states, and as His atonement was sufficient, Jesus does not die again and again.

Thus, the Reformers correctly opposed the notion of a sacerdotal priesthood. However, while remembering what a Priesthood of All Believers was not sup-posed to be, by embracing cessationism, the Reformers forgot what it was sup-posed to be.

To complete what a priesthood of all believers was meant to be, meant a return to the body concept of ministry instead of holding to the Medieval Roman Catholic clerical model of ministry.

The Reformers forgot to do this.

Biblically, pastors or leaders are simply differing ministries in the body. By forgetting that spiritual gifts include the sign gifts as taught in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12-14, the plague of a separate Protestant clergy class merely re-placed a Roman one.

In fairness however, we must observe that mainly cessationist non-conformist Baptist and, later, Brethren groups had far less of a clergy class distinction. They more closely approximated to the biblical idea of a what a universal priesthood of believers was meant to be than the mainstream Protestant churches.

Many contemporary Pentecostal denominations have become so hierarchical and 'priest ridden' - sometimes along virtually cultic lines - that they can be more Nicolaitian than moderate Protestant denominations.

Yet the source of all this started with the Reformers. By forgetting what Romans 11:29 said about God not being finished with the Jews, the Reformers simultaneously forgot about what God in Romans 11:29 said about not being finished with the Gifts.What the Reformers forgot about MissionBecause of their replacementism, the Reformers (apart from the little known Caspar Schwenkenfeld, the Reformer of Silesia, who was by far the most doctrinally sound of the Reformers) misunderstood many things and left a mainstream Protestantism that could only degenerate because of the flaws in its very foundations.

While Justification and biblical authority were initially reestablished, because of its humanist roots and failure to radically remove what was unscriptural - as Baptists attempted to do, and restore what had been removed that was scriptural - as Pentecostals later attempted to do, even in the early stages many Protestants were unregenerate and neither justified nor biblical.Today, western Protestantism is effectively deadWe see this today for instance in the rise of Scottish and Welsh nationalism. Celts and Anglo-Saxons were always chalk and cheese and only united over a common fear of Rome. Now that is gone.

While Rome itself is declining, what it is losing numerically it is gaining by ecumenism - except in Latin America and the Philippines where another Reformation is underway - which has spread into Catholic areas of North America and certain Catholic countries in Europe.MissionThis brings us to Mission. The Reformers saw no need for mission as such, and in the main, did not see evangelism as the best way to win Roman Catholics.

They substituted mission with what was at best a combination of polemics and politics, and at worst war (although they mostly fought defensively).

At the time of the Colloquies of Marlborough, there were actually at-tempts by Protestants to be reconciled with Rome through dialogue, and later Protestants with political ambitions sought the patronage of Catholics, so withdrew efforts to convert them. We now see a replay of this same kind of thing happening before our eyes.

Supposed Evangelicals with political ambitions like Pat Robertson (who has abandoned orthodoxy and embraced Dominionism and Toronto) have joined Chuck Colson, J.I. Packer, and Bill Bright in signing an agreement not to evangelize Roman Catholics and to accept Catholicism as Christian.

This is despite the fact its de fide doctrines still uphold the Council of Trent, the Anti-Christ doctrine of Papal Infallibility, sacramental regeneration (what Paul calls 'another gospel' in Galatians 1:8), calling upon spirits of the dead in prayer (which Scripture calls necromancy), and Transubstantiation (which denies the once and for all sufficiency of the cross, literally worships the Eucharist as Christ incarnate, then cannibalistically eats Him).

I write these things as one with a Catholic mother who has a great burden for Catholic souls.

James Dobson and Michael Green also support these views, while George Carey calls for reunification under the Pope, and disenfranchises mission to Jews.

Carey, addressing the Conference of Christians and Jews went along with a draft proposition which condemned the conversion of people from other faiths - in direct defiance of Jesus Christ's command. Organizations such as the International Christian Embassy and Operation Exodus replace biblical mission to the Jews with a social political-Zionist concept of mission which withholds Gospel Mission.

We also today have theological forums where reconciliation with Rome is at-tempted through dialogue which denies mission to Catholics.

As with the inter-faith dialogue with Rabbis, Roman Priests and Rabbis alike see forums as devices to prevent evangelicals from sharing the gospel with people in these faiths.

Rome moreover openly states that a road to ecumenical dialogue is the road back to Rome.

Like the Reformers, so many of today's Evangelical Protestant leaders conveniently forget the Bible's teaching on mission. By forgetting that the New Covenant would not be like the Old (Jeremiah 31:31), the reformers took an Old Testament view of Mission.

Since Europe was Christianized, Luther said the Great Commission had already been fulfilled and had no further meaning. Since the Church was now Israel and Israel was to witness by example instead of by example and evangelism (forgetting also that the Judaism of the Second Temple Period was a proselytizing religion - Matthew 23:15), there was no need to send out missionaries. Like the Crusaders and Moslems before them, the only way most Protestant followers of the Reformers sought to convert souls was by the sword.Mission rediscoveredLater Justinian Welz rejected this error and disappeared as a missionary into the Central American jungle.

While the early Baptists were somewhat more missionary minded, in time auniversalism infiltrated the General Baptists. Particular Baptists had become corrupted by extreme forms of Calvinism.

They took predestined election and irresistible grace so far that at their convention they denounced William Carey for his desire to send missionaries abroad; telling Carey to "Sit down and be quiet, if God wants to convert the heathen he will do without your help or mine".

Eventually, it was nonconformists, mainly Baptists, Independents, Menonites, and later Moravians and, then Methodist and finally Brethren sects that restored mission.

The English Protestant martyrs did for a short season proclaim the gospel until their deaths under Mary, and a kind of gospel preaching took place at Calvin's Geneva and in Knox's Scotland.

But it was Puritans such as Joseph Alleine with his "Alarm To the Unconverted" (which had a great influence on Whitefield and Spurgeon) who really restored a proper sense of evangelism to England, as the Covenantors did to Scotland.

Concerning mission, unlike the pre-Reformation Evangelicals, such as the Waldensians, who were so cruelly persecuted but remained missionary minded, the Reformers were not.

The pioneers of Mission like William Carey, Dr. Livingston, and Hudson Taylor came later. Later also came the rebirth of Mission to the Jews - Brother Rabbinowich in Eastern Europe, Brother Leopold Cohen, an Orthodox Rabbi who was saved in America, and David Barren, a Jew who was saved in Britain, who resurrected Jewish Missions from the ash heap of church history and who realized that the Book of Acts is as much history future as it is history past.Life from the deadWhile I cannot overlook the many failures of the Reformation, neither can I lam-bast the Reformers themselves for their failures. They were mainly well intentioned but, like ourselves, fallible men in complicated and difficult times who at least began trying, as best they could for the most part, to what they believed to be best 'as unto the Lord'.

If I had been in their place, I doubt I would have been immune from some of the same kinds of errors that I can so easily, in retrospect, criticize them for.

Yet when it comes to Israel and the salvation of the Jews, I can only on the one hand lament what the Reformers for-got, but praise God for what so many today are finally remembering-after all of these many long centuries:

If their rejection were the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? (Romans 11:15).

May we never forget it.

Anabaptists
Sometimes called the radicals or left wing of the Reformation, they denounced the baptism of infants. They held that only those who were old enough to understand the meaning of faith and repentance should be baptized. They were widely persecuted and many tens of thousands of them murdered during the sixteenth century.

Augustine (354-430)
Augustine of Hippo, a prolific writer who has been called the father of orthodox theology.

Cyprian (200-258)
Bishop of Carthage. Taught that the unity of the church was Episcopal, not theological: To be disassociated from the bishops meant separation from the true church. Made the classic statements that "He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his Mother" and "There is no salvation outside the Church"

Darby
J.N. Darby, leader (but not the founder) of the Plymouth Brethren. Played a major role in the division of the Brethren into Open and Exclusive groups.

Erasmus (1466-1536)
Desiderius Erasmus, sometimes called Erasmus of Rotterdam, was the leading Christian humanist of the Reformation era. Especially noted for publishing the Greek New Testament and his own translation of it in Latin.

Eschatology
The study of last things; the completion of God's working in the world; the consummation of history.

Evangelicalism
An informal movement committed to defending the historical Protestant understanding of the Evangel-(Gk.) the Good News. Emphasises the necessity of a personal commitment to Jesus and the authority of the Bible.

Futurist
View of eschatology which holds that most of the 'end time' events are still in the future.

Gnosticism
A religious movement which taught salvation, not by faith or works, but by the possession of secret knowledge, gnosis (Gk.).

Heilsgeschichte
German term, meaning "salvation history".

Hellenistic
Holding to a traditional Greek cultural, linguistic and historical perspective.

Historicist (1554-1600)
View of eschatology which holds that the 'end time' events were taking place when the Bible was being written, and are now in the past.

Hooker
Richard Hooker. Anglican theologian. Defended Anglicanism in his eight volume Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Circumvented the Puritan appeal to Scripture and the Catholic appeal to church tradition by proclaiming 'natural law' as the primary source of authority. Hooker's position tended to uphold Erastianism (state control over the church) and royal absolutism.

Humanism
Christian humanism teaches that individuals and their culture have value; the pursuit of secular life is not only proper but meritorious. The Christian humanist values culture but confesses that man is fully developed only as he comes into a right relationship with Christ.

Midrash
From a Hebrew word meaning "to seek, to examine, to investigate". Used to describe arabbinic method of biblical exegesis used in the time of Jesus and Paul.

Montanism
A prophetic movement occurring around 172, named after Montanus, and his associates. They called for people to prepare for the return of Christ by heeding the voice of the Paraclete speaking through his prophetic mouthpieces. Their confident predictions of the imminent end were shown in time to be false.

Neo-gnosticism
Modern versions of gnosticism, which teach salvation on the basis of secret knowledge.

Parousia
Greek, used with reference to the Second Coming of Jesus.

Origen (185-254)
One of the Greek Fathers of the church. One of the first textual critics of the Bible; one of the first to set forth a systematic statement of the faith; one of the first Bible commentators.

Philo
Jewish writer who lived at the time of Christ. Prolific writer. Embraced a combination of Stoicism and Platonist philosophy, while remaining committed to Judaism.

Preterist
View of eschatology which holds that most of the 'end time' events were in the future when the Bible was being written but, having been fulfilled throughout the Church Age, are now in the past.

Replacement
Form of theology which teaches that Israel failed God and, for their sins, have now been replaced by the Church.

Sabellian heresy
Teaching that the Trinity does not consist of three separate Persons of the Godhead, but one Person who manifests Himself in three separate modes-Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Scholasticism
A form of Christian philosophy and theology developed during the medieval period of European history by scholars who came to be known as "school men".

Sitz im Leben
German theological term = the setting in life.

Tenach
Jewish acronym, used to refer to the Old Testament.

Zwickau Prophets
Three men from Zwickau who visited Wittenberg in 1521. They claimed that God spoke directly to people and revealed His will through visions and dreams, rather than the Scriptures. They made numerous prophecies which failed to come to pass.

IntroductionWhen does God speak? Why does God speak? To whom does He speak? And through whom does He speak? When God speaks to us, why is He doing it, when does He do it, and through whom and to whom? Many people today say, €œGod showed me this," or €œthe Lord told me that," or €œGod has been leading us in such and such a direction." Do people really hear directly from God today?

The writer of Hebrews declared:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days He"s spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (Hebrews 1:1).

This was written to Jewish Christians in the 1st Century who read the Hebrew Scriptures in the form of a lection. A €œlection" is an annual cycle of reading the Law and the Prophets—the Haftorah—with ritual readings for certain holidays and the Sabbath. This is where we get the idea of the €œportions." It is perpetuated today in the synagogue as Paroch Ha Shavua— €œthe portion of the week."

Long ago God spoke to us through the fathers (Israel"s prophets of the Old Testament) in many portions and in many ways, but that all changed €œin these Last Days." Now, €œLast Days" is an ambiguous term. It can have one of two possible meanings. It is a specific term and it is a general term. Here it is used as a general term. From God's perspective, we are already in the Last Days. The Rapture and Resurrection have already begun. Jesus is, of course, the archetype, the prototype; He is the first fruit of the Resurrection. The Resurrection began with the resurrection of Jesus; the Rapture began with the ascension of Jesus. As far as God is concerned, the Rapture and Resurrection are already under way.  Jesus is simply the first fruit of both.

The Last Days is the age of the predominantly Gentile €œchurch."  It is the €œLast Days" as opposed to the €œFormer Days." Think of a rugby game (or in America, a football game). The game is supposed to be over at 6 o"clock and there is a minute left on the clock. A player is injured when there is one minute left in the second half of the game and they have to stop the clock and call for an ambulance. So the clock freezes.

In eschatological terms it is always one minute "til midnight; the clock can begin again at any time. This is the €œTime of the Gentiles." That is what we"re in now, and what is coming to a close. To the best of my understanding, it is the time period between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel"s vision. This time period comes to an end and God begins dealing with the Jews. Once more the clock is stopped. Time is, as it were, frozen. Israel is God's time-piece for the nations. He reverts to dealing with the Jews once the church is removed in the Great Tribulation. We are already in the Last Days in the general sense, in the age of the New Testament church.

Then there is the specific meaning of the Last Days, the time period leading up to the return of Christ, when the €œTime of the Gentiles" comes to a close and God turns His prophetic and redemptive purposes back to the Jews of the Great Tribulation. The stage is being set for that right now. These events in the Middle East are not really about Iraq; they"re about the final status of Jerusalem and God's prophetic agenda for Israel. That is what is really happening. This is the €œLast Days".

One instance where the New Testament speaks of the Last Days in the specific sense is in 2 Tim 3:1-5: €œThis know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers €¦" That is a reference to the specific €œLast Days."

So how does this apply to €œWhen God Speaks"? Well, it tells us,

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son. €¦ (Hebrews 1:1-2)

God has already spoken. When we consider the subject €œWhen God Speaks," the first thing we have to note is that He had already spoken in the Old Testament and now He is speaking in the New Testament. He spoke in the former days to Israel in the Tanak, now in the Ha Brit HaDasha, the New Testament.  He has spoken already. God has nothing further to say of a doctrinal nature or of a prophetic nature. What there will be is a clearer understanding of what has already been said.

This is what the word €œapocalypse" means, €œunveiling". Something is in back of this. As we get closer to the time of Jesus" return, the curtain progressively goes up. That"s what the Greek word apocalypsis means. It"s already here. What"s going to happen? It"s already here.

But the meaning is unveiled to the faithful as we get closer to the time of Jesus" Second Coming. We"re told the same thing in the book of Daniel 12:4: €œSeal these things up until the appointed time." No new revelation, no new doctrine, simply a clearer understanding of what is already written. God has nothing further doctrinally to say; He has already said it. God may speak prophetically, or He may give a word of knowledge or a word of wisdom or a personal leading in your life, but it will always be on the basis of what He has already said in His written Word. He has no further €œrevelations" to impart to His people.

When you see people always looking for a word from the Lord, it is because they"re not reading THE Word. When you see people always looking for a vision, a picture, a word, a revelation, a prophecy, it is because they are not grounded in Scripture. As a matter of fact, the only people to whom God will give a prophecy,  a word of wisdom, or a word of knowledge, will be the people who are grounded in His Word. The others are receiving counterfeits. If you don"t know what He has already said, He has nothing further to say to you. Even if He were to give you a prophetic word, if you don"t know what He has already said you wouldn"t understand it.Through Whom Does God Speak?In light of this background we can now consider the subject, €œThrough Whom Does God Speak?" beginning with the first chapter of the book of Daniel:

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and he brought the vessels into the treasury of his god.

Daniel was taken as a child into the Babylonian captivity. He was a contemporary of Jeremiah, but Jeremiah was still in Jerusalem; Daniel was taken in a deportation under Nebuchadnezzar. He was with the people to whom he was prophesying. Daniel and Revelation always go hand-in-hand. They are two aspects of the same picture. Look at Revelation 1:9.

I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Notice that both John and Daniel €•as well as Jeremiah, Amos and Hosea €•were all in the tribulation with the people to whom they were prophesying. Often when God speaks, it"s because we are in trouble. If everything were always rosy, if everything were always going well, God wouldn"t have to speak. Yet He does speak. And He"s already spoken. What we need day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month in our Christian walk, in our relationship with God, is already in the Scriptures. If He"s going to tell us something specific to our lives that is of a prophetic nature, it"s generally not because things are good, but because things are bad. Look at all New Testament prophecy, not only those recorded in the Book of Revelation. Remember that when Paul was going to Jerusalem, Agabus tied his wrists with a belt and said, €œThis will happen to the one who is going to Jerusalem." (Acts 21:10-11) Compare the Scriptural accounts of personal prophecy with some of the nonsense you see today. People go around prophesying this, prophesying that, these are what we call €œear ticklers." They are not prophets, they are would-be soothsayers. What they call prophecy is actually an attempt at clairvoyance.

Also, God most often spoke through people who were in the same situation as those to whom they were prophesying. If God is going to give a prophetic word to the people in South Africa, He is most likely going to raise up somebody from their own midst. Watch out for people who come to your country from the outside, who are going to €œprophesy" over it, then leave.

Now, God sent Amos, who was from the south, from Judah, to the north, to Israel. Amos didn't come to prophesy and then go back; he had to stay there with the people. Be careful of people who come from the outside, who prophesy to you, then get back on an airplane and leave. These are generally dangerous people.

Several years ago a woman from the United States, Cindy Jacobs ۥone of Peter Wagner"s friends ۥcame to Zimbabwe. She prophesied falsely in the name of the Lord how God was going to bless Zimbabwe, and how it was going to be the garden spot, not only of Africa, but of the world. It is a nation on the brink of starvation. She prophesied how God was going to bless it and prosper it. Yet the diametric opposite took place. Does this make her a false prophetess? Yes, she is a false prophetess; the Bible says she"s a deceiver. What did she do after she prophesied falsely to Zimbabwe? She went to Harari, then got on an airplane, and undoubtedly gave a false prophecy somewhere else. In the process she took a lot of money from the people. That"s what false prophets do.

Again, if God is going to speak to you prophetically, He is doing it because things are not good. Secondly, He is going to do it from your own midst. He is not going to bring in somebody from the outside to tickle your ears. Look at Daniel 1:9.

Now God granted Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the commander of the officials, and the commander of the officials said to Daniel, €œI am afraid of my lord the king, who has appointed your food and your drink; for why should he see your faces looking more haggard than the youths who are your own age? Then you would make me forfeit my head to the king." But Daniel said to the overseer whom the commander of the officials had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, €œPlease test your servants for ten days, and let us be given some vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then let our appearance be observed in your presence and the appearance of the youths who are eating the king"s choice food; and deal with your servants according to what you see." So he listened to them in this matter and tested them for ten days.Ten DaysIn verse 12 it says €œten days," and again they"re being tested for ten days in verse 14. In verse 15 it says,

€œAt the end of the ten days. €¦"

(For the 3rd time.)

At the end of ten days their appearance seemed better and they were fatter than all the youths who had been eating the king"s choice food. So the overseer continued to withhold their choice food and the wine they were to drink, and kept giving them vegetables. As for these four youths, God gave them knowledge and intelligence in every branch of literature and wisdom; Daniel even understood all kinds of visions and dreams. Then at the end of the days which the king had specified for presenting them, the commander of the officials presented them before Nebuchadnezzar.

(At the end of the ten days.)

And the king talked with them, and out of them all not one was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah;

These were the original Hebrew names that Nebuchadnezzar changed to the Chaldee names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

€¦so they entered the king's personal service.

So things are bad, and now God is going to speak through somebody in your midst. You can prophesy against a nation, but you cannot prophesy to God's people in a nation unless you"re among them. You understand? If God is going to raise up a prophetic voice to the church in South Africa, it shouldn"t be Jacob Prasch they listen to, it should be the people God raises up in their own midst. I can tell you what the Bible says doctrinally (by God's grace), but if God has a word for the church of any country, it is going to come from an insider. Yet even then, all prophecy must be tested by God's Word. No true prophecy will conflict with Scripture.

Then there is this period of ten days. It says it four times. Explicitly three times, and then it refers to it as €œthe end of the days" the fourth time. What is the meaning of €œten days" in biblical typology? Once more, we always read Daniel in light of Revelation, and Revelation in light of Daniel. Read what the Lord said to the church in Smyrna in the second chapter of Revelation:

"Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life (Rev. 2:10).

This was certainly alluding to the period of ten major persecutions of the ten Roman emperors. However, there was a local persecution which lasted ten days in Smyrna at that time.

There are two numbers associated with €œtesting" in the Bible: €œforty" and €œten." Most biblically astute Christians are aware of the significance of forty:

Jesus fasted forty days and forty nights.

Moses fasted forty days and forty nights.

Jonah was told to give Nineveh forty days to repent.

The children of Israel sojourned in the wilderness forty years.

David waited forty days on the mountain overlooking the valley of Elah before confronting Goliath.

Forty is the number of testing when the test comes from God. Ten is the number of testing when it is not from God. God may allow it for His purpose. In Daniel"s day Israel was tested at the hands of the Babylonians. In Smyrna believers in Jesus were tested at the hands of the Romans and the Pagans. When the test comes NOT from God, the number is ten.

Whenever a Christian experiences the ten, it has to be understood distinct from the forty. God allows both of them for our molding, to make us stronger, to deal with our old nature, to make us overcomers and more effective in helping others. There are a number of reasons God allows it, but there is still a difference between the ten and the forty. When God says the ten, He sets a limit. Whenever God allows someone to have a go at a Christian, it is always €œthis far, no further; this long, no longer." Remember Job? You can do this, but you can"t do that; don"t touch him. God will always set a limit as to how far anyone €•including Satan €•can go. When a Christian is suffering demonic oppression, and it seems to mimic or resemble the symptoms of mental illness (demonic oppression is real), there is always a limit. Satan and the enemy €•any person €•can only go so far.

The Soviet Union persecuted Christians just so long, no longer. Not one day longer; that"s it. There is a judgment of God, a sentence of God hanging over the world of Islam for what they do to Christians. This long, no longer.

Whenever the test does not come from God, He sets a limit as to how far, and as to how long it can go on. Ultimately this will be in the Great Tribulation at the end. Satan, in the person of antichrist, will seek to change the times and the law. (Dan. 7:25) And it will be given into his hands for €œtwo times, a time, and a half time": 1,260 days by the lunar calendar. Jesus had 3-1/2 years of public ministry; Satan in the person of antichrist will demand equal time. He will get it this long, no longer. This is the time of Jacob"s Trouble, the period of time for the war against the saints, what Daniel calls €œthe shattering of the power of the holy ones." (Dan. 12:7)

If you"re going through trials, if Satan is really having a go at you, if you know you"re in God's will, you can be assured it is only temporary.  But if it"s the result of unconfessed sin, or if we"re making a mess of our own life through iniquity, we bear the consequences. I"m talking about when we"re in God's will and we"re afraid of our current opposition or oppression. We can rest on the truth that God has set a limit as to how far it can go and how long it can go on. Never get discouraged. Satan"s days are numbered not only in the macro sense, but even in the micro sense.The Role of EducationDaniel and his friends Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, had knowledge and intelligence in every branch of literature and wisdom. They understood the Chaldee beliefs dating back even to the Tower of Babel. They understood the wisdom of the Babylonians and the language and learning of the Sumerians. So it was with Moses. Moses was trained in the knowledge and wisdom of Egypt before he was trained in the knowledge and wisdom of God. Paul was trained in the learning of rabbinic Judaism (as it was then), and he was trained in Greco-Roman philosophy and the Latin and Greek languages before he was really trained in the wisdom of Jesus.

Never disparage the importance of an education. I would never suggest that you have to be a formally educated person for God to use you, but the Bible never demeans education. The scholars of Jesus" day, the theologians of His day, were called sophrim in Hebrew, translated €œscribes." Today, we just think of €œWoe to you, scribes and Pharisees," but we forget that Jesus also said, €œI will send you scribes and prophets." (Lk. 11:49) When a scribe becomes a believer, Jesus says he brings out of the treasury things €œold" and €œnew." (Mt. 13:52) Somebody that can read Greek and Hebrew, for instance, is going to see things that somebody who can"t is unable to. I can read a novel translated from Dutch or Afrikaans, but I"m not going to be able to capture the same flavor and nuances of the text the same way as somebody who can read Afrikaans or Dutch. He brings out of the treasury things €œold" and things €œnew."

Often when God raised up somebody, He took someone who was educated. This was true of the Reformers. For all of their faults, they began right. You needed people who could read the original languages of the Bible to realize that the Vulgate was not the best translation, and to realize that what the medieval papacy was telling people were largely lies. These were educated people. John Wesley was well educated. Paul was an Apostle, Peter was an Apostle. Did God use Peter? Yes. But He used Paul more. Even though Paul was €œthe least of the Apostles," God used him more. €œWhere much is given, much is expected."  

Do not demean the practical importance of education. The problem is when education becomes grounds for spiritual pride. Not until somebody has been broken of their human strength and learns to trust the Lord instead of their education can God use their education. Not until you learn to trust Jesus instead of your human education, can God can use your education. When you can say like Paul, €œIt"s all rubbish," then God can use it.

Compared to the wisdom of Christ, it is rubbish. But Moses knew what Pharaoh believed. Paul knew what Caesar believed. He knew what the Pharisees believed. And, of course, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego knew what Nebuchadnezzar and his wise men believed.

The king talked with them, and out of them all not one was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; so they entered the king"s personal service. As for every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king consulted them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and conjurers who were in all his realm (Daniel 1:19).Ten Times BetterThey were tested ten days and they were ten times better than the conjurers of Babylon.

People want to know when God speaks; they want to hear from the Lord. €œOh, God, speak to me. Let me know what you"re really saying." Are you willing to be tested the ten days? Their wisdom, their capacity to understand what God was really saying, their capacity to know things others couldn"t, was directly proportionate to the amount of testing they endured. I don"t mean the €œforty"; I mean the €œten".

Why does God let the enemy and the world have a go at us? We don"t understand until we look back in retrospect. When you have overcome in those kinds of tests and trials, you"ll be ten times smarter than unsaved people. A Christian with a high school education who knows the Word of God is ten times smarter than the most brilliant secular academic who doesn"t believe. The capacity to know when God speaks is directly proportionate to the amount of testing we"ve endured. Everybody wants to hear when God speaks, but who wants to be tested ten days? Unfortunately, we live in a fallen world, and in this fallen world we can"t have the one without the other.To Whom Does God Speak?In the second chapter of Daniel, we see what happens when God speaks.

Now in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; and his spirit was troubled and his sleep left him. Then the king gave orders to call in the magicians, the conjurers, the sorcerers and the Chaldeans to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king. The king said to them, €œI had a dream and my spirit is anxious to understand the dream." Then the Chaldeans spoke to the king in Aramaic: €œO king, live forever! Tell the dream to your servants, and we will declare the interpretation." The king replied to the Chaldeans, €œThe command from me is firm: if you do not make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you will be torn limb from limb and your houses will be made a rubbish heap (Daniel 2:1-5).

The soothsayers say, €œOh, we can interpret dreams." €œYeah," replies the king, €œwell tell me the dream. If you"re genuine, you"ll be able to tell me the dream." They couldn"t do it.

The Chaldeans answered the king and said, €œThere is not a man on earth who could declare the matter for the king, inasmuch as no great king or ruler has ever asked anything like this of any magician, conjurer or Chaldean" (verse 10).

Remember, the occult always counterfeits the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Some €œshamans/witchdoctors" speak in tongues, don"t they? Fortune tellers predict the future €•not always accurately, but they do it with some accuracy by demonic power. What happens when God's people stop listening to those through whom He really speaks and begin following conjurers, soothsayers, Chaldeans?

Cindy Jacobs who prophesied falsely to the church in Zimbabwe: is she a €œDaniel," a €œShadrach"" a €œMeshach," an €œAbednego"? Or is she a €œconjurer of Babylon"? Well, the Bible identifies her as a conjurer of Babylon. Today in the churches you have white songormas (witchdoctors). They"re doing the exact same things white witchdoctors do.

I was recently in Kwazulu Natal in Zululand. The people there are terrified of songormas. €œDon"t speak against a songorma," €œThe songorma will get you." That becomes €œTouch not my anointed." The songorma will sell muti to bring prosperity. They"ll sell fetishism. They"ll sell a piece of cloth made from a snake or something like this. Morris Cerullo, the American money preacher sends €œHoly Ghost Miracle Handkerchiefs" to take away debt for the poor and unemployed. What"s he selling? Muti! He"s selling muti!  He is a songorma, a money driven false teacher calling himself a preacher doing what a witch doctor does. €œOh, the people brought the Lord"s apostles handkerchiefs!" Did the apostles sell them to poor people? It"s deception and con-artistry. God speaks, but instead of listening to His Word, people listen to the conjurers of Babylon. That is what is happening today; that is what goes on in the Rhema movement and other such things.

In Daniel"s case, the king was going to kill any prophet who can"t tell him what"s going on, so Daniel acts.

Then Daniel replied with discretion and discernment to Arioch, the captain of the king"s bodyguard, who had gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon; he said to Arioch, the king"s commander, €œFor what reason is the decree from the king so urgent?" Then Arioch informed Daniel about the matter. So Daniel went in and requested of the king that he would give him time, in order that he might declare the interpretation to the king. Then Daniel went to his house and informed his friends, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah about the matter, so that they might request compassion from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that Daniel and his friends might not be destroyed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven; Daniel said,

€œLet the name of God be blessed forever and ever,
For wisdom and power belong to Him.

Notice, €œwisdom and power belong to Him." €œTouch not My anointed." Jesus is the anointed; that is what €œMessiah" means. Israel"s King David is an Old Testament type of Christ.  David would not touch Saul who was God's anointed at the time. But it didn't stop David from telling the truth about him or stop Samuel from writing the truth about him, that he was a backslidden murderer. And so it continues.

It is He who changes the times and the epochs;

Now, in the Last Days, the antichrist will seek to change times and epochs, and for a limited period of 3-1/2 lunar years these will be given into his hand. In other words, within certain parameters, for a certain period of time, God will forfeit lordship over history to antichrist.

He removes kings and establishes kings;
He gives wisdom to wise men
And knowledge to men of understanding.Earthly LeadersHE establishes kings and removes kings. Why do people have nasty governments? They get the governments they deserve. In Africa, you have a government that allows songormas in hospital wards, that allows traditional healers (people practicing demonic power and superstition who put people into spiritual bondage) to work in medical wards as if they were actually qualified physicians, all in the name of African nationalism. There are songormas who tell people to rape babies, rape children, and they"ll be cured of AIDS. Why do leaders let their own children die, and deny what every scientist in the world says? Countries get the governments they deserve.

Why are Islamic countries feudalistic and oppressive? It"s a judgment for their false, demonic religion. They get what they deserve. Why did America have a president in the White House fooling around with young girls? Just watch TV in America and you"ll understand that the nation gets the leaders it deserves. A sexually perverted society gets a sexually perverted government. Now Christians should make a difference; we should be salt and light; we should make a difference. But one month before the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center, Robert Schuller, the self-esteem preacher of the Crystal Cathedral, was singing the praises of Islam. He had the Grand Mufti of Damascus preaching in his church to Christians. Schuller stood up and said, €œI wouldn"t object if my grandchildren became Muslims."

Paul Crouch, the TBN television magnate, one month exactly before September 11th held up a Quran on Christian TV and said, €œI want my Muslim brothers to help me understand this book." One month later, he did.

Countries get the leaders they deserve. President George W. Bush stands up and says, €œIslam is a religion of peace and tolerance." I"ve been from one end of the Muslim world to the other and I"ve never found peace or tolerance. Why do you have a leader who will defend a religion that says €œGod has no son" and which persecutes Christians? You get the leadership you deserve. Oil is money and power. You get a political prostitute owned by international oil. We get the leaders we deserve.

Not only the nations get the leaders they deserve, churches get the leaders they deserve.Profound and Hidden ThingsIt is He who reveals the profound and hidden things;

The Bible is filled with €œprofound and hidden things" so the unsaved can"t understand it. Not only can the world not understand it, but neither can worldly Christians. Even today, even this hour, as events of prophetic significance are being fulfilled in the Middle East and in Europe, there are untold numbers of born again Christians who have the same book right in front of them, who have no idea what is happening. They"re clueless. They don"t know the €œprofound and hidden things." Their leaders will never teach them. They"ve got the leaders they deserve.

He knows what is in the darkness,
And the light dwells with Him.
To Thee, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise,
For Thou hast given me wisdom and power;
Even now Thou hast made known to me what we requested of Thee,
For Thou hast made known to us the king's matter.

So Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar his dream, and in the process of being able to tell the king what the conjurers couldn"t, Daniel saves his own life and the lives of Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego. He even saves the lives of the conjurers of Babylon. Maybe they"ll repent.

I don"t desire the destruction of false prophets in the churches today; I desire their repentance, even though I believe they"ve gone beyond the point where Jeremiah was told €œdon"t even pray for these people."

Why does God speak? To save our neck. In the third chapter of the Book of Daniel we read where Daniel sees the incredible vision of the image of gold. This image is a major foreshadowing of the image of the Beast in the book of Revelation. Even its dimensions in the Aramaic language tabulate to 666. The number of the Beast €• €œ666" €•occurs many places in the Bible. Before people try to count the Roman numerals of Henry Kissinger"s name, I wish they"d try reading the Bible. The first question is, €œWhere else does that number occur in the Bible?" Well, it appears many places in the Bible, and each time it does it tells us something about Revelation 13. Once more, Daniel understood, the others did not. And once more it saved his neck.The Mind of a BeastNow, in the fourth chapter we see something significant: The mind of a beast was given to Nebuchadnezzar.

Some conservative Baptist missionaries reported a phenomenon in the really remote areas of Kenya in which a witch doctor was turned into a leopard. I know American Indian believers who talk about €œskin walkers," and who see this kind of phenomenon where people begin imitating animals. These of course smoke peyote (Apache Indians smoke peyote to induce religious hallucinations), and they begin hallucinating that their medicine men turn into buffalo.

Whenever you see animal imitations in the Bible, you"re dealing with something demonic. Today, of course, you"ve got people saying it"s the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Randy Clark, the Vineyard pastor who got his anointing from Rodney Howard-Browne by impartation and then delivered it to John Arnott"s Toronto Airport Vineyard (since then disassociated from the Vineyard movement), reported that while he was allegedly drunk in the Spirit at Howard-Browne"s meeting, a lady next to him was oinking like a pig.

The people who promote the Alpha Course defend animal imitations. In England, they defended it. €œI know it was God!"

Well, if it is God, it"s His judgment against you. A mind of the beast was given to Nebuchadnezzar. If people can"t understand the straightforward teaching of the Bible, how is God going to reveal any truth to them, or why should He reveal to them, €œprofound and hidden things"? If you can"t see the difference between a hyena and a human being, what does God have to tell you? Nothing. He has nothing further to tell you. You"re incapable of hearing it.Changing World EmpiresDaniel had an extraordinary spirit...

...knowledge and insight, interpretation of dreams, explanation of enigmas, and solving of difficult problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Let Daniel now be summoned, and he will declare the interpretation." (Daniel 5:12)

Daniel could do it again. But what was happening? As Medo-Persia aligned, the Babylonian empire was doomed. It was a time when people were in trouble. What you see happening in Daniel is what happens in the Last Days, a very rapid series of dramatic, political changes transforming the face of the known world. Everyone was afraid of Assyria. Out of nowhere was the meteoric rise of Babylon.

In the cold war era, everyone was afraid of the Soviets. America and Britain didn't like the apartheid government of South Africa, but because the Soviets had the Cubans in Angola and Namibia, America and Britain were forced to support the South African apartheid regime. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, America and Britain stopped supporting South Africa and it was the end of apartheid. €œWe don"t need to support you anymore. We needed you to keep the Communists out. You were the lesser of two evils, now you"re the evil." That is what they basically said.

But with the Soviet Union gone, we"re left with something much more dangerous: Islam. Islam is much more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was. The Soviet Union at least fought rationally; they didn't want a nuclear war; the Imams will push the button in a minute. €œJihad" is €œgoing to heaven." Something much more dangerous comes.

After Babylon was Medo-Persia, after Medo-Persia came Macedonian Greece, after Greece it was Rome.  And in the middle of all this, the Jews were going back to their land. The Last Days are the same.

If you would have told someone of my generation that the Soviet Union would collapse, would self-destruct, and that the Berlin Wall would come down overnight, it would have seemed ridiculous. But it happened.

The post-World War II miracle economies were Japan in Asia and Germany in Europe. They arose out of nowhere from the rubble. Now China is the rising star in Asia while Japan is in permanent, unstoppable economic decline. Even with zero interest rates they can"t stimulate the economy.

At one time the sun never set on the British Empire, now it sets every 24 hours.

France is so frustrated at no longer being a world power that they"ll keep dictators in power just to flex what little muscle they have.

The rise and fall of world empires happen very quickly. That is what the events recorded in the Book of Daniel were like; that"s what the Last Days are like. And, of course, in the middle of it you see the Jews going back to their land.

Daniel had an extraordinary spirit. He understood what was going on and what those things meant. Those who really have an extraordinary spirit, those who really are filled with the Holy Spirit, will know what these things mean.

These world events we see, the rise and fall of world empires, happen very quickly. And the place of the Jews is in the middle of it all. Those who are like Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego will understand what"s going on. They did; the conjurers of Babylon didn't. No fortune teller, clairvoyant, or astrologer can tell you what"s going to happen. God has already told us what"s going to happen.True Prophetic VisionsDaniel sees it, and with this is unleashed an unbelievable series of dreams and visions. Things that are happening today, Daniel saw. They were, of course, prophesied for his own time; he prophesied for the time of the Maccabees, he prophesied for the First Coming of Christ, and he prophesied for the return of Christ. But look at chapter 7:

In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions in his mind as he lay on his bed; then he wrote the dream down and related the following summary of it.

Now look at the last verse of that chapter, verse 28 of chapter 7.

"At this point the revelation ended. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts were greatly alarming me and my face grew pale, but I kept the matter to myself."

And then the next verse, 8:1.

In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king a vision appeared to me, Daniel...

Notice he has a vision in the first year and the third year. True prophets never went around having visions, pictures, prophetic revelations every ten minutes; conjurers of Babylon do. Rhema preachers do. False teachers and false prophets do. Those to whom God speaks don"t. It"s every once in awhile, but when it happens it"s real and it"s biblical.

You see false prophets going around every five minutes, €œI have a picture the Lord gave me, a word I"m going to prophesy." As we"ve warned many times, that is not prophecy,  it is an attempt at clairvoyance. This is not how prophecy works, it is never how prophecy worked. It is how clairvoyance works. It is occultic.

But now let"s look...

...I kept the matter to myself.

God showed Daniel things that Daniel did not fully understand. He kept it to himself. If God shows you something that you don"t fully understand in the light of Scripture, there"s more to come. Daniel kept his mouth shut until he did understand.

How often have you heard people say, €œI don"t know what it means, but I had a picture"? You don"t know what it means. I know what it means; it means you"re a nut case, that"s what it means. It means you"re a kook or a charlatan or at best an ignoramus. Those are not the people God speaks through. If somebody didn't understand what God showed them, they wouldn"t say anything until they did understand. They would have the prudence and wisdom to keep their mouth shut. They would continue praying and searching the Scriptures until they did understand, knowing that more was to come.

For Daniel prophecy came every so often. It was real, it was biblical, and when he didn't understand he kept it to himself.

What Was Daniel Doing When God Spoke To Him?

Daniel had the most incredible series of prophetic revelations of the future. What was Daniel doing when God showed him these things?

in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. (Daniel 9:2)

What was he doing?

So I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek Him by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes.

Daniel was studying the Scriptures, praying and realizing the need for repentance. Studying the Scriptures came first. If you don"t know what"s in there, you have no basis for God to tell you anything else.Three Kinds of PeopleNow I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, while the men who were with me did not see the vision; nevertheless, a great dread fell on them, and they ran away to hide themselves.

When God spoke, these pretenders ran away.  If God really spoke, the conjurers, the would-be"s, the hype artists, would run away. Let"s look at this in light of the New Testament.

"Father, glorify Thy name." There came therefore a voice out of heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." The multitude therefore, who stood by and heard it, were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, "An angel has spoken to Him." Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. (John 12:28)

When God speaks, understand the thunder as a figure in biblical typology; thunder is a very common figure for the voice of God. In Revelation whenever God would speak from the throne, John would record peals of thunder. Thunder is a metaphor in biblical typology for the voice of God. Only those who were righteous heard what God was saying, the others just heard noise. But then there was a third category: They thought it was the voice of an angel. When God speaks, there will be three kinds of people.
First, there will be those who hear and understand that He has spoken and know what He is saying. And it will always be in Christ and point to Christ. If Christ is not in it, it"s not God. There are those who have heard and understand what God has said in and through Christ.

Second, there will be those to whom it will be just a noise. You"re driving on the road and maybe a Gospel broadcast comes on and you hear a preacher. Somebody who is seeking truth, who is under the conviction of sin, will hear the Gospel and know it is God speaking. A saved Christian will know it is God speaking.  But to a disinterested unbeliever it will just be noise to them; change the station.

Third, at most, it will be €œan angel," from the Greek word angelio, €œmessenger." €œOh, it"s a religious person; he"s a messenger."

There will be three kinds of people: Those who hear God, those it"s just noise to, and those who give it a religious misinterpretation. When God speaks, there"ll be one of three responses: Those who know it and understand it, those to whom it"s just noise €“ it means nothing, and those who just give it a religious misinterpretation when God speaks.ConclusionWhen God speaks, to whom does He speak? He speaks to the Daniels, the Shadrachs, the Meshachs, and the Abednegos, those of extraordinary spirit because they are enlightened by His Spirit. They understand Scripture and wisdom. They know the way the world thinks, and they know how to evaluate what the world says in light of what God says. The Bible will make you smarter when God speaks.

Who is it that He"ll speak to? When does He speak? Who does He speak through? Why does He speak? Quite a list of questions, but now we arrive at a pivotal point in human history where the things Daniel saw and prophesied, and only partially understood, are now coming to their prophetic climax. The veil is going up and God is speaking. He"s speaking alright. I have no doubt that God is speaking. He"s speaking to me, He"s speaking to you; He"s speaking to my family, He"s speaking to your family; He"s speaking to the church in my nation, He"s speaking to the church in your nation; God is speaking to Israel on the Jews, He"s speaking to the Gentiles. God is speaking. There is no doubt God is speaking, but who is He speaking to? Who is He speaking through? Why is He speaking?  

Although there is no doubt God is speaking, here is the big question: who is listening?

by James Jacob Prasch

And if thy brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. (Matthew 18:15-18).

As F.F. Bruce pointed out, this speaks of going to another Christian about their sin, not about their doctrine.
Today we have people teaching false doctrines who, when they are challenged, respond with: "You didn't come to me on the basis of Matthew 18." Jesus never taught to go to your brother about his doctrine. In fact, when it came to the issue of circumcision of Gentiles, and behavior associated with it, Paul rebuked Peter in the presence of all.Theocratic politiciansIt came about that when Jesus had finished all these words, He said to His disciples, "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be delivered up for crucifixion." Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together in the court of the high priest, named Caiaphas; and they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth, and kill Him. But they were saying, "Not during the festival, lest a riot occur among the people." (Matthew 26:1-5).

And you find the same behavior with John the Baptist, and you find it elsewhere in the gospel narratives. Whenever the religious leaders could not refute what Jesus said, they had to attack Him personally for saying it.

They always feared that He would expose what they were really teaching and doing to the people. The one thing that theocratic politicians fear most is public exposure to their congregations and their people. In the days of Jesus, and through much of church history, they have turned the ministry of the Word of God into a vehicle for their own aggrandisement-power, money, position: it has always been a problem.

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, a member of the Roman Catholic clergy. I've spoken to Roman Catholic theologians who admit that when the medieval papacy could not refute what Martin Luther said in his Ninety-five Theses, they attacked him for saying it.

If you were to read the Papal Bull issued against Luther, they couldn't refute what Luther said, so they attacked him for saying it. You always find that with religious hypocrisy; the cowardice of religious leaders. When you can't attack what someone says, attack them for saying it.

And, above all, keep the public from finding out the truth.

The fear these people have! So what do they do? The same thing they did during the Reformation, the same thing can happen anytime. They begin legal finagling. "Quick! Get a solicitor on the phone!"

And they begin by circulating lies and rumors. Religious hypocrites have characteristically behaved this way because they will not debate the issue.Religious hypocritesWe see with Jesus that none of them would dare challenge Him for fear of the people. No one dared to ask Him any more questions. They could not argue from Scripture, so they had to get into legal finagling and, eventually, conspiracy and even lies.

Religious hypocrites behave this way, and we see them behaving this way today. Why? Because they can do nothing else.

In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul says it is better for a Christian to be defrauded, discredited, robbed, maligned, than it is to go to the world's legal system against another believer.

What happens when major so-called Christian leaders will, at the expense of the church, drawing on money that hard-working Christians paid their offerings for, hire lawyers to persecute other ministers because they don't like what they're saying? That is precisely what is going on in Australia at this moment!

Speaking as a Christian, I find it absolutely despicable. And people who do it-by God's standards, not mine-have no right to call themselves "ministers". They're not ministers. They are Pharisees, Sanhedrin. Read the New Testament for yourself.

If you can't refute the message, shoot the messenger!Apostolic theologyLet me point one other thing out. New Testament theology is always a combination of the proactive and the reactive. It's much better to emphasis the positive. However, let's look at apostolic theology. The most divisive issue in the early church was the circumcision of Gentiles and the purpose of the Torah. Some Jewish believers thought they were a cut above the rest.

In Romans, Paul deals with the issue of the circumcision of Gentiles pro actively: "Here's how the Law points to Jesus." In Galatians, however, he deals with it re actively: "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" You always have that balance.'Positive' Theology?Some people say that we should only teach the positive and let God deal with the negative. If so, you would have to cut most of the Old Testament out of the Scripture, because every single prophet after Joshua wrote re actively. The people went away from the Torah. And when you go away from the Word of God, it's because you have gone away from God Himself.

Secondly, you have to tear out most of the Pauline and Johanine epistles: Galatians, First Thessalonians, First Corinthians-these things were written to refute error.Touch not the Lord's anointed!We always get the same response: "Touch not the Lord's anointed!" I profoundly wish that those who quote that verse would read it.

It is true that King David would not touch King Saul in the cave of Ein Gedi. However, that never stopped David or Samuel the prophet from telling the truth about King Saul. He said King Saul was a treacherous, back-slidden and murderous man. And that verse is not going to stop me telling the truth about Rodney Howard-Brown or Kenneth Copeland.

If you think "Don't touch my anointed" means you don't stand up and name the names of people who are leading God's people astray, you will need to modify your Bible. Jews anointed High Priests and Kings. Watch out for Jaazaniah son of Azzur (Ezekiel 11:1). He was the High Priest, he was God's anointed, and he was leading the people astray. Tear the book of Ezekiel out of your Bible!

Watch out for people who predict things that don't happen. It says in Deuteronomy 18:22 that someone who predicts something in the name of the Lord which fails to happen is a false prophet. Get away from them!

Watch out for Hananiah, he predicts things which don't happen; he counsels rebellion against the Lord (Jeremiah 28). Well, so do people like Rick Joyner and John Wimber; you can document their prophecies that have failed.

Who does Jeremiah the prophet think he is, touching God's anointed? Tear the book of Jeremiah out of your Bible!

Every king was anointed. Jews didn't crown kings, they anointed them. 1 Kings, 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles record the history of the kings. Every king of Israel, and most of the kings of Judah were corrupt and mislead the people. The Word of God names them and says what they did. Quick! Tear 1 Kings out of your Bible. Tear 2 Kings out of your Bible. Tear 1 and 2 Chronicles out of your Bible.

High Priests were God's anointed, so were kings. What did Jesus say about Herod? "Go and tell that fox " (Luke 13:32). Who does Jesus Christ think He is, touching God's anointed? Who do Matthew, Mark, Luke and John think they are? When they decry Caiaphas and Ananias, the High Priests, they must be touching God's anointed!

If you think that is what "touching God's anointed" means, tear the four Gospels out of your Bible. Turn to the Epistles. Look out for Alexander the coppersmith (2 Timothy 4:14); look out for Demas (2 Timothy 4:10). Look out for Diotrephes (3 John 9). Quick! Tear the Epistles out of the Bible, they are touching God's anointed. They are naming the names in public; they are naming them in published letters.

If you think "touch not God's anointed" means that you should not stand up to those who are teaching error to God's people and misleading them, you may as well throw away the whole Bible and write your own, which is essentially what these people are doing, any way.Three years and no revival!So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls (Acts 2:41). Peter's message was always one of "Repent and be baptized. Save yourself from this crooked generation." A message dealing with repentance and judgment.

When the Holy Spirit really fell, when it really happened, on the first day, three thousand souls were saved. And thousands more were saved the next day. Day after day, after day, thousands of people were converted and born again. Thousands!

A lot of people being born again is not revival. A lot of people being born again is the result of revival. You cannot revive that which was never alive to begin with. Revival is the church repenting and returning to its first love.

A lot of people being saved is the proof of the pudding, it is the result of revival, it is the authentication that God is moving.

In John Wesley's revival, thousands were saved on the first day. As soon as he began preaching, people began giving their lives to the Lord as they came out of the coal mines. At Azusa Street, from 1906 to 1913, huge numbers of people were saved.
Notice the first two differences between what the Word of God teaches about revival, what church history illustrates about revival, and what is happening-or I should say, what is not happening today.

I was in Toronto in October 1995 for other business. I visited the zoo while I happened to be in town. After three years, no revival has come to Toronto. It has had no impact on that city, spiritually or morally. It remains the New Age, homosexual and drug dealing capital of Canada. The churches have not grown. Most of the people who contribute to the reports of large crowds at the Airport Vineyard Church are visitors from elsewhere. The Toronto phenomena is not known in most of Canada; even less known in America, except for those who have seen it on television; and even in South Africa it is not what it is here in Australia.

It mainly took root in countries where evangelical Christianity is in notorious numerical decline. Great Britain: where the churches are dying, where there are more mosques being built than there are churches. That's where it is being embraced: where Christianity is on its last legs.

Where are the numbers saved? Where are the thousands saved? Where? It hasn't happened. This "Toronto blessing / New wave" is false fire.

Whenever God does something new in a desperate situation, it is like the Day of Pentecost-120 in an upper room; it is Gideon's Army-300 people; it is Azusa Street-people in a house in Los Angeles; it is John Wesley-Moravian missionaries meeting with the early Methodists in a house in London.

Whenever God does something new-because the church has so miserably and conspicuously failed-He begins with a small number of people. When you see people trying to mobilize as many others as possible to do something, that is the striving of the flesh. It is the diametric opposite of the way God has worked in either Scripture or Church History.

The very fact that the Toronto thing became such a popular phenomena in so many churches proves that God is not in it; it is not the way He has ever worked when He did something new.

It is totally out of character of any biblical or historical precedent. Our God does not work that way. The AOG Executive may work that way, but God does not.Materialism or revival?And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. (Acts 2:44-45).
Another proof of revival is people's attitude towards materialism. They stop hoping in this world and practice divestiture in the book of Acts.

I just came from Perth, Australia. It is not difficult to document the amount of money that Rodney Howard-Brown and his entourage spent in the Hyatt Regency Hotel there. Drive a few hours out of Perth and watch someone working among the poor aboriginals-striving to have just a basic budget; or get on an aeroplane and fly from Perth to Indonesia and watch Christians being persecuted by Muslims-see how rich they are. Tell me who really knows the Lord Jesus.Its Roots and its FruitsRodney Howard-Brown comes from Ray Macauley's church in South Africa. Ray Macauley teaches, and has published, that building the Tower of Babel is God's model for Christian Unity. Nothing will be impossible for them, so he teaches.
Kenneth Copeland gave this "blessing" to Rodney Howard-Brown. Paul says that even if an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you (Galatians 1:8) get away from him. Paul says that even if he himself preaches another gospel, get away.

The gospel tells us that when the Lord Jesus Christ died on the Cross, He took away your sin and mine. When He rose from the dead, He did it to give us eternal life. He won the victory on the Cross. He who knew no sin became sin for us. That's the gospel.
Kenneth Copeland, who gave the Toronto thing to Howard- Browne, was influenced by someone called E.W. Kenyon, who-by his own admission-was influenced by the founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy.

The Lord Jesus, when on the Cross, said: "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit" (Luke 23:46). He also said, "It is finished" (John 19:30).

But Kenneth Copeland, on television-well documented in Christianity in Crisis-said the following: "Satan conquered Jesus on the Cross." He claims that the biggest failure in history is God; more than that, Copeland claims that he could have died on the Cross instead of Jesus Christ because he also is a 'born again' man.

Copeland teaches that what happened on the Cross was that Satan got the victory and then Jesus descended into hell and became a Satanic being of one nature with Lucifer. Then this demon, Jesus Christ, of one nature with Satan, after three days of being tortured, had to be born again. That is the 'gospel' according to Copeland.

So, because the Cross is not central to their view of the Christian life, of salvation, neither is the Cross central to their view of what it means to be a Christian.

Instead of "Take up your Cross and follow Me, and exchange it one day for a crown", it becomes: "God wants you rich. Name it and claim it. You're a king's kid." It is the Gospel of Mammon in Christian masquerade; it is covetousness camouflaged.'Word of Faith' TeachingsThey come from the "Word of Faith" School. "Faith", in the Greek is pistis, in Hebrew it is aimun. In both languages, faith and faithfulness are the same word. They make no distinction: "The righteous shall live by faith." "The righteous shall live by faithfulness".

Let's look at biblical faith. Hebrews 11 tells us more about faith than all the rest of the New Testament put together. Look what it says, in Hebrews 11:35-40:

Women received back their dead by resurrection and others were tortured, not accepting their release, in order that they might obtain a better resurrection...

The Word of Faith people teach: "You don't have to suffer. You're a King's Kid. God wants you rich."

...and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in...

five thousand dollar suits from Saville Row in London, staying in a thousand dollar a night rooms in the Hyatt Regency Hotel and driving in Mercedes limousines. Sorry.

...they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. And all these, having gained approval through their faith...

You cannot believe that the "faith" of the Word of God is the "faith" of these con-men. They have made 'born again' a household joke coast-to-coast in America and now they're coming to do the same in Australia.Toronto discredits the GospelWhile Toronto has not brought the great numbers saved, it has discredited the Church in the eyes of the lost-Great Britain being the worst I have seen.

At the nine o'clock service in Sheffield they had women dancing topless in the church. It was on television, on the news.
At the London Healing Mission, over twenty women were sexually abused: 'internal anointing'. I don't know if the preacher wanted to be an obstetrician or preacher. Guess what the 'anointing' was! He was arrested.

Women removing their knickers in church to have Holy Communion wine poured over their genitals. We have videos.

We can show you videos of Christian women ripping off their clothes or attempting to do so, rolling on the floor in church, experiencing sexual orgasms, saying "It's God's Spirit!"

Two men, Pentecostal ministers, one standing in the room imitating a woman in labor and the other one is the mid-wife, puts his hand between his legs to catch the 'baby' coming out.

My secretary's parents are Jewish. Her parents see this stuff on television in England and they say, "That's what you left Judaism, the faith of your fathers, for? To bark like a dog?"

No, it hasn't brought revival-it has prevented revival.The love of moneyThe origin of Toronto lies with the money preachers. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith (1 Timothy 6:10).

The Word of God says those who chase money, who covet money, will lose their faith. This thing comes from people who do not believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.The mighty deeds of GodIf you have seen the videos, you've seen people dumb-struck, unable to speak, or with drunken and slurred speech. The latest phenomena in England now is 'vomiting in the Spirit'. They come up and have hands laid on and they begin projectile vomiting-a common phenomena in demonic manifestations.

We hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God (Acts 2:11). When you see people unable to talk properly, is that the "mighty deeds of God"?

The Toronto people claim that they are "drunk in the Spirit, not with wine". However, when the Acts 2 people were 'drunk in the Spirit', Peter said: These men are not drunk, as you suppose (Acts 2:15). And the people who heard, heard of the "mighty deeds of God" and thousands were convicted and repented and became Christians on the first day.

When unsaved people see this now they say, "You people are nuts! Maybe there's something to it. I've got to go out and spend $100 to get as drunk naturally as you are because of your religion."

In Acts they heard the mighty deeds of God, they did not hear drunkenness.The fruits of the Toronto thingIt's fruits? They like to say: "You know it by its fruits." There are three kinds of biblical fruit.

The first fruit is one of righteousness and of repentance. Notice how-unlike in the preaching of the apostles, the preaching of Wesley, of Jonathon Edwards, of any of the people they like to cite-how little emphasis there is on repentance.

Secondly, there is no fruit of souls, no great numbers of people being saved.

And thirdly, there is no fruit of the Spirit.

Where is the fruit? The Toronto people say, "You know it by its fruits." Jesus never said, "You will know a phenomena by its fruits." He said you would know a person by their fruits.

They are using a totally unscriptural basis to evaluate this thing in order to justify themselves.Drunkenness-Not of the SpiritNonetheless, let's look at fruit in Galatians. Paul uses a rabbinic method of argument in Galatians where he talks about the fruit of the Spirit. What he does here is to begin explaining what something is, by first defining what it is not.

Before he speaks about the fruit of the Spirit, he compares it to its opposite; he contrasts the fruit of the Spirit to the deeds of the flesh. In Galatians 5:21, drunkenness is not a fruit of the Spirit, it is a deed of the flesh; it is the diametric opposite of the fruit of the Spirit.

Peter says, Keep sober in spirit (1 Peter 1:13). Be of sober spirit (1 Peter 5:8). Both times the context is spiritual sobriety, not the abuse of alcohol.

A 'refreshing'? The next thing they'll tell you is that it is not "revival" but "refreshing".

They go back to the old "Manifest Sons of God" errors of the fifties, where they take Ezekiel 47 out of its millennial and Hebraic context of the Living Water, and say: "Its up to here, and then here, and then here; and then the revival will come."

In other words, what they are saying is: "This is a time of refreshing. Once we have been refreshed, we will see the great repentance; we will see people turning from eastern religions, New Age, and drug abuse, and coming to Christ."

Let's read Acts 3:19 in its context. First thing about the context is that Peter is talking to non-Christians, telling them they need to be saved.

It is an evangelistic sermon; it is kerygma. So when they use this verse for Christian living, they are taking it out of its context. This is not an instruction to Christians, it is preaching the gospel to the unsaved.

Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord (Acts 3:19).

Does it say: Have a refreshing and then the repentance will come? Or does it rather say: Repent so that the refreshing will come? Once again, it says the diametric opposite of what they have been telling you.Ministerial qualificationsIt doesn't bother me that so many Pentecostal ministers can't read Greek or Hebrew; but these clowns can't even read English!
The Pentecostal ministry has become a haven for people who are unqualified to do anything else. Do you think some of these guys would have the houses and the cars and the world travel if they were not in the ministry?

Look how few have proper degrees. Maybe they have honorary degrees, but very few of them have any real credentials. No, you don't have to be a scholar or have formal academic qualifications to be a minister, but you need to know what the Word of God says. How could anybody reverse the direct meaning of Acts 3:19?

In his book, Yonggi Cho says: "Your subconscious imagination is your soul." The Bible doesn't say that. It says that it is your spirit, your innermost man.

Cho teaches the incubation of ideas: visualize what you want and speak it into being. That is a Man-is-God thing. Cho says Buddhists and Hindus have known this for centuries and now Jesus Christ has shown it to him. This is not Christianity, it is Buddhist shamanism.False prophetsYonggi Cho prophesied falsely during the mid-eighties that a certain big Pentecostal church in Australia was going to have 10,000 people within three years. It didn't happen. The Bible says that makes him a false prophet.

An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority; and My people love it so! (Jeremiah 5:30-31). They would rather follow hype, lies and ear-tickling, than truth.
'Don't speak against it'

Then they say: "Don't speak against it. If it's not from God it won't last, and if it is of God it will last and you will be found to be speaking against God." And they quote rabbi Gamaliel out of context. I've been an evangelist to the Jews for nearly twenty years. I can tell you all about the Pharisees and rabbi Gamaliel.

The School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. Gamaliel was from the rabbinic school of Hillel. He was the grandson of the founder of the School of Hillel. We even know who his students were: Onkelos, rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai and rabbi Shaul of Tarsus, better known to some people as Paul the apostle.

We know a lot from the Talmudic literature about rabbi Gamaliel. I debate orthodox rabbis over the Messiahship of Jesus.

Rabbi Gamaliel was not a Christian and never became one. But let's read the context-Acts 5:34-39: But a certain Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do to these men."

And he refers here to the prophecy of Isaiah that, before the Messiah came, there would be many false prophets.

"For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody; and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. And he was slain; and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.

After this man Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away some people after him, he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action should be of men, it will be over thrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found to be fighting against God."

So they took his advice, took the apostles outside, flogged them and told them not to preach the gospel any more.

I've gotten letters from Pentecostal ministers saying, "You should know better, as an evangelist to the Jews. Look at rabbi Gamaliel's advice." And I've responded, "What do you want me to do? Take Rodney Howard-Browne outside and flog him?"Longevity proves nothing"If these men are not of God, it won't last." Where does the Bible say that longevity is the proof of something being from God?
If that is what that means (which is not what Gamaliel is saying at all in context), the Jehovah's Witnesses must be of God-they've been around for over a hundred years; the Mormons must be of God-they've been around since the last century; Buddhism and Hinduism must be of God-they've been around longer than Christianity. If longevity is the proof, every cult and false religion in the world must be of God.The real PhariseesIf you say these things to them they say, "You're a Pharisee!" Let me tell you about the Pharisees. They taught as precepts of God the inventions of men. They took man-made doctrine and tried to give it doctrinal authority. That is what made a Pharisee a Pharisee.

I have a letter from one of these people saying, "I know that what I saw in Toronto was not Biblical, but microwave ovens and toasters are not in the Bible either. They are not wrong, so why should this Toronto phenomena be wrong?"

First of all, microwave ovens and toasters are not doctrine.

1 Corinthians 4:6 teaches that we are not to "exceed what is written". That is what the Pharisees did.

When you challenge these people for the biblical basis for what they are doing, they have none! They are the ones who are the Pharisees. They are the ones teaching the inventions of men as the precepts of God.

The second thing the Pharisees did was the Letter/Spirit distinction. The Bible says, the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6).

From the Toronto supporters we hear: "We've got the Spirit, you're into the Letter. You're Pharisees!"

Notice how these people do it. If they can't win their case in court based on the evidence, they try to tie it up in legal finagling, with cute points of law that ordinary people cannot understand.

The Hebrew word for "honor", as in honor your father and mother (Exodus 20:12), is kovad which literally means "heavy".
The spirit of Honor your father and mother is: The same as your parents were legally and financially responsible for you in your infancy, you are legally and financially responsible for them in their old age. It doesn't simply mean, Respect your parents. It means, they are heavy for you; you have to carry them.

The New Testament teaches that if you ignore your parents in their need, don't expect to have a long life yourself (Ephesians 6:2-3). That is the spirit of the text.

The Pharisees would say, Anything of mine that you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God) (Mark 7:11)-from the Hebrew word for "sacrifice".

They took the spirit out of the text and played games with the letters. They engaged in legal argumentation over odd points of law in order to pervert the truth to suit whatever arguments they were trying to make-often for the benefit of the person with the greatest financial interest. They were famous for that.

At the close of the Sermon on the Mount, it says that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28-29). In other words, he would not engage in Pharisaical game playing with the words.

These people take the spirit of the text out and play games with the letters. What do they do with Acts 3:19? They say "refreshing" comes first and then "repentance".

These people are Pharisees because they take the spirit out and play with the letters-they teach as precepts the inventions of men.Jesus addresses the PhariseesThey called themselves "Pharisees". Read Matthew 23-Jesus Christ calls them "scum". Actually, what Jesus said was: Hypocrites... you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men... you devour widow's houses, even while for a pretense you make long prayers... hypocrites... You fools and blind men... hypocrites... You blind guides... hypocrites... inside you are full of robbery and self-indulgence... you are like white-washed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness... you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness... you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?

I have to be careful what I say, I don't want to get sued! I have to get it exactly right, word for word.

A fish or a snake?

For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it shall be opened. Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him? (Luke 11:10-13).

They are using this verse, saying, "We know Toronto is true, because if we ask for a fish, we are not going to get a serpent; if we ask for bread, we are not going to get a stone."

The typology of the serpent is Satan the deceiver-in Genesis the serpent beguiled the woman; in Revelation the dragon and serpent are cast down to earth.

Look at the context. How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Spirit...

The New Testament teaches two ways of receiving the Spirit: the Holy Spirit indwelling and the Holy Spirit outpoured. As far as the Holy Spirit indwelling goes, that is what happens when you are born again. These people admit that they are born again Christians, so they cannot be talking about receiving the Holy Spirit to be born again-they already say they are born again.
The Holy Spirit outpoured is the Baptism of the Spirit. These people are already Charismatics and Pentecostals, so they are not talking about the Baptism in the Spirit.

I don't know what they are talking about but, whatever it is, it is not what Jesus was talking about.

They already claim to have received the Spirit, but they have some other spirit now. I wonder what spirit it is?

True, if you ask the Father for a fish, He is not going to give you a snake. But that is the test-If you get a snake, you know it wasn't God who gave it to you. And, boy, have they got hold of a snake!Testing the spiritsBeloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

John Arnott has said, "Toronto is like a flowing stream. Don't try to test it or discern it. Just jump in, you'll understand it after you've jumped in." Rodney Howard-Browne says, "Don't pray. Just accept. Just receive."
That kind of 'emptying yourself' is something Watchman Nee warned about. You find that kind of passivity in Hinduism and Buddhism.

We showed videos of Rodney Howard-Browne to converted Hindus in London. They said, "That's Bhagwan Rajneesh. That is what we were saved out of."

Test the spirits. The Toronto people say "Don't test it", but God says, "Test it".Jesus has come in the fleshBy this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of anti-Christ, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world (1 John 4:1-3).

I heard the tape of Andrew Evans' sermon on this. Someone rang up Rodney Howard-Browne and asked, "Do you believe that Jesus came in the flesh?" Rodney said, "Yes." Therefore Andrew Evans says it is from God.

Rodney Howard-Browne says that Jesus came in the flesh. So do Hindus. So do Mormons. So do the cults, they all believe that.
That is not what the Bible says. "Confess." Testify. Bear witness.The Holy Spirit points to JesusLook at John 14:26 and John 16:14. The Holy Spirit only points people to Jesus, never to Himself. In no place in the Bible is the Holy Spirit ever prayed to, except where He is worshipped in the context of the Tri-unity of the Godhead.

In the Bible they prayed to the Father in the name of the Son through the Spirit, they prayed to Jesus, they prayed to the Father in Jesus' name, but never is the Holy Spirit prayed to Himself. Never!

It is not His function. He does not work that way within the Trinity. He points people to Jesus. He makes people confess Christ.
What do we have today? Benny Hinn: Good Morning, Holy Spirit-that is not biblical. Holy Spirit, we welcome you-Come Holy Spirit, let your fire fall. I'm sorry, that is not biblical.

A false doctrine of the Holy Spirit will always lead to a false doctrine of Jesus, and vice versa.Priests of BaalThe priests of Baal didn't begin by worshipping the pagan Baal, they began by worshipping the Jewish one. Baal is the Hebrew word for "master", "husband" and "owner".

Israel was to be the Bride of Yahweh, Yahweh was to be Israel's Baal-the same as the Church is the Bride of Christ, and Christ is to be the Baal of the Church. It is the same word in Hebrew and Aramaic.

But they were to worship the true Baal on Mt Zion, the "sides of the north". Instead they worshipped on a Caananite high place, Mt Carmel (where my children were born).

Unbiblical worship. They began by worshipping the true God in an unbiblical way. And another god came in and counterfeited it. Before they knew it, they were worshipping the Caananite Baal (who even called himself Baal Shomayim-'The husband or master of heaven').

When you begin to worship the true God in an unbiblical way, an alien spirit will counterfeit Him. That is why God gave the Jews such technical detail in the Torah (in Leviticus) for the worship, because the Caananite worship could so easily counterfeit and parallel it.

If you begin worshipping the true God in a wrong way, another spirit will get in. The Toronto stuff is the work of an alien spirit.
The Holy Spirit points people toward confessing Jesus, never Himself-that proves the Toronto spirit is not the real Holy Spirit.Signs, wonders and miraclesMany will say to Me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?" (Matthew 7:22).

What did Jesus say? "Yeah, you did. Now get lost. I never knew you!"

He didn't deny that they did the signs and wonders, and He didn't deny that they did it in His name, but look at it.

Notice the difference between Kenneth Copeland, Morris Cerullo, Rodney Howard-Browne and Jesus: When Jesus healed someone or did a miracle, it was always, "Don't tell anybody." He never wanted signs and wonders to eclipse His real message of repentance. He refused to allow those things to take centre-stage.

If He had just put on a show for King Herod, He could have walked free and never been crucified. Herod wanted a show. But Jesus refused to drag His ministry down to the level of Rodney Howard-Browne.

These signs, wonders, manifestations, always bear witness to Jesus only, never to a man. John 5, Hebrews 2, it is always "These signs follow " The signs are simply subordinate, they are never the issue.

Most of these Toronto people are influenced by the Vineyard theology of John Wimber and Peter Wagner-Power Encounters. "Signs and wonders are the key", they say. Well, the people in Jesus' day saw signs and wonders-and a week later they were yelling "Crucify Him!"

The Feast of Hanukah-your Bible translates it as "the Feast of Dedication" -is also the Jewish Feast of Miracles. At Hanukah we say in Hebrew, "A great miracle happened here." My family celebrates Hanukah.

It was during Hanukah that Jesus said, "I showed you many good works from the father; for which of them are you stoning me?" (John 10:32).

The Bible never says signs and wonders are the key; it says signs and wonders follow. They only bear witness to Him and they follow. He never allowed them to be central.

What Jesus did say about signs and wonders was this: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign" (Matthew 16:4).
I have seen posters and leaflets and adverts in Pentecostal magazines saying "Signs and Wonders Crusade-Rodney Howard-Browne". Jesus said that is wickedness and adultery!Transferable anointing?And you shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister as priests to Me. And you shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, "This shall be a holy anointing oil to Me throughout your generations. It shall not be poured on anyone's body, nor shall you make any like it, in the same proportions; it is holy, and it shall be... holy to you. Whoever shall mix any like it, or whoever puts any of it on a layman, shall be cut off from his people." (Exodus 30:30).

Different liquids typify the Holy Spirit in different aspects of His ministry and being. The living water is the Spirit outpoured in John 7:38-39 and Isaiah 44:3. The new wine is the Holy Spirit in Worship-Isaiah 24. In Exodus 30, He is called shemen-oil, the anointing of the Spirit.

Notice how the Toronto people always say: "Get IT; get IT." No, the Holy Spirit is not an "it", He is a "He"! I don't want "it", I want Him.

The same with the Jehovah's Witnesses-they have a false Christology and a false Pneumatology, a denigration of the Holy Spirit. Can you blaspheme an "it"? Can you grieve an "it"? Well don't call the anointing of the Spirit an "it", it's a "Him".

The Bible says if you make any anointing oil like it, that is an abomination; you will be cut off from your people; it is holy unto you. The literal Hebrew is that your anointing is set apart by God unto you. That's what "holy unto you" means.

Elisha asked for the mantle of Elijah. Elijah said, "I can't give that to you. When I'm raptured in the chariot, if it falls from heaven and God gives it to you, you can have it, but it's not mine to give."

It is an abomination to pass on your anointing, even assuming it was real, which is another big question with these guys.
These people who are getting on aeroplanes to go to Toronto are seeking to get something that God says is an abomination.
Not only that, but before Jesus was anointed for dominion, He was anointed for burial. The real proof of anointing is a crucified life.

What was Paul's proof of his calling as an apostle? Was it the churches he planted? No. Was it miracles he did? (And he did real miracles. A lot of the stuff you see today is bogus.) No. Was it the healings? No. Was it the fact that he raised someone from the dead? No. Was it the fact that God used him to write so much of the New Testament? No. Was it all the people who were saved through his preaching? No. None of that was the proof of his anointing.

Read Galatians 6:17, From now on, let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus. The proof of Paul's anointing was a crucified life.

Read the real proof of an apostle in 1 Corinthians 4:9-13, someone who lays his life down for the sheep, who was willing to suffer, who was willing to be impoverished if necessary. It was not a $1,000 a night room in the Hyatt and a chauffeur-driven limousine. That is the world's proof, it is not God's proof.

Whose anointing do you want? The anointing from God is something He has set apart for you.'Be sober in all things'Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
[Notice how Paul and Jesus were very patient with people who were being misled, but very impatient with those who were doing the misleading.]

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves [Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Rodney Howard-Browne] teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. But you [don't be like that, but] be sober (2 Timothy 4:2-5).
The Word of God tells us to be the opposite of what they are saying now.

The context of this is eschatological, it is about the last days. You have no chapter divisions in the Greek text. Look at 2 Timothy 3:8. Who are these deceivers going to be like? And just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected as regards the faith.

Who were "Jannes and Jambres"? Pharoah's magicians. What did they do? Signs and wonders!

What did Jesus say to look out for in the last days? Not just earthquakes, famines, wars. Four times He refers to deception in the Church.

For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect (Matthew 24:24).

These "false Christs" in the Greek are anti-christs, that is (literally) someone with a false anointing.

False teachers-those who teach false doctrines, false prophets-those who predict things that don't happen, and false Christs-people with a false anointing, will show great signs and wonders in order to mislead, if possible, the elect.

How will Satan try to deceive Christians in the last days? Through signs and wonders.
Toronto = Judgment from God

...the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false, in order that all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).

If Christians don't love the truth, it means that they really don't love Jesus. Therefore God Himself will deceive them.
The context of this passage in Thessalonians is talking to Christians, it is talking about what is known in Greek as the apostasia, the great falling away.

Toronto is not simply a deception: it is a judgment from God on those who do not love the truth.Nothing to laugh about Now it came about when I heard these words, I sat down and wept and mourned for days; and I was fasting and praying before the God of heaven (Nehemiah 1:4).

This is probably the best picture we have of revival in the Tenach (the Old Testament).

With New Age/Eastern religions taking over the Protestant democracies, homosexuality being taught as sexually normative to little children in schools, church attendance plummeting, I know what we have to weep about. I don't know what we have to laugh about. I know what the devil has to laugh about-he is laughing at us, and, frankly, I don't blame him. But I don't know what we have to laugh about.

Real revival, the real power-of-God revival, the stuff that these clowns cannot deliver-that they know they cannot deliver-always begins with people weeping, not with people laughing.

And if thy brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. (Matthew 18:15-18).


As F.F. Bruce pointed out, this speaks of going to another Christian about their sin, not about their doctrine.

Today we have people teaching false doctrines who, when they are challenged, respond with: "You didn't come to me on the basis of Matthew 18." Jesus never taught to go to your brother about his doctrine. In fact, when it came to the issue of circumcision of Gentiles, and behavior associated with it, Paul rebuked Peter in the presence of all.Theocratic politiciansIt came about that when Jesus had finished all these words, He said to His disciples, "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be delivered up for crucifixion." Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together in the court of the high priest, named Caiaphas; and they plotted together to seize Jesus by stealth, and kill Him. But they were saying, "Not during the festival, lest a riot occur among the people." (Matthew 26:1-5).

And you find the same behavior with John the Baptist, and you find it elsewhere in the gospel narratives. Whenever the religious leaders could not refute what Jesus said, they had to attack Him personally for saying it.

They always feared that He would expose what they were really teaching and doing to the people. The one thing that theocratic politicians fear most is public exposure to their congregations and their people. In the days of Jesus, and through much of church history, they have turned the ministry of the Word of God into a vehicle for their own aggrandisement-power, money, position: it has always been a problem.

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, a member of the Roman Catholic clergy. I've spoken to Roman Catholic theologians who admit that when the medieval papacy could not refute what Martin Luther said in his Ninety-five Theses, they attacked him for saying it.

If you were to read the Papal Bull issued against Luther, they couldn't refute what Luther said, so they attacked him for saying it. You always find that with religious hypocrisy; the cowardice of religious leaders. When you can't attack what someone says, attack them for saying it.

And, above all, keep the public from finding out the truth.

The fear these people have! So what do they do? The same thing they did during the Reformation, the same thing can happen anytime. They begin legal finagling. "Quick! Get a solicitor on the phone!"

And they begin by circulating lies and rumors. Religious hypocrites have characteristically behaved this way because they will not debate the issue.Religious hypocritesWe see with Jesus that none of them would dare challenge Him for fear of the people. No one dared to ask Him any more questions. They could not argue from Scripture, so they had to get into legal finagling and, eventually, conspiracy and even lies.

Religious hypocrites behave this way, and we see them behaving this way today. Why? Because they can do nothing else.


In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul says it is better for a Christian to be defrauded, discredited, robbed, maligned, than it is to go to the world's legal system against another believer.

What happens when major so-called Christian leaders will, at the expense of the church, drawing on money that hard-working Christians paid their offerings for, hire lawyers to persecute other ministers because they don't like what they're saying? That is precisely what is going on in Australia at this moment!

Speaking as a Christian, I find it absolutely despicable. And people who do it-by God's standards, not mine-have no right to call themselves "ministers". They're not ministers. They are Pharisees, Sanhedrin. Read the New Testament for yourself.
If you can't refute the message, shoot the messengerApostolic theologyLet me point one other thing out. New Testament theology is always a combination of the proactive and the reactive. It's much better to emphasis the positive. However, let's look at apostolic theology. The most divisive issue in the early church was the circumcision of Gentiles and the purpose of the Torah. Some Jewish believers thought they were a cut above the rest.


In Romans, Paul deals with the issue of the circumcision of Gentiles pro actively: "Here's how the Law points to Jesus." In Galatians, however, he deals with it re actively: "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" You always have that balance.
'Positive' Theology?

Some people say that we should only teach the positive and let God deal with the negative. If so, you would have to cut most of the Old Testament out of the Scripture, because every single prophet after Joshua wrote re actively. The people went away from the Torah. And when you go away from the Word of God, it's because you have gone away from God Himself.


Secondly, you have to tear out most of the Pauline and Johanine epistles: Galatians, First Thessalonians, First Corinthians-these things were written to refute error.Touch not the Lord's anointed!We always get the same response: "Touch not the Lord's anointed!" I profoundly wish that those who quote that verse would read it.

It is true that King David would not touch King Saul in the cave of Ein Gedi. However, that never stopped David or Samuel the prophet from telling the truth about King Saul. He said King Saul was a treacherous, back-slidden and murderous man. And that verse is not going to stop me telling the truth about Rodney Howard-Brown or Kenneth Copeland.

If you think "Don't touch my anointed" means you don't stand up and name the names of people who are leading God's people astray, you will need to modify your Bible. Jews anointed High Priests and Kings. Watch out for Jaazaniah son of Azzur (Ezekiel 11:1). He was the High Priest, he was God's anointed, and he was leading the people astray. Tear the book of Ezekiel out of your Bible!

Watch out for people who predict things that don't happen. It says in Deuteronomy 18:22 that someone who predicts something in the name of the Lord which fails to happen is a false prophet. Get away from them!

Watch out for Hananiah, he predicts things which don't happen; he counsels rebellion against the Lord (Jeremiah 28). Well, so do people like Rick Joyner and John Wimber; you can document their prophecies that have failed.

Who does Jeremiah the prophet think he is, touching God's anointed? Tear the book of Jeremiah out of your Bible!

Every king was anointed. Jews didn't crown kings, they anointed them. 1 Kings, 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles record the history of the kings. Every king of Israel, and most of the kings of Judah were corrupt and mislead the people. The Word of God names them and says what they did. Quick! Tear 1 Kings out of your Bible. Tear 2 Kings out of your Bible. Tear 1 and 2 Chronicles out of your Bible.

High Priests were God's anointed, so were kings. What did Jesus say about Herod? "Go and tell that fox " (Luke 13:32). Who does Jesus Christ think He is, touching God's anointed? Who do Matthew, Mark, Luke and John think they are? When they decry Caiaphas and Ananias, the High Priests, they must be touching God's anointed!

If you think that is what "touching God's anointed" means, tear the four Gospels out of your Bible. Turn to the Epistles. Look out for Alexander the coppersmith (2 Timothy 4:14); look out for Demas (2 Timothy 4:10). Look out for Diotrephes (3 John 9). Quick! Tear the Epistles out of the Bible, they are touching God's anointed. They are naming the names in public; they are naming them in published letters.

If you think "touch not God's anointed" means that you should not stand up to those who are teaching error to God's people and misleading them, you may as well throw away the whole Bible and write your own, which is essentially what these people are doing, any way.Three years and no revival!So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls (Acts 2:41). Peter's message was always one of "Repent and be baptized. Save yourself from this crooked generation." A message dealing with repentance and judgment.

When the Holy Spirit really fell, when it really happened, on the first day, three thousand souls were saved. And thousands more were saved the next day. Day after day, after day, thousands of people were converted and born again. Thousands!

A lot of people being born again is not revival. A lot of people being born again is the result of revival. You cannot revive that which was never alive to begin with. Revival is the church repenting and returning to its first love.

A lot of people being saved is the proof of the pudding, it is the result of revival, it is the authentication that God is moving.


In John Wesley's revival, thousands were saved on the first day. As soon as he began preaching, people began giving their lives to the Lord as they came out of the coal mines. At Azusa Street, from 1906 to 1913, huge numbers of people were saved.


Notice the first two differences between what the Word of God teaches about revival, what church history illustrates about revival, and what is happening-or I should say, what is not happening today.


I was in Toronto in October 1995 for other business. I visited the zoo while I happened to be in town. After three years, no revival has come to Toronto. It has had no impact on that city, spiritually or morally. It remains the New Age, homosexual and drug dealing capital of Canada. The churches have not grown. Most of the people who contribute to the reports of large crowds at the Airport Vineyard Church are visitors from elsewhere. The Toronto phenomena is not known in most of Canada; even less known in America, except for those who have seen it on television; and even in South Africa it is not what it is here in Australia.

It mainly took root in countries where evangelical Christianity is in notorious numerical decline. Great Britain: where the churches are dying, where there are more mosques being built than there are churches. That's where it is being embraced: where Christianity is on its last legs.

Where are the numbers saved? Where are the thousands saved? Where? It hasn't happened. This "Toronto blessing / New wave" is false fire.

Whenever God does something new in a desperate situation, it is like the Day of Pentecost-120 in an upper room; it is Gideon's Army-300 people; it is Azusa Street-people in a house in Los Angeles; it is John Wesley-Moravian missionaries meeting with the early Methodists in a house in London.

Whenever God does something new-because the church has so miserably and conspicuously failed-He begins with a small number of people. When you see people trying to mobilize as many others as possible to do something, that is the striving of the flesh. It is the diametric opposite of the way God has worked in either Scripture or Church History.

The very fact that the Toronto thing became such a popular phenomena in so many churches proves that God is not in it; it is not the way He has ever worked when He did something new.

It is totally out of character of any biblical or historical precedent. Our God does not work that way. The AOG Executive may work that way, but God does not.Materialism or revival?And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. (Acts 2:44-45).

Another proof of revival is people's attitude towards materialism. They stop hoping in this world and practice divestiture in the book of Acts.

I just came from Perth, Australia. It is not difficult to document the amount of money that Rodney Howard-Brown and his entourage spent in the Hyatt Regency Hotel there. Drive a few hours out of Perth and watch someone working among the poor aboriginals-striving to have just a basic budget; or get on an aeroplane and fly from Perth to Indonesia and watch Christians being persecuted by Muslims-see how rich they are. Tell me who really knows the Lord Jesus.Its Roots and its FruitsRodney Howard-Brown comes from Ray Macauley's church in South Africa. Ray Macauley teaches, and has published, that building the Tower of Babel is God's model for Christian Unity. Nothing will be impossible for them, so he teaches.

Kenneth Copeland gave this "blessing" to Rodney Howard-Brown. Paul says that even if an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you (Galatians 1:8) get away from him. Paul says that even if he himself preaches another gospel, get away.

The gospel tells us that when the Lord Jesus Christ died on the Cross, He took away your sin and mine. When He rose from the dead, He did it to give us eternal life. He won the victory on the Cross. He who knew no sin became sin for us. That's the gospel.
Kenneth Copeland, who gave the Toronto thing to Howard- Browne, was influenced by someone called E.W. Kenyon, who-by his own admission-was influenced by the founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy.

The Lord Jesus, when on the Cross, said: "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit" (Luke 23:46). He also said, "It is finished" (John 19:30).

But Kenneth Copeland, on television-well documented in Christianity in Crisis-said the following: "Satan conquered Jesus on the Cross." He claims that the biggest failure in history is God; more than that, Copeland claims that he could have died on the Cross instead of Jesus Christ because he also is a 'born again' man.

Copeland teaches that what happened on the Cross was that Satan got the victory and then Jesus descended into hell and became a Satanic being of one nature with Lucifer. Then this demon, Jesus Christ, of one nature with Satan, after three days of being tortured, had to be born again. That is the 'gospel' according to Copeland.

So, because the Cross is not central to their view of the Christian life, of salvation, neither is the Cross central to their view of what it means to be a Christian.

Instead of "Take up your Cross and follow Me, and exchange it one day for a crown", it becomes: "God wants you rich. Name it and claim it. You're a king's kid." It is the Gospel of Mammon in Christian masquerade; it is covetousness camouflaged.'Word of Faith' TeachingsThey come from the "Word of Faith" School. "Faith", in the Gre

5月の学び会の続編になります。

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('cloak90d68b61dc6c026864614e12fbce6709').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy90d68b61dc6c026864614e12fbce6709 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy90d68b61dc6c026864614e12fbce6709 = addy90d68b61dc6c026864614e12fbce6709 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text90d68b61dc6c026864614e12fbce6709 = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloak90d68b61dc6c026864614e12fbce6709').innerHTML += ''+addy_text90d68b61dc6c026864614e12fbce6709+'';

Shalom! My name is Jacov " Jacob, and someone directed you here because you are Jewish and they were interested in speaking to you about the relationship between Christianity and Judaism.

I know Jewish people are revolted by Jews who believe in Jesus, so you can rest assured my mother is a Gentile Roman Catholic. She doesn't believe what I believe, but I am not halachaly Jewish. My wife and children, however, are.

Now I grew up in the New York area and I was sent both to a Roman Catholic school and the Jewish community center. I had brit milah, plus I was sprinkled as a baby. By the time I became a teenager I was an agnostic. By the time I became a teenager I didn't know what I believed, I just know what I didn't. But I had an open mind. Now I always had a sense of identity with Israel and the Jewish people, but I was not halachaly Jewish and I rejected Roman Catholicism as something idolatrous and corrupt. So I'm speaking to you as a Jewish person, and I'd like you to understand why I as a Christian am philo-Semitic, why I support Israel and the Jewish people, but this inevitably leads to the question, why did I bring up my Jewish children to believe that Jesus is a Jew who had a Jewish message taught in a Jewish way for Jewish people?

If you want to look at what"s revolting about Christendom, its ugly history of idolatry and anti-Semitism, I"m with you, my Jewish friend, 100%. They took a Jewish faith and they turned it into a Hellenistic " a Greek, even a Pagan faith; they took a Jewish Messiah and turned Him into a goy; they took a Jewish rabbi and made Him an icon of anti-Semitic sentiment. What they did is not rational and it was completely out of harmony with who He was and what He taught. We have to draw a distinction between the Jewish Jesus and the Jesus of Western Christendom.

The Jewish Jesus was called Rabbi Yeshua bar Josef m"Netseret. His name was not "Jesus Christ", his name was Rabbi Yeshua bar Josef m"Netseret. He said, "I came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel". (Mt. 15:24) You may be surprised to know that every writer of the New Testament was a Jew. The only exception would have been one physician who was a Gentile convert to Judaism who wrote one book; all the rest were Jewish including Rabbi Shaul of Tarses who was from the rabbinic school of the Hillel, a disciple of Rabbi Gemaliel, a classmate of Anglios, a classmate of Johanan ben Zaccai. In Judaism, if you're familiar with and been to Yeshiva, you perhaps know.

And so I"m left with this dilemma: I was brought up with what I was told is Christianity, but reading the New Testament I found out it was not Christianity. And there was a Judaism that I was told was the same Judaism as Moses and the prophets. So the same as I read the B"rit Hadasha " the New Testament, and I discovered that the New Testament was not what Jesus taught, I needed to do the same thing with the Tanak, the Hebrew Scriptures. It says in Proverbs three times that an unequal balance is an abomination to Hashem. (Prov. 11:1; 20:10; 20;23) So in the same way that I discovered that Christianity had mutated into something very different than it was originally, much the same happened to Judaism.

I was shocked to discover that in the Tanak there was no such thing as a "rabbi". He"s called "Moshe Rabbeinu", but there was no rabbis. There were "Levim" " "Levites", priests. And in the New Testament there were no priests! It"s something they"d invented. There were "presbyters" " elders, but there were no priests. Christ was a priest; every Christian was supposed to be a priest, not a separate priesthood. So there were no priests in the New Testament and no rabbis in the Old. I began to understand why a Jewish man, Karl Marx, said religion was a con. But I looked further and I came up with questions, questions that I asked myself, and questions I would like to ask you.

And reading The Book of Mormon, I"m brought to one other question. I"m told that Jesus is the half-brother of Satan and that Adam was God. As man is God was, and as God is man shall become. That is the fundamental tenet of Mormonism. Adam was God. (The book of Genesis says that Adam was created by God.) And that Jesus is the half-brother of Satan. Satan wanted to rule the world by force, Jesus wanted to rule it by love, and the angels who wouldn"t take sides were cast down and they became the black people. That's your religion"s teaching.

The Greek word is "monogenes". It doesn"t mean "only born", "only begotten" in the sense of "monogenes" means "only of a kind". If Jesus is the "only begotten" Son of God, the only "monogenes", how can Satan be his half-brother if He's the only one? Can you please answer me how can Satan be the half-brother of Jesus if Jesus is the "only begotten"? No one has so far been able to answer that question for me from your religion. Can you answer it? How can He be the half-brother of Satan if He"s the "only begotten"?

Title Scripture Description A Chink in the Armor A Chink in the Armor What happens when good leaders become involved with bad ones? A Prophet Like Unto Moses A Prophet Like Unto Moses The Scriptural similarities which point to Moses as a type of the Messiah to come. Abraham's Journey Genesis 12 Every person's life can be plotted as being along some point of Abraham's journey from Mesopotamia to the Promised Land, a metaphor for our spiritual walk in this life Anointing Acts 2 Addressing the claims of various groups that there efforts are bringing an revival accompanied by spiritual anointing and the scriptural standards by which such an anointing and revival actually operate. Bible Versions Various The Bible is the Word of God in the Word of Man. That doesn't make it any less the Word of God, but neither does that make it any less the Word of Man. Binding & Loosing Daniel 10 In many areas the church is trying to use biblical teaching about binding and loosing as an instrument to deal with something it was not designed to deal with. The Boiling Pot Ezekiel 24   The Book of Jonah Jonah There is no Hebrew prophet whose life does not foreshadow or typify the Messiah who would come after them, to bring in the Redemption which they prophesied. The Book of Ruth Ruth The book of Ruth tells the story of a rich powerful Jewish man who takes a Gentile Bride and exalts her, the way that Jesus, on the day of Pentecost, raised up the Gentile church, as the Bride of Christ. The Burning Bush - Hineni Exodus 2-3 Moses is a good picture of anybody who really wants to serve God. In fact, he s one of the best pictures. Christian Cults Christian Cults Deals with the subject of organizations which are evangelistic in theology but cultic in their organization. Christmas is Coming Various What does Christmas, the Nativity, have to do with the Last Days? This may surprise you, but the answer is - everything. The Crucified Life John 20 If signs and wonders are really the key to revival, why did they cry out a few days later, "Crucify Him", when they knew that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead, and healed the lame and the blind? The Day of the Lord Joel What exactly does the it mean when Scripture references "The Day of the Lord?" The Death of Absalom 1 Samuel 18 An important biblical perspective on family, particularly as it relates to whether they're saved or not. The Death of Reason and the Return of Jesus Timothy 1 Due to this suspension of reason, the stage is being set for Jesus' warning that "For this reason" He will come at an hour when He is not expected. The Divine Aristocracy Ecclesiastes 9-10 God says, however, that only the things that last forever are real riches. Silver, gold and jewels will not get you off the road to hell - nor will they get you into heavenly Jerusalem. Egypt, Babylon, or the Palm of God Jeremiah 40 What are the options for the faithful remnant in the Last Days? Previous biblical examples provide a picture of what it will be like for Believers. Elijah: A Man Who Could Make It Rain James 5:16-18 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours. Elijah was a man who could make it rain. The Holy Spirit, through this text, is trying to tell us that, if he can do it, we can do it. We can make it rain. But what does that mean? Ezekiel - Chapters 8 & 9 Ezekiel 8-9 Ezekiel begins predicting that God's judgment was going to last and would become worse, and the reason that it would last and become worse was that the people's sin was lasting and becoming worse. They refused to repent as they saw God's judgments coming. Ezekiel's Scroll Ezekiel 2-3 Jesus is the Word of God. We, like Ezekiel, are required to "eat" all of that Word. It will be sweet in our mouths, but bitter in our stomachs. A message for those who warn against the error and apostasy in the modern church. Fall of the House of Saul 1 Samuel 28 God will not allow the old thing to fall until He judges that the new thing is ready to take its place. The Future History of the Church, Part 1 Various A typological and midrashic examination of what will happen in the future of the church by seeing how the past history of the church is recapitulated eschatologically; how past events happen again in the Last Days. What to expect, and what to prepare for. The Future History of the Church, Part 2 Various A typological and midrashic examination of what will happen in the future of the church by seeing how the past history of the church is recapitulated eschatologically; how past events happen again in the Last Days. What to expect, and what to prepare for. The Future History of the Church, Part 3 Various A typological and midrashic examination of what will happen in the future of the church by seeing how the past history of the church is recapitulated eschatologically; how past events happen again in the Last Days. What to expect, and what to prepare for The Gates of Jerusalem Nehemiah A look at the deeper, spiritual meaning of the rebuilding of the walls and gates of Jerusalem under the direction of Nehemiah. The Great Church Robbery 2 Chronicles 13 A look at all the biblical instances of the "harpazo" ("snatching away") and the difference between being taken by the "kleptos" ("thief") and the one who will harpazo LIKE a kleptos. Hanukkah, Part 1 John 9-10 How does the celebration of Hanukkah, a festival NOT found in the Old Testament, provide greater insight into biblical themes such as the Messiah? How is Hanukkah handled in the New Testament? Hanukkah, Part 2 John 9-10 How does the celebration of Hanukkah, a festival NOT found in the Old Testament, provide greater insight into biblical themes such as the Messiah? How is Hanukkah handled in the New Testament? Hope for the Hopeless Hebrews 11 Hebrews 11 has as much to do with hope as it does with faith. House of David/House of Saul 2 Samuel 3:1 The kind of war I dread is when you have to fight against your brethren. The Iron and the Clay Daniel 2 A commentary on current events in the Middle East as they might pertain to the fulfillment of prophecy in the book of Daniel Jesus In The Talmud   Many Christians who love Israel and who have a heart for the Jewish people confuse loving the people of Israel with loving the religion of the Rabbis that is now called Judaism. Judge Not? James 4 Looks at the different words for "judge" in the Greek and in the Hebrew and in what contexts they are used. Shows when Christians are commanded to judge and when we are commanded not to. The Last Days 1 Timothy 4 The First Century church in certain respects typologically prefigures the Church of the Last Century. The Legacy of Jacob Various The Last Revival asks the question, "Will there be a great end time revival?" And then answers those that teach that there will be a great worldwide revival in the last days before Jesus returns. The Living & the Dead Leviticus 21 Who are the living, who are the dead, what is the temple, and who are the priests? Mezuzot (Doorposts) Judges 14-16 Whatever it may be, however, every Christian has one thing that they continue falling into. Midrash Various If you look at the way the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it is clear that the apostles did not use western Protestant methods of exegesis or interpretation. Midrash: Jesus in the Garden Genesis 3 When you were physically born, you were born of Adam. When you are born again, you are born of the last Adam, who is Jesus. The New Galatians Galatians There is a misguided element in the Gentile church which desires to return to the source of Christian faith, which is biblically and historically a primordial Jewish faith. Unfortunately, they arrive at the abrupt conclusions that anything "Messianic" must be right. Not Even A Minyan Genesis 19 Are there even 10 righteous? Lot lived in a society with rampant homosexuality and Paul warns of that judgment concerning it as well as the times. Once Christian Marriage Means Nothing Matthew 5:32 The union was to be physical, psychological (as in emotional and intellectual), and because it is based on a mutual vow made to God, spiritual. Once Saved, Always Saved? Various A detailed study as to what Scripture has to say about the doctrine which is often described by the label "once saved, always saved". One Messiah, Two Comings Acts 1:4-8 Everything under the ground is Old Testament Israel, but everything above the ground is the New Testament Church. The Church is the spiritual continuity of Old Testament Israel, not its replacement. Pedion Ha Ben Revelation 2:8-11 The donkey had to be redeemed by the blood of the lamb. What was the need for this consecration ritual? In depth midrashic study on these subjects and how it relates to us. Principles of Persecution Revelation 2:8-11 God uses persecution to get the church going. Once a church stops being mission-minded, it will eventually stop being evangelistic. And once it stops being evangelistic, it will eventually stop being evangelical in its doctrine. The Reign of King Asa 2 Chronicles 13 What God's Word really teaches about revival.

Title Scripture Description All That Can Be Shaken   A Chink in the Armor 2 Chronicles 18-19 What happens when good leaders become involved with bad ones? Abraham's Journey Genesis 12 Every person's life can be plotted as being along some point of Abraham's journey from Mesopotamia to the Promised Land, a metaphor for our spiritual walk in this life. Binding & Loosing Daniel 10 In many areas the church is trying to use biblical teaching about binding and loosing as an instrument to deal with something it was not designed to deal with. The Book of Jonah Jonah There is no Hebrew prophet whose life does not foreshadow or typify the Messiah who would come after them, to bring in the Redemption which they prophesied. Book of Ruth Ruth The book of Ruth tells the story of a rich powerful Jewish man who takes a Gentile Bride and exalts her, the way that Jesus, on the day of Pentecost, raised up the Gentile church, as the Bride of Christ. Charismatic False Teaching Luke 21:8 Defining the doctrinal error that has been allowed to infiltrate and grow within the Charismatic Movement. Christian Cults Various Deals with the subject of organizations which are evangelistic in theology but cultic in their organization. Christmas is Coming Various What does Christmas, the Nativity, have to do with the Last Days? This may surprise you, but the answer is - everything. The Crucified Body Luke 9:23 Curses & Christians   The Divine Aristocracy Ecclesiastes 9-10 God says, however, that only the things that last forever are real riches. Silver, gold and jewels will not get you off the road to hell - nor will they get you into heavenly Jerusalem. Ephesus Various In depth detail of one of the seven ages of the church history and the future historical prophetic antitype. Egypt, Babylon, or the Palm of God Jeremiah 40 What are the options for the faithful remnant in the Last Days? Previous biblical examples provide a picture of what it will be like for Believers. Elijah: A Man Who Could Make It Rain James 5:16-18 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours. Elijah was a man who could make it rain. The Holy Spirit, through this text, is trying to tell us that, if he can do it, we can do it. We can make it rain. But what does that mean? Hanukkah, Part 1 John 9-10 How does the celebration of Hanukkah, a festival NOT found in the Old Testament, provide greater insight into biblical themes such as the Messiah? How is Hanukkah handled in the New Testament? Hanukkah, Part 2 John 9-10 How does the celebration of Hanukkah, a festival NOT found in the Old Testament, provide greater insight into biblical themes such as the Messiah? How is Hanukkah handled in the New Testament? House of David/House of Saul 2 Samuel 3:1 The kind of war I dread is when you have to fight against your brethren. Judge Not? James 4 From the pen of the same apostle, in the distance of a few paragraphs, in almost the same breath that he is saying "do not judge," James calls worldly churches "adulteresses." Kashrut & Famine Leviticus 11 An explanation of the typology of the Hebrew dietary laws, and how it deals with what is clean and what is unclean. Unclean being unbelievers, false believers, and their wrong doctrines. What we eat, we are. Deals with how to eat what is clean. The Last Days 1 Timothy 4 The First Century church in certain respects typologically prefigures the Church of the Last Century. Legacy of Jacob   The Living and the Dead Leviticus 21 Who are the living, who are the dead, what is the temple, and who are the priests? Midrash Various If you look at the way the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it is clear that the apostles did not use western Protestant methods of exegesis or interpretation. Midrash: Jesus in the Garden Genesis 3 When you were physically born, you were born of Adam. When you are born again, you are born of the last Adam, who is Jesus. The New Galatians Galatians There is a misguided element in the Gentile church which desires to return to the source of Christian faith, which is biblically and historically a primordial Jewish faith. Unfortunately, they arrive at the abrupt conclusions that anything "Messianic" must be right. One Messiah, Two Comings Acts 1:4-8 Everything under the ground is Old Testament Israel, but everything above the ground is the New Testament Church. The Church is the spiritual continuity of Old Testament Israel, not its replacement. The Reign of King Asa 2 Chronicles 13 What God's Word really reaches about revival. The Sabbath Genesis 2:2-3 Deals with Jesus as our Sabbath rest. It looks at the meaning of the Sabbath and shows how our Sabbath is in a Person and not in a day. This is an important message in understanding the errors of the Seventh-Day Adventists. The Sons of Zadok Ezekiel 44 Compares the righteous clergy with the unrighteous clergy, and explains how to know whether your pastor is righteous or unrighteous. Details the characteristics of each. This Generation Matthew 24:34 Explanation of the meaning of "this generation" in the Olivet Discourse. Typology of the Dietary Law Leviticus 11 An explanation of the typology of the Hebrew dietary laws and how it deals with what is clean and what is unclean, unclean being bunbelievers, false believers, and their wrong doctrines. We are what we "eat". Deals with how to "eat" what is clean. Typology of the Temple Numbers 2 Deals with the spiritual symbolism of the architecture of the Hebrew Temple, pointing to the fact that the church seven times in the New Testament is called the Temple of God, and looks ahead to what this will ultimately mean for the coming Antichrist. Understanding "The Mixture" 1 Thessalonians Arriving at a right doctrinal position and discerning things in a biblical manner in times like this has become more and more difficult for many sincere believers. Watchmen Who Are Not Watchmen Isaiah 62:8 Looking at the biblical character and nature of watchmen however we see that so much of what is being promoted as 'Watchman Ministries' are actually the mere devices of men. Who Are the Jews? Various Deals with the question, €œWho are the Jews?" etymologically, anthropologically, judicially, geographically, and biblically. Also defines three kinds of Judaism (Mosaic, Talmudic and Messianic).

Title Scripture Description A Chink in the Armor 2 Chronicles 18-19 What happens when good leaders become involved with bad ones? A Prophet Like Unto Moses Deuteronomy 18:18 The Scriptural similarities which point to Moses as a type of the Messiah to come. Binding & Loosing Daniel 10 In many areas the church is trying to use biblical teaching about binding and loosing as an instrument to deal with something it was not designed to deal with. The Book of Jonah Jonah There is no Hebrew prophet whose life does not foreshadow or typify the Messiah who would come after them, to bring in the Redemption which they prophesied. Egypt, Babylon, or the Palm of God Jeremiah 40 What are the options for the faithful remnant in the Last Days? Previous biblical examples provide a picture of what it will be like for Believers. Elijah: A Man Who Could Make It Rain James 5:16-18 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours. Elijah was a man who could make it rain. The Holy Spirit, through this text, is trying to tell us that, if he can do it, we can do it. We can make it rain. But what does that mean? Ezekiel - Chapters 8 & 9 Ezeiel 8-9 Ezekiel begins predicting that God's judgment was going to last and would become worse, and the reason that it would last and become worse was that the people's sin was lasting and becoming worse. They refused to repent as they saw God's judgments coming. Ezekiel's Scroll Ezekiel 2-3 We all want to know the truth; we all want to know the future. God will tell us the truth and He will even show us the future, through His Word. Fall of the House of Saul 1 Samuel 28 God will not allow the old thing to fall until He judges that the new thing is ready to take its place. Future History of the Church, Part 1 Various A typological and midrashic examination of what will happen in the future of the church by seeing how the past history of the church is recapitulated eschatologically; how past events happen again in the Last Days. What to expect, and what to prepare for. Future History of the Church, Part 2 Various A typological and midrashic examination of what will happen in the future of the church by seeing how the past history of the church is recapitulated eschatologically; how past events happen again in the Last Days. What to expect, and what to prepare for. Future History of the Church, Part 3 Various A typological and midrashic examination of what will happen in the future of the church by seeing how the past history of the church is recapitulated eschatologically; how past events happen again in the Last Days. What to expect, and what to prepare for. House of David/House of Saul 2 Samuel 3:1 The kind of war I dread is when you have to fight against your brethren. Judge Not? James 4 From the pen of the same apostle, in the distance of a few paragraphs, in almost the same breath that he is saying "do not judge," James calls worldly churches "adulteresses." The Last Days 1 Timothy 4 The First Century church in certain respects typologically prefigures the Church of the Last Century. Principles of Persecution Revelation 2:8-11 God uses persecution to get the church going. Once a church stops being mission-minded, it will eventually stop being evangelistic. And once it stops being evangelistic, it will eventually stop being evangelical in its doctrine. The Reign of King Asa 2 Chronicles 13 What God's Word really reaches about revival. Slain in the Spirit Various Since this is clearly not the biblical "anointing of the Holy Spirit", it is really no "anointing" at all. The Sons of Zadok Ezekiel 44 Compares the righteous clergy with the unrighteous clergy, and explains how to know whether your pastor is righteous or unrighteous. Details the characteristics of each. This Generation Matthew 24:34 Explanation of the meaning of "this generation" in the Olivet Discourse. Typology of the Grain Offering Leviticus 2 Most Christians have an idea that the blood sacrifices of these animals were symbols of Jesus; however, most Christians do not think about the grain offering. Understanding "The Mixture" 1 Thessalonians Arriving at a right doctrinal position and discerning things in a biblical manner in times like this has become more and more difficult for many sincere believers. When God Speaks Hebrews 1 When does God speak? Why does God speak? To whom does He speak? And through whom does He speak? When Gos speaks to us, why is He doing it, and through whom and to whom?

Title Scripture Description A Prophet Like Unto Moses Deuteronomy 18:18 The Scriptural similarities which point to Moses as a type of the Messiah to come. Abraham's Journey Genesis 12 Every person's life can be plotted as being along some point of Abraham's journey from Mesopotamia to the Promised Land, a metaphor for our spiritual walk in this life. The Book of Jonah Jonah There is no Hebrew prophet whose life does not foreshadow or typify the Messiah who would come after them, to bring in the Redemption which they prophesied. The Book of Ruth Ruth The book of Ruth tells the story of a rich powerful Jewish man who takes a Gentile Bride and exalts her, the way that Jesus, on the day of Pentecost, raised up the Gentile church, as the Bride of Christ. The Burning Bush - Hineni Exodus 2-3 Moses is a good picture of anybody who really wants to serve God. In fact, he s one of the best pictures. Christian Cult Deals with the subject of organizations which are evangelistic in theology but cultic in their organization. Christmas is Coming Various What does Christmas, the Nativity, have to do with the Last Days? This may surprise you, but the answer is - everything. Curses & Christians     Daughters of Zion     The Day of the Lord Joel What exactly does the it mean when Scripture references "The Day of the Lord?" Elijah: A Man Who Could Make It Rain James 5:16-18 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours. Elijah was a man who could make it rain. The Holy Spirit, through this text, is trying to tell us that, if he can do it, we can do it. We can make it rain. But what does that mean? End Times Vectors Various How the pattern of the many prophecies fulfilled at Christ's First Coming serve as a model for fulfillment at His Second Coming. Ephesus Various In depth detail of one of the seven ages of the church history and the future historical prophetic antitype. Ezekiel - Chapters 8 & 9 Ezekiel 8-9 Ezekiel begins predicting that God's judgment was going to last and would become worse, and the reason that it would last and become worse was that the people's sin was lasting and becoming worse. They refused to repent as they saw God's judgments coming. Ezekiel's Scroll Ezekiel 2-3 Jesus is the Word of God. We, like Ezekiel, are required to "eat" all of that Word. It will be sweet in our mouths, but bitter in our stomachs. A message for those who warn against the error and apostasy in the modern church. The Future History of the Church, Part 1 Various A typological and midrashic examination of what will happen in the future of the church by seeing how the past history of the church is recapitulated eschatologically; how past events happen again in the Last Days. What to expect, and what to prepare for. The Future History of the Church, Part 2 Various A typological and midrashic examination of what will happen in the future of the church by seeing how the past history of the church is recapitulated eschatologically; how past events happen again in the Last Days. What to expect, and what to prepare for. The Future History of the Church, Part 3 Various A typological and midrashic examination of what will happen in the future of the church by seeing how the past history of the church is recapitulated eschatologically; how past events happen again in the Last Days. What to expect, and what to prepare for. The Gates of Jerusalem Nehemiah A look at the deeper, spiritual meaning of the rebuilding of the walls and gates of Jerusalem under the direction of Nehemiah. A Gentleman in Prison   The Great Church Robbery 1 Corinthians 15 A look at all the biblical instances of the "harpazo" ("snatching away") and the difference between being taken by the "kleptos" ("thief") and the one who will harpazo LIKE a kleptos. Hanukkah John 9-10 How does the celebration of Hanukkah, a festival NOT found in the Old Testament, provide greater insight into biblical themes such as the Messiah? How is Hanukkah handled in the New Testament? Jesus in the Garden Genesis 3 This message is a midrashic interpretation comparing the events of the Garden of Eden found on Genesis 3 with the actions of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jewish-Arab Reconcialiation   Deals with how the Jew and Arab will be reconciled in biblical prophecy and looks at the prophetic purposes of God both for the Arab nations and the Jewish nation, all descended from Abraham. Judge Not? James 4 From the pen of the same apostle, in the distance of a few paragraphs, in almost the same breath that he is saying "do not judge," James calls worldly churches "adulteresses." Kashrut & Famine Leviticus 11 An explanation of the typology of the Hebrew dietary laws, and how it deals with what is clean and what is unclean. Unclean being unbelievers, false believers, and their wrong doctrines. What we eat, we are. Deals with how to eat what is clean. The Living & the Dead Leviticus 21 Who are the living, who are the dead, what is the temple, and who are the priests? Mezuzot - The Doorposts, Part 1 Judges 14-16 This teaching shows, through Samson's continued weakness for immoral living, how the devil will use our various weaknesses to keep us going back into sin, revealing how there is only one way out of Satan's trap. This teaching also deals with Cavlin's doctrine of eternal security. Mezuzot - The Doorposts, Part 2 Judges 14-16 This teaching shows, through Samson's continued weakness for immoral living, how the devil will use our various weaknesses to keep us going back into sin, revealing how there is only one way out of Satan's trap. This teaching also deals with Cavlin's doctrine of eternal security. Midrash Various If you look at the way the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it is clear that the apostles did not use western Protestant methods of exegesis or interpretation. Midrash: Jesus in the Garden, Part 1 Genesis 3 When you were physically born, you were born of Adam. When you are born again, you are born of the last Adam, who is Jesus. Midrash: Jesus in the Garden, Part 2 Genesis 3 When you were physically born, you were born of Adam. When you are born again, you are born of the last Adam, who is Jesus. Once Saved, Always Saved Various A detailed study as to what Scripture has to say about the doctrine which is often described by the label "once saved, always saved". One Messiah, Two Comings Acts 1:4-6 Everything under the ground is Old Testament Israel, but everything above the ground is the New Testament Church. The Church is the spiritual continuity of Old Testament Israel, not its replacement. The Parable of the Wedding Feast Matthew 22 The Wedding Parable looks at the parable from Matthew 22 and shows how it relates to Jesus' first coming as well as His second coming. Pedion Ha Ben: Consecration of the First Born The donkey had to be redeemed by the blood of the lamb. What was the need for this consecration ritual? In depth midrashic study on these subjects and how it relates to us. The Road to Emmaus Luke 24:13-35   The Seven Feasts Leviticus 23 A basic outline of the three feasts in Leviticus 23 - Passover, Feast of Trumpets, and Feast of Booths The Two Adams Various As far as God is concerned there are only two men who have ever existed, Adam and Jesus - the first Adam and the second Adam. Smyrna Various In depth detail of one of the seven ages of the church history and the future historical prophetic antitype. Typology of the Dietary Law Leviticus 11 An explanation of the typology of the Hebrew dietary laws and how it deals with what is clean and what is unclean, unclean being bunbelievers, false believers, and their wrong doctrines. We are what we "eat". Deals with how to "eat" what is clean. Typology of the Firstborn   This teaching deals with the typology of the firstborn and the second as a mirror of the old and new creations. Also looks at what is a carnal Christian. Typology of the Grain Offering Leviticus 2 Most Christians have an idea that the blood sacrifices of these animals were symbols of Jesus; however, most Christians do not think about the grain offering. Typology of the Temple Various Deals with the spiritual symbolism of the architecture of the Hebrew Temple, pointing to the fact that the church seven times in the New Testament is called the Temple of God, and looks ahead to what this will ultimately mean for the coming Antichrist. Who Are the Jews? Various This message deals with the question, €œWho are the Jews?" Etymologically, anthropologically, judicially, geographically, and biblically. The Woman at the Well John 4 An exposition from the midrashic point of view of John 4. It looks at the disposition of Jesus towards her, which demonstrates what our disposition should be towards nominal Christians in false religions.

Title Scripture Description Abraham's Journey Genesis 12 Every person's life can be plotted as being along some point of Abraham's journey from Mesopotamia to the Promised Land, a metaphor for our spiritual walk in this life. An Anti Christ Meets a False Prophet The Anointing Acts 2 Addressing the claims of various groups that there efforts are bringing an revival accompanied by spiritual anointing and the scriptural standards by which such an anointing and revival actually operate. Antichrist     Binding and Loosing Daniel 10 In many areas the church is trying to use biblical teaching about binding and loosing as an instrument to deal with something it was not designed to deal with. The Burning Bush - Hineni Exodus 2-3 Moses is a good picture of anybody who really wants to serve God. In fact, he s one of the best pictures. Crimen Sollicitationis Elijah: A Man Who Could Make it Rain James 5:16-18 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours. Elijah was a man who could make it rain. The Holy Spirit, through this text, is trying to tell us that, if he can do it, we can do it. We can make it rain. But what does that mean? Egypt, Babylon & the Palm of God Jeremiah 40 What are the options for the faithful remnant in the Last Days? Previous biblical examples provide a picture of what it will be like for Believers. Hillsong Embraces Chrislam 2 Samuel 3:1 The kind of war I dread is when you have to fight against your brethren. House of David/House of Saul 2 Samuel 3:1 The kind of war I dread is when you have to fight against your brethren. How to be Caonized a Saint in the Roman Catholic Church Jesus: Prophet Like Unto Moses, A Deuteronomy 18:18 Deals with the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18, that the Messiah would be a prophet like Moses, in the character of Moses. Jesus in the Talmud Many Christians who love Israel and who have a heart for the Jewish people confuse loving the people of Israel with loving the religion of the Rabbis that is now called Judaism. Judge Not James 4 Looks at the different words for "judge" in the Greek and in the Hebrew and in what contexts they are used. Shows when Christians are commanded to judge and when we are commanded not to. Kashrut and Famine Leviticus 11 An explanation of the typology of the Hebrew dietary laws, and how it deals with what is clean and what is unclean. Unclean being unbelievers, false believers, and their wrong doctrines. What we eat, we are. Deals with how to eat what is clean. Last Revival, The One Messiah, Two Comings Acts 1:4-8 Everything under the ground is Old Testament Israel, but everything above the ground is the New Testament Church. The Church is the spiritual continuity of Old Testament Israel, not its replacement. Pope Francis the Religious Hypocrite Whose Religious Hypocrisy Kows No Bounds Self Explanatory Pseudodidaskaloi, False Teachers 2 Peter 2:1 This warning The Holy Spirit gives through The Apostle James is daunting. While we shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ, those of us posing to teach God s Word to others will be held more accountable than others, because teachers can most easily mislead others. Sons of Zadok, The Ezekiel 44 Being misled is one thing, but misleading others _ either being cognizant of the error, or teaching error out of out own ignorance doesn t matte Ulf Ekman Converts to Roman Catholicism What is Now on the Horizon in a Church World Without David Wilkerso, Dave Hunt, and Chuck Smith Self Explanatory

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.

Title Author Language Scripture Description A Cross-less Christianity = A Christ-less Christianity Mike Oppenheimer English Various What is being taught today is that we should not suffer or have pain or be corrected. This leads to illegitimate children, not true sons of God. A Cross-less Christianity = A Christ-less Christianity Mike Oppenheimer Polish Various What is being taught today is that we should not suffer or have pain or be corrected. This leads to illegitimate children, not true sons of God. A Study of Election & Predestination Salvador ung hayworth English Various Firstly, as I know from experience, Calvinism isn t simply a doctrine but it is a number of beliefs that underpin the way many Calvinists interpret the bible and the way they see their prayer and evangelism. Secondly, the logical extension of Calvinism makes God the author of sin, having created sin and ordaining or willing it to happen and so contradicts the very nature of God as He has revealed Himself in scripture. Thirdly, God in scripture is shown to be a relational God. Berean Behavior: Naughty or Noble Sherry Neese English Acts 17:11 Bereans of our time who carry on the torch of truth minister in various capacities to warn the Church about wolves in their midst. Born of Water & the Spirit: What Did Jesus Mean? Calvin Smith English John 3:5 Establishing the meaning of the phrase "born of water" has proved somewhat more problematic. Let us examine briefly some of the main interpretations of this phrase. Charismatic False Teaching Joseph Chambers Afrikaans The Church Fathers' Interpretation of Matthew 16:18 William Webster English Matthew 16:18 Addresses in-depth the claims of the Catholic church's assertion that their power is descendant from Peter through this verse, a relatively new concept when examined in the light of the many centuries of church fathers who taught to the contrary. The Death of the Simple, Part 1 Pastor Bill Randles English Proverbs A warning against sexual sin. The Death of the Simple, Part 2 Pastor Bill Randles English Proverbs A warning against sexual sin. Discernment & the Watchman Mike Oppenheimer English Jude 3 When a teaching or practice does not line up with God s Word, we are commanded by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict “ Five Basic Doctrines Sandy Simpson English Various There are five basic doctrines of the Christian Church. These doctrines put into simple language the basic theology of our faith, taking into account the full teaching of the Word of God in context. The Good, the Bad & the Ugly Andrew Gould English Reasons for studying the Hebraic background to the Bible and developing a deeper knowledge of 1st Century Jewish culture and hermeneutics. Hope, Hate & Human Hearts Berit Kjos English Jeremiah 17:9 The real answers to questions dealing with hate, hope and human hearts are only found in the Bible. How to do an Exegesis Moriel Zulu Mission English Overview of the use of the Inductive Study Approach for developing proper exegesis of Scripture. How Was a Jew Saved in the Old Testament?" Arnold Fruchtenbaum English Genesis 15:6 If you were a rabbi in Judea in the first century and I asked you how I might obtain eternal life, how would you explain it? Implications of the New Anointing Pastor Bill Randles English Through the prophecies and teachings of Charismatic leaders, an expectation has developed of a Last-Days cutting-edge church which would move in such power and anointing that world leaders would search out the wisdom of its leaders, and whole nations would fall trembling at its feet. Islam, Rome nd the Antichrist and False prophet? Bob Mitchell English Like Islam and Israel, Rome wants Protestantism to die. Since the Reformation she has tried to win back the rebels and the ground she has lost. Joel's Army: The "New Breed" Jewel Grewe English Colossians 2:3-4 It is disturbing to witness leaders opening up young children to the –supernatural. ” and teaching them to become –prophets ”. Living in the State of Denial Mike Oppenheimer English 2 Timothy 4:3-4 Christ is to be the head of the church and shepherds are to equipping the saints in His word but are they listening to Him? Meet the Millstones Dusty Peterson English Various How child molestation is becoming rampant in apostate Evangelicalism. The name of the Lord Moriel Japan English Various God's name is not just a word, it is his character. This explores just what that means. The Name of the Lord - Afrikaans Moriel Japan Afrikaans Various God's name is not just a word, it is his character. This explores just what that means. The New Jesus & a Love Called Tolerance Paul Proctor English Galatians 1:9 Discussing the evil in our world, that is the sinful nature of man, is a risky venture nowadays, especially for any Christian or church seeking to be loved and accepted BY that world. The Parable of the Little Boy Anthony Royle English Six-year-old Thabo was born with HIV/AIDS and is black. His father abandoned his mother and then his mother died when he was two-years-old. Spirit-Led or Purpose Driven (Part 1 of 5) Berit Kjos English Various A detailed biblical analysis of Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" ilk and what every discerning Christian needs to know. Part 1 covers "Widening the Gate to the Kingdom", "Softening God's Word", "The Spirit of Worship", "Music-Driven Evangelism", and "Forgetting 'the Fear of God'". Spirit-Led or Purpose Driven (Part 2 of 5) Berit Kjos English Various A detailed biblical analysis of Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" ilk and what every discerning Christian needs to know. Part 1 covers "Widening the Gate to the Kingdom", "Softening God's Word", "The Spirit of Worship", "Music-Driven Evangelism", and "Forgetting 'the Fear of God'". Spirit-Led or Purpose Driven (Part 3 of 5) Berit Kjos English Various A detailed biblical analysis of Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" ilk and what every discerning Christian needs to know. Part 1 covers "Widening the Gate to the Kingdom", "Softening God's Word", "The Spirit of Worship", "Music-Driven Evangelism", and "Forgetting 'the Fear of God'". Spirit-Led or Purpose Driven (Part 4 of 5) Berit Kjos English Various A detailed biblical analysis of Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" ilk and what every discerning Christian needs to know. Part 1 covers "Widening the Gate to the Kingdom", "Softening God's Word", "The Spirit of Worship", "Music-Driven Evangelism", and "Forgetting 'the Fear of God'". Spirit-Led or Purpose Driven (Part 5 of 5) Berit Kjos English Various A detailed biblical analysis of Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" ilk and what every discerning Christian needs to know. Part 1 covers "Widening the Gate to the Kingdom", "Softening God's Word", "The Spirit of Worship", "Music-Driven Evangelism", and "Forgetting 'the Fear of God'". Tithing - Part 1 of 2 Chris De Wet English Titus 1:11 There is a lot of confusion taking place with regard to Bible doctrines today. One of the topics, is the question on tithing. Where did it originate and what does it mean today? Tithing - Part 2 of 2 Chris De Wet English Titus 1:12 There is a lot of confusion taking place with regard to Bible doctrines today. One of the topics, is the question on tithing. Where did it originate and what does it mean today? Transformation Thinking for Dummies Orrel Steinkamp English Romans 12:2 If a pastor gets "transformed" or a church goes through the transformation process what happens to them? What makes them now different and apparently ready to really make a change in their world and in the church? Treating the Alien Fairly Dr Calvin J Smith English Deut 10:18-19 A look at "Christophonies", the manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament. True & False unity Bob DeWaa English Philippians 1:27 What is the true nature of Christian unity? Biblically defined unity is a gospel-centered unity that always works toward the unity of the faith. What is Meant by "Quench Not the Holy Spirit Arnold Fruchtenbaum English 2 Thes 5:19-20 To quench the Holy Spirit is to prevent believers from exercising their spiritual gifts in the meeting of the church. What on Earth was Peter Thinking Calvin Smith English Luke 9 Given Peter's spiritual "savvy" just a few days earlier, his apparent blunder on the Transfiguration mount appears all the more surprising. What's Love Got to Do With It? Paul Proctor English 1 Corinthians 1:18 I can think of no maneuver Satan has had more success in deceiving mankind with than turning what was once considered a Divine attribute into nothing more than a four-letter word; and because the church has now set out to "evangelize" society by emulating it, sadly, their definition of "love" has since become no better. Why Does God Allow Evil to Continue Moriel Zulu Mission English Mark 1:12-13 Why doesn't he just bring it all to an end and stop the suffering Mankind lives with? Doesn't He care? Doesn't He have the power? Why Does God Allow Evil to Continue Moriel Zulu Mission English Mark 1:12-14 Why doesn't he just bring it all to an end and stop the suffering Mankind lives with? Doesn't He care? Doesn't He have the power? Women in Discernment Susan Conway & Sarah Leslie English 1 Timothy 4:1-3 It sometimes feels awkward to be a woman involved in discernment ministry. It seems like exercising discernment should be the duty of pastors. But in this day and age everyone must exercise discernment, if we are truly following Jesus and His Word. You Are What You Eat? Light for the Last Days English 1 Timothy 4:1-5 What does the Bible say about food?

This book was written to accompany Jacob's part in the film, "The Daniel Project". Jacob expands on that documentary and explains more fully about the world in which we live today and what it may mean in the light of those Biblical prophecies.

People are looking for answers, instinctively knowing that whilst great efforts are made to bring peace in our troubled world, all is not well. An increase in natural and man made disasters, geo-political tensions and an economic crisis create the sense of a gatherng storm which has become a part of us all.

Since 1948, hundreds of ancient predictions, written thousands of years ago, are now unfolding before us. News agencies from around the world beam satellite images into our homes that could have come straight from the pages of the Bible.

According to Daniel and other Biblical prophets, only the wise will understand how to read the signs and respond - as people around the world will continue to be so busy with their lives; buying and selling, planting and building, unaware of the terrible events that will overtake them.

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 another question: if "Yasha"yah Hanawbe" " Isaiah the prophet in chapter 11 said €¦

The nations will resort to the root of Jesse €¦

€¦the "sores Yisay"..

€¦the peoples €¦

€¦the "ammim".

The rabbis have always said the "Sores Yisay" is the Messiah. Jews and Christians, their scholars have always agreed: "the nations", "the Gentiles". "the peoples" will come to the "Root 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, "I 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.

"We 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 "the 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, "How 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?

The second question I would like to ask is this one: I was always told in Catholic schools and by my mother that Peter was “the rock". “Upon this rock I will build my church" from Matthew 16. (Mt. 16:18)

I was told that in English and, when I was a little boy, I was taught to read Latin. The Bible was the Vulgate, the only one read ritually; it was not studied. However, having learned to read the original Greek and Hebrew languages, I looked at the original meaning in the original languages. I would not call myself a Protestant, but remember Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Cranmer and every one of the reformers, every one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation was from the intelligentsia of the Roman Catholic priesthood. Everyone had been a Roman Catholic priest who went back and read the Scriptures in the original languages. I"m not defending Protestantism, I don't identify with it; I"m a Christian, but I"m just asking the question, “Is Peter the rock?"

I lived in Israel for many years and at the base of Mt. Herman there"s a place called “Banyas". In the Bible it was called “Caesarea Philippi" and it is there where Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build My church". And I was told that He gave the keys and power to Peter. “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". (Mt. 16:19)

I'd like to read directly from the Greek language what it says in the New Testament. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but when Matthew wrote it down on the testimony of the apostles who"d been eyewitnesses he wrote it in Greek. Or if it was written in another language it was quickly translated into Greek. We have one historical reference that Matthew might have been in Hebrew or the Hebrew dialect of Aramaic according to Haggis Sippus, but there"s no manuscript ever found. We have the Greek. And it is the translation of the Greek which the Roman Catholic church bases its doctrine that Peter is “the rock". Is that what it says?

Verse 18, and I"ll translate it word by word:

“Kago de" – “Also I" or “And also I"…
…"soi lego" – “to thee" or “to you say"…
…"hoti sy ei Petros" – “thou art Peter" or “you are Peter"…
…"kai" – “and"…
…"epi" – “around" or “on, but in the context it would mean “on", with that I agree…
…"taute te petra" – “on this rock"…
…"oikodomeso… (from where we get the word “oikos" – “house") …mou" – “I will build of Me"…
…"ten ekklesian" – “the church".

It would be built on Christ, not of Peter.

At Banyas – Caesarea Philippi, there"s a cascade with millions and millions of flat chips of stone washed out of the cascade. The Greek word “petros" – “Peter", “little Peters". There is a big boulder on which the temple of the Greek god Pan that had been there at one time had been built and the temple to Caesar Augustus, the deified emperor, had been built that Jesus was referring to where the house would be built. That is called a “petra". “You are one of these little chips of stone; upon this boulder I will build my church of Me."

When asked to explain this, Roman Catholic scholars say, “But Jesus was speaking Aramaic, or a language related to Hebrew. and because Peter was a male He had the use the masculine form 'petros', which is the word for 'a little rock' instead of 'petra' which is the word for 'a boulder"". I went to a pretty good university and a pretty good bible college and I'm told by people who are from Greece that my Greek is not bad so far as my understanding of its meaning. But I know people who are really, really fluent in Greek, they grew up speaking it and they"re experts in reading the Old Testament, the church fathers, and so forth, they are from Greece. I know people like this in Australia particularly, and they confirm what I say is right. And so if there"s any academic or a person with a degree in Greek saying what I say is right, what I say is what I was taught. Gender in Greek does not have to do with sex in any primary sense; it has to do with the way a word is used in the context of the sentence. It is not male and female as in sex, it"s male and female as in the way the word is used in the context.

Let us look 1 Corinthians 10:4…

and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

In Greek it says, “de he petra en ho Christos". “Petra". Christ Himself who was a male is referred to in the feminine. The idea that they changed the gender because Peter was a male is ridiculous. That is not how Greek grammar works. I don't believe St. Paul made a mistake, nor did the Holy Spirit when He inspired St. Paul to write Corinthians. “The rock" is Christ and it"s called “petra". What does it say in Matthew 16? “You are "petros" and upon the "petra" I will build My church." You cannot use a little chip of stone the size of your thumb as the foundation for a building; you cannot use a “petros" as the foundation for a building; you can only use a “petra". If you"ve been to Caesarea Philippi you would see it makes no logical sense. If you know Greek you would see it makes no logical sense.

But there's more. In 1 Corinthians 3:11 we read something else.

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man"s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man"s work. If any man"s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man"s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

If anyone – if anyone – builds on the foundation of something else – gold, silver, precious stones, etc., it"ll be manifested on the day of the Lord; it will be revealed with fire; it won't stand. The only foundation we can build on is Christ, not Peter. Was St. Paul wrong? For that matter, were the early Roman Catholic popes and councils wrong? Or were the later ones wrong who said that Peter is “the rock" instead of Christ even though the New Testament says the opposite, and even though their early popes said the opposite?

The Roman Catholic Church claims that its doctrines are not only “apostolic", but “patristic" – they come from the church fathers. I do not believe in the doctrinal authority of the church fathers. I do not believe the “apostolic" necessarily equals the “patristic". However, even if I did, of the church fathers the Roman Catholic church looks to as a way to define what the apostles believed, most of the church fathers said that “the rock" was Christ, not Peter. A minority of them said “the rock" was the faith of Peter. Most say “the rock" was Christ, a few said “the rock" was Peter"s faith. None – not even one of their own church fathers – not only one of your church fathers has ever said that “the rock" was Peter,

Given the fact that you cannot use a chip of stone the size of your thumb – a flat chip of stone the size of your thumb – as the foundation for a building, given the fact that the original language says “You are the "chip of stone" and upon "the boulder" I will build My church", given the fact as St. Paul says we can build on no foundation other than Christ Himself, and given the fact of the New Testament says that Christis “the rock" – “petra", “the boulder", and given the fact that none of your own church fathers of the Roman Church believed that “the rock" was Peter, why do you? Why do you believe something which is practically, historically, biblically, patristically unfounded? And in fact, having been to Caesarea Philippi so many times, I have to say asbsurd. Why, in the early centuries, did no one believe it? Popes were fired – sacked by church councils. That is the question.

My mother has the view that many people would have – Irish, Catholic, British, Protestant. I just got back from Ireland a few days ago and I"ve studied Irish history at some length. I was astounded to discover that most of the founders of Irish Republicanism, originally called “The Home Rule Movement" – Isaac Butt, Theobold, Napper Tandy, Charles Parnell, Wolfe-Tone – every one of them was a Protestant. “The Irish patriots like Jonathan Swift, the author of Gulliver's Travels, was a Protestant. It was only later identified with Catholicism in the times of Daniel O'Connor and so forth. But I was more astounded to learn how the “English", quote/unquote, first got involved in Ireland. There was a non-English king, an ethnic Norman. He was not Anglo-Saxon, he was a French Viking. Henry II was threatened with excommunication by Pope Adrian IV if he would not invade Ireland and put an end to the local Celtic church in Ireland, and force them to acquiesce to Rome and the papacy. How did the English first become involved in invading and occupying Ireland? The pope sent them.

The term is “revisionism". I"m no admirer of Voltaire"s values, but he was a talented writer. And he was right about one thing: “History is the lie everybody agrees on". When you read what really happened you get a different picture. But the problem I have in speaking to my very Catholic mother is her Catholic identity is part and parcel of her Irish identity and can't see beyond it. There is a historical prejudice that's emotionally charged. It would be family disloyalty. Jesus said, “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me". (Mt. 10:37) Do I love my mother? Yes, but I love God first and I want them to know the truth.

When I looked for the truth I found that “the rock" was and is Christ, not Peter, not only according to the New Testament but according to Roman Catholic history itself, That's my second question: Why do you believe Peter is “the rock" when the New Testament and your own church fathers and just the practical circumstances of trying to build a house on a chip of stone all dictate he could not possibly be?

Popes have been warlords. They ordered nations to go to war with each other. They"ve been homosexuals, they"ve had illegitimate children. The banking families of Europe would vie to get their man into the papacy – the Borgia popes, the Medici family. Sometimes there would be two or three people claiming to be pope and the one that had the biggest military backing, usually from France, would declare the others to be antipopes. Well, I'll leave that to others to sort out. The only question I'm asking you is how can Peter be “the rock"?

And even if he was “the rock", where does it say that Peter was empowered to pass that position on to others? If Peter was the first pope, why is it in the book of Acts 15 at the first council of the church that James presided, not Peter? James says, “Brethren, listen to Peter"? No, “Listen to me". (Acts 15:13) And he does not rule by decree. He says, “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us". (Acts 15:28) It was a collective decision by all the apostles, it was not the pope speaking autocratically ex cathedra. Why was James presiding and doing all the talking if Peter was the pope? It"s a fair question.

Why did St. Paul rebuke Peter in the presence of all in the book of Galatians? (Gal. 2:11-14) When is the last time you saw a bishop or a cardinal or a priest standing up in public and face-to-face challenging the pope and telling him off for being a hypocrite or behaving hypocritically? I've seen them kneel down and kiss his ring, but I've never seen any of them tell him off. You don't talk that way to the pope. If Peter was the pope, why did Paul talk to him that way? Fair question? Why did James preside if Peter was the pope?

Even in its earlier centuries the Roman Church didn't believe that. Now of course I would argue that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist as such until the 4th Century, but we"ll put that aside. The question I'm asking is in light of the evidence – biblical, patristic, and historical and practical, how can you possibly believe Peter is “the rock" when the Bible says “the rock" is Christ and we can build on no other foundation?

But I have yet another question.

In the Gospel of St. John 6 I've heard it quoted, quoted, quoted, and re-quoted as applying to the Eucharist. We read the following, I"m beginning in verse 47…

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Notice St. John, quoting Jesus, says that Jesus said if you believe in Jesus you have eternal life. “He who believes in the Son has eternal life, he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." – the Gospel of St. John 3:36 in the Roman Catholic Bible. Jesus said, “If a man believes in Me though he die yet shall He live for he"s passed from death to life" – the Gospel of St. John 5:24according to the Roman Catholic Bible. Belief is the key to eternal life.

“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

Jesus is saying that the manna that fell in the wilderness in the book of Exodus is a symbol of Him. It is the type, He is the antitype.

Now I am told that this refers to communion, the Lord's Supper at the Eucharist. The Lord"s Supper – the Eucharist, comes of the Jewish Passover. The Last Supper was a Jewish Passover meal called a “seder". But Jews had to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem at Passover time; this was not at Passover and it was not in Jerusalem. Whatever applies to the Lord"s Supper does not apply in the direct sense because it's not the Last Supper. It's the wrong time of year, it"s the wrong place. It is, first of all, talking about how the Exodus was a symbol of Jesus – the manna.

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

He would give His flesh for the life of the world.

Then the Jews…

…that means the Judeans, not all Jews but the religious establishment,,,
…began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

Those influenced by the Pharisees would have had this argument.

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

Unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you cannot live.

I'm told this is the Eucharist and it is the key to eternal life. That's what I was taught in Catholic school. The context, however, going all the way back to verse 32 is the Exodus. No fewer than three places Jesus says in the same passage that the key – the key – to eternal life is belief. But I am told the bread and wine was transubstantiated, turned into His literal body and blood and then eaten. How do I account for this? Well, the first problem I had as a Catholic looking at this was this: Just reading on…

These things…
…in verse 59…
…He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum"…
…not at the Last Supper in Jerusalem when the Lord"s Supper communion was instituted.

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing…

How can eating His flesh be the key to eternal life if “the flesh profits nothing"? “Eating the flesh" meant believing His words. I will prove it.

We have to read this as a literary unit, as a “gospel". In John 1 of this same gospel St. John writes that “the Word became flesh" (Jn. 1:14) – the Greek word “sarx". “Logos" became “sarx". Jesus is the Word of God incarnate.

Look at the New Testament, first of all in the book of Revelation 10:10. This Same St. John, the same apostle who wrote this in the Apocalypse, says…

I took the little book out of the angel"s hand and ate it…

Belief equals eating the Word of God; you make it part of yourself. He was the Word incarnate, it becomes incarnate within us, it becomes part of us. He ate the Word.

Let"s look at the book of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel 3…

Then He said to me, “Son of man…
…just as Jesus is called “Son of Man"…
…eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll.

So he ate the Word of God.

The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah said the following in 15:16…

Your words were found and I ate them…

The Word becomes flesh. You “eat" the Word by believing it. “He who believes has eternal life". Jesus says in John 6, the flesh profits nothing. How could it possibly be the key to eternal life? You have three problems; that's what I discovered as a Catholic.

The first problem was on one hand I was being told that the sacrament of the Eucharist was the key to eternal life, but the catechism told me salvation comes by the sacraments of baptism and penance – that"s how sin is taken away. It contradicts itself. Which sacrament saves? Now in fact by reading the Bible I came to realize no sacrament saves – Jesus saves. It's not an ex opere operato ritual called a “sacrament". The sacraments are emblems; it"s believing in Him through faith and repentance. That is the first problem. How can the Eucharist be the key to eternal life if your own catechism says it"s other sacraments?

The second problem: Once more, in the first church council of the book of Acts of the Apostles chapter 15, the apostles, including Peter,outlawed the consumption of blood as a pagan demonic practice. Cannibalism was outlawed as pagan and demonic. Christians were told not to do it. If it is literal blood, you can"t drink it. The apostles were told by the Holy Spirit to forbid its consumption. “The flesh profits nothing". That"s the second problem.

The third problem is, again, Jesus was a Jew. This had to be celebrated at Passover in Jerusalem. What He would have said, the Hebrew prayer, would have been, “Za guphe sha ani ashbar b"ad"chem zot asu l"zichroni; ha"cos ha"zot he ha"brit ha"had asch zot asu l"zichroni." “This is my body I"ve broken for you, this cup is the cup of the new covenant of my blood poured out for you, do it in remembrance of Me." (Lk. 22:17-20) The apostles and Jesus were Jewish; they understood it would have been a memorial if they understood what it meant at all. Obviously the Sanhedrin and the people they influenced did not. It"s a memorial. “Do this in remembrance of Me". Consumption of blood was a pagan practice, not a Jewish one.

That is my question. If your own catechism says salvation comes by baptism and penance, how can it come by the Eucharist? If the flesh profits nothing, how can it be talking about literal flesh, given the fact that the apostles condemned its literal consumption? The doctrine of transubstantiation was formulated in its present form in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas based on Aristotle"s “philosophy of accidents" which was debunked by modern science, chemistry, and physics. I won't go into that now, but that is my question. If the flesh profits nothing, if Jesus said the key is belief – eating His flesh is believing the Word, if the consumption of blood was outlawed, how can it be what I was told as a Catholic and what you were told? It can't possibly be if you"re not allowed to consume blood and the flesh profits nothing. Please answer my question. I've yet to find a priest who can, maybe you can.

The first question I would like to ask you is this: There are two reasons most Jewish people I know – neighbors, friends, family – two reasons most I know reject any idea of Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. Those reasons are always “anti-Semitism" and “Why, if He was the Messiah, did He not bring in worldwide peace?" Therefore He could not be the Messiah. Let's begin with the most sensitive of issues, anti-Semitism.

I had an uncle who was in a German camp. He was a prisoner of war. The Nazis were going to kill Him. He was rescued by the Russians at the last moment as my wife's father was rescued by the Russians at the last moment as he was against the wall about to be shot. The Germans were trying to kill as many Jews as they could before they evacuated, before the retreat in the face of the oncoming invasion. My wife is the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Most of her family were murdered. And, of course, they were murdered in the name of Jesus Christ. The remaining orthodox church, the Roman Catholic Church and most of the Lutheran church in Germany collaborated with the Nazis. Hitler quoted Luther at length. It was not just Catholics, it was Protestants. How can I believe that the person in whose name one Inquisition after another, one pogrom after another, and ultimately the Holocaust should be even considered as a possible candidate to be the Jewish Messiah, when in His name nothing but genocidal extermination and persecution has come to Israel and the Jews? That"s the question I asked myself, but this is the question I would like to ask you.

If you were to read the Tanak, “Yirmayah Ha"nabiy" – Jeremiah the Prophet was arrested and thrown into a cistern. (Jer. 38:6) He pointed people to the Law, the Torah. He warned them of impending doom and judgment and God's anger with them because of idolatry and immorality. And like most of the other prophets he was persecuted. But he was not persecuted in the name of Ba"al; he was not persecuted in the name of Molech. Most of the Hebrew prophets who were persecuted or murdered by their own people were murdered in the name of Yahweh and Moses. They were accused of speaking against the Torah and Moses when they said that God's judgment was going to come upon Jerusalem.

I recall several years ago when an Orthodox Jew wearing a yarmulke drew a pistol in north Tel Aviv and fired bullets directly into the back of the Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. He did this in the name of Judaism; he did this in the name of the Torah; he did this in the name of Yahweh; he did this in the name of Moses – “Moshe Rabbeinu". An Orthodox Jew assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, gunned him down, murdered his own prime minister in the name of Moses and Judaism. Can I reject Moses and Judaism because somebody assassinated Yitzhak Rabin in his name? Can I reject Moses and Judaism because the prophets were persecuted and killed in their name?

Simon bar Kokhba came and was extolled as a hero. He was proclaimed to be the Messiah by Rabbi Akiva in the name of Moses and the Prophets. The Israeli general and archeologist, the first chief of staff of the Israeli military Ya"alon said something different. He described bar Kokhba as something of a brute tyrant who once kicked a 90-year-old rabbi in the head and killed him; a warlord, someone who"d been power-hungry. Some saw him that way, but Rabbi Akiva said he was the Messiah. And in the name of Moses and Judaism, Rabbi Akiva promised the Jewish people he was the Messiah and would bring them deliverance. At the battle of Betar, the worst holocaust in proportionate terms that has ever happened to Israel took place, (something in proportionate terms as bad as the Holocaust of the 1930"s and 40"s) only it happened in their own land. Because Rabbi Akiva proclaimed bar Kokhba to be the Messiah in the name of Moses and Judaism, can I reject Moses and Judaism? No, Rabbi Akiva did not bring peace to Israel and establish worldwide peace through his Messiah bar Kochba. Bar Kochba did not establish worldwide peace and bring peace to Israel even though in the name of Moses and Judaism they said he would.

If you"ve studied Judaism you know about Shabbetai. Most rabbis in major areas of Europe and North Africa, most in major areas and many others in a variety of areas, said he was the Messiah, but he was not a Messiah. In the end he led the people into what can best be described as something debaucherous and grossly disappointing. Yet it was in the name of Moses and the Prophets that the rabbis proclaimed Shabbetai Zevi to be the Messiah. Can I reject Moses and Judaism because the rabbis misled the Jewish people into following Shabbetai Zevi in the name of Moses and Judaism?

Two generations later the rabbis did it again and they said Jacob Frank was the Messiah on a wide scale. But Jacob Frank was not the Messiah, yet in the name of Moses and Judaism the rabbis said he was. And some very bad things happened to the Jewish people. There"ve been many people who the rabbis have said is the Messiah right up to the present age, and they always proclaimed them to be the Messiah in the name of Moses and Judaism. Murder and atrocity was committed in the name of Moses and Judaism. Genocidal persecution of the Jews resulted as a direct result of Rabbi Akiva"s action perpetrated in the name of Moses and Judaism.

On what basis can I reject Moses and Judaism because of what was done in the name of Moses? I cannot reject Moses and Judaism because of what was done in the name of Moses. I have to accept or reject Moses on the basis of what Moses said and did, not on the basis of what others said and did in his name. The issue is not what was done in the name of Moses, the issue is Moses. So then my question to you is, “On what basis can I reject Yeshua – Rabbi Yeshua bar Jozef m"Netseret, whom the Gentiles call 'Jesus of Nazareth' – on what basis can I dismiss Him and reject Him?" On the basis of what was done in His name to the Jewish people and to others? The issue is not what was done and said in His name by others, the issue is what did He say and do? The issue is not what Jesus is said to have said, the issue is not what others did generations and centuries after His public ministry in Israel, the issue is not what others said and did in His name. The issue is not that, the issue is He Himself.

I considered Moses apart from what was done in his name. Now you don't think of it, but goys – Gentiles will say much the same thing about you that you think about them. They have these myths of conspiracy theories and Jewish bankers and Jewish merchants and Jews trying to take over the medical profession and the academic institutions, making Jews the scapegoats for most of man"s faults and problems when in fact we all know there are both good Jews and bad Jews the same as there"s good Gentiles and bad Gentiles. But it"s easy just to say, “Oh, the Jews!", and it"s just as easy to say, “Oh, the Christians!" No real Jew would commit murder in the name of Judaism; no real Jew would persecute their own prophets in the name of Judaism; no real Christian would commit murder in the name of Christianity. no real Christians would murder God's own chosen people, the Jews, in the name of a Jewish faith. Christianity is a Jewish faith.

How can you reject Jesus on the basis of what was done in His name unless you reject Moses on the same grounds? I don't reject Moses for those reasons, it wouldn't be fair to Moses and it wouldn't be fair to myself. The issue is was Moses right? I hope you won"t reject Jesus on those grounds. It wouldn't be fair to Him and it wouldn't be fair to you. The issue is, “Was Yeshua right?" Not the Gentile “Jesus", not the Catholic or Protestant “Jesus", but the Jewish Jesus: Was He right?

By the 2nd Century the Jewish historian Max Dimont tells us that 25% of the Jews in Jerusalem believed he was the Messiah. The only reason Gentiles believe in Him is because Jews believed it first. The only reason there"s a New Testament is that Jews wrote it. Both those calling themselves Jews and those calling themselves Christians are the products of revisionism, a rewritten distortion of history. There is nothing Gentile about Jesus or His message except that He loves Gentiles and wanted to save them and wanted them to believe in the Jewish God and the Jewish way of salvation. That is all. “la"or goyim" – “a light to the Gentiles". (Is. 42:6).

That's my first question, my dear Jewish friend, how can you reject Jesus because of what was done in His name when the same things were done in the name of Moses and Judaism?

And so I look at the Scriptures in the original languages. That is one of my questions. Having read The New World Translation and the diaglot, I had problems with what the original Greek manuscript said and the way certain things were translated. But let me begin with my first question.

I"m reading from the epistle to the Hebrews in chapter 1. Beginning in verse 5…

For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again, “I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me"? And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him." And of the angels He says, “Who makes His angels winds, And His ministers a flame of fire." But of the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions." And, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands; They will perish, but You remain; And they all will become old like a garment, And like a mantle You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end." But to which of the angels has He ever said, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies A footstool for Your feet"? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

I agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses that there are angels. But the Jehovah's Witnesses told me something that I researched: They said that Jesus was an angel. They identified Him with the angel Michael the Archangel. The idea that Jesus was an angel was something that began with someone called Arius of Alexandria in the early centuries of Christendom. And the Jehovah's Witnesses had this view that He was an angel, not God. They will say He is “a god".

Now there's a problem. “En arche kai ho logos". “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God". (Jn 1:1) My Jehovah's Witness friends told me that in The New World Translation it says “a god"; the Word was “a god". But there is no indefinite article in the Greek language.

In the book of Isaiah Jehovah says, “I am God and there is no God other than Me". (Is. 45:5) If there"s no God other than Jehovah, and there is no indefinite article – “a god" – in the Greek language (and in that text it"s not there), how can Jesus only be “a god" if there"s only one God? That is the question. I"ve never been able to find somebody who could answer.

When I simply ask the question they say the word “trinity" is not in the Bible. But you know, my Jehovah's Witness friends would use words like “theocratic rule" and “millennial kingdom". Now I believe in a millennial kingdom, but the word “millennial kingdom" and “millennium" are not in the Bible. The doctrine of the millennium is in the Bible but the word isn"t. I don't understand why it is acceptable to use words not in the Bible for some things but not for others. Do I reject the millennial reign of Christ or a millennial rule because there's no word “millennium"? No, I don't. The question is not, “Is the word "millennium" in there?", the question is, “Is the doctrine, the teaching in there?" Well, it is. I agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses, there is a millennium.

Now I have an advantage a lot of people don"t have. The name of God they call “Jehovah", and they insist that is His personal name. But speaking Hebrew I was kind of startled how few Jehovah's Witnesses knew what it meant. In Hebrew it does not say “Jehovah", it says “Yehowah". Some people pronounce it “Yahweh". “Jehovah" is another word based on “Yehowah", but they didn't know where it came from. So I told them where it came from.

There was a hymn written by someone who was not a Jehovah"s Witness, Guide Me Now, O Great Jehovah. But the term came from Diaspora Jews in Europe. Jews considered the name of Yahweh ineffable – inutterable, for fear of taking it in vain. So they either referred to God as “the Name" – “Hashem" or they referred to God as “the Lord". When an Orthodox Jew reads the Old Testament, when it says “Yahweh" he says “Lord" – “Adonai". So what they did was they took the accents and syllables of “Adonai" – “Lord", and combined it with the word “Yehowah". “Yehowah Adonai Yehowah" – “Jehovah". That"s how they got it.

I met many Jehovah's Witnesses who would insist on believing these things – some of them true things – but they didn't know where they came from or what they meant. Well, I have no problem saying “Jehovah", but His name is “Yahweh". “Jehovah" is a made-up word combining “Yahweh" with “Adonai". However, to say that Jesus was only “a god" when there"s only one God, this brings a question. I was told He was an angel. My question is this: In verse 8 of Hebrews 1 it says…

… “Your throne, O God, is forever…

…and it quotes from Psalm 45:6-7…

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your fellows.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the word here for “God" is “God" – “Elohim". But the Lord has “anointed" somebody. That word “anointed" is where we get the word “Messiah" – “Mashiach" in Hebrew, translated to Greek, “Christo" – “Christ". And so the epistle of the Hebrews tells us that Psalm 45 is talking about the Anointed One, the Messiah – Christ. And I agree with it. It"s a good translation into Greek from Hebrew. And I just read you a good translation from Greek into English. This is my question: if Christ it's called God and there is only one God, and if Hebrews 1 makes it clear He was not just an angel but if Hebrews 1 by comparison says, “To which one of the angels did God ever say "Your throne, O God, is forever"", how can you say Jesus is simply an angel?

Hebrews 1 says, “Let the angels of God worship Jesus" in verse 6. Why would they worship Him if he was not God? The Greek word is “proskynesatosan", from the word “proskuto" – “worship". It"s not “obeisance", it is translated from the Hebrew “hishtachvaya" and there"s an accusative particle: They worship Him. Please answer me that question. How can He be an angel when Hebrews 1 says He's not and the angels worship Him? How can He only be “a god" when there's only one God? “I"m the Lord, your God, you"ll have no gods before Me". (Dt. 5:6-7)

Questions are always asked of me. I don't mind when people answer my questions with a question as long as they eventually give me the answer. But so far I haven't gotten one from a Jehovah's Witness and maybe you'll be the one who is able to give me the answer, Some of the questions they ask me is this: “Well, how could Jesus say His Father is greater than Him if He's God?" Now I"m happy to answer that question as long as you can answer mine.

In Philippians 2:8-11 we read about something that theologians would call “kinosis". In Philippians 2 we read how it can happen.

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation…

…not “work for"…

… work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

God becomes a man in the person of Jesus and therefore as a man He is less than His Father.

For instance, there"s an electrical company called “Robert Jones and Son". The father is a master electrician, his son began as his apprentice. They were both called “Robert Jones" – Robert Jones, Sr. and Robert Jones, Jr. They were both human beings. They were both males. They were both one in nature, but the senior was greater in position than the junior. They were co-equal in nature, they were both humans, they were both electricians, they were both men, but one was greater than the other in position. Based on Jesus becoming a man, being equal with God, but not saying it"s something we couldn't grasp, I have no problem saying His Father was greater than Him.

That is my answer to your question, the question that Jehovah's Witnesses always ask me. But please tell me your answer to my question: How can He be an angel if the angels worshipped Him? How can He be “a god" if there"s only one God and when the text “Your throne, O God, is forever" says He"s not an angel? Well, when I continue to ask for an answer, I"m usually told, “Well then who was Jesus praying to if He was God?" I"ll answer that question providing you and can answer my question.

In Hebrew the confession of faith is what Jesus said when they asked Him the greatest commandment. He said, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is oneness". (Mk. 12:29) “Sh"ma Yisra"el Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad". (Dt. 6:4) There is no Hebrew word for “water", only “waters" – “mayim"; there is no Hebrew word for “sky", only “skies" – “shamayim"; there is no Hebrew word for “God", only “Gods" – “Elohim", it is plural. You have an abbreviated form called “El", but it is simply a conjunctive or something used in in place of “Elohim" where it"s used in connection with other words. “Elohim" is plural. “Sh"ma Yisra"el Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad". “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our GODS is oneness". That's what it says. Does this say there is more than one God? No, He is “oneness" but the word is “echad", it"s a plural oneness. It is the same oneness when Adam and Eve become one flesh. (Gen. 2:24), you shall become “echad"; the two become one. And a third person is procreated, there is one in three, there is three in one. We are made in His image and likeness. Yes, there is one God but there is more than one person.

You're confused? When Stephen was martyred he saw Jesus at the right of the Father. (I don't pretend to be able to understand this any more than the Bible reveals it, but I understand it well enough to know it is true because that's what it says.) His Father is God and He is God. They are two different people yet one God. What makes me with my finite mind think I can understand God's own nature this side of eternity? The Scripture says one day we will know as we are fully known (1 Cor. 13:12), but right now I know well enough to know I have enough in the Bible to tell me that it is true. Who was He praying to? He was praying to His Father. His Father was God, yes, and how could He be God? Because He was. How could Robert Jones, Sr. and Robert Jones Jr. both be Robert Jones? One is greater in nature, greater in position? No, greater in position but not in nature. They"re co-equal in nature, different in position.

When I"m looking at a pregnant lady, an expectant mother, am I Iooking at one person or two people? They are metabolically integrated. I"m looking at both one person and two people. When a marriage is being consummated God says they become one flesh. In God's eyes am I looking at one person or two people? Well, biblically I"m looking at two people but I"m also looking at one person. The Bible says your wife's body is your own and so forth, (1 Cor. 7:4) and the husband"s body is the wife"s. We"re made in His image and likeness – it teaches something about Him; we"ll understand it when we see Him face to face, right now we see through a glass dimly (1 Cor. 13:12) but we know it is true.

That is my answer to your question, now I would like to hear your answer to my question. If the angel's worship Him and if it says, “To which of the angels did He say, "Let the others worship Him", if it says, “Your throne, O God is forever" and there"s only one God, if there"s no indefinite article in the Greek – the word was “a god" is not in any Greek manuscript and would make no sense in the Greek language – can you please explain to me how Jesus is not God and only an angel?

The Trinity, things like this, I'll be happy to talk to you about further – I'll be happy to answer your questions, but please answer mine. That"s my first question for my Jehovah's Witness friends. Please answer this question and we"ll talk further.

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, €œyou 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: €œThe 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('cloaka80a70674e95ef62506707dfdc0adc6c').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addya80a70674e95ef62506707dfdc0adc6c = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addya80a70674e95ef62506707dfdc0adc6c = addya80a70674e95ef62506707dfdc0adc6c + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_texta80a70674e95ef62506707dfdc0adc6c = 'contact us';document.getElementById('cloaka80a70674e95ef62506707dfdc0adc6c').innerHTML += ''+addy_texta80a70674e95ef62506707dfdc0adc6c+''; , 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.

€œBe 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 €¦

€œSo 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, €œOh, 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. €œAn 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, €œWell, 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! €œWe 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 €œBeth Sarim" in Hebrew €“ €œhouse 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, €œWe 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 €œBeth 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.

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 €œOrientalists".

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, €œHow 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 €œMary" but €œMiryam",  and the sister of Moses" name was also €œMiryam". They were both named €œMiryam". 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, €œIf 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?

But I have another question, also from the Hebrew prophet Isaiah ("Yasha"yah Hanawbe"), Isaiah 52 and 53. He said, "Kullanu kasso tainu…" (Is. 53:6)

All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way;

In the Middle Ages, a rabbi from France called Rashi said that this was about the Jewish people suffering for the Gentile nations, of vicarious atonement. It wasn"t about the Messiah, it was a about the Jews themselves.

Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through…

…as in crucified…

…for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

The rabbis say this is about the suffering Jewish people since Rashi. What is it that the Targum Johannan and the ancient rabbis beforeRashi say it was about? The Messiah. Why did Rabbi Avraham Farisel say this looks like Jesus? Before Rashi they didn't say that. This was included by Eliezer Ha Kalir in the synagogue liturgy for Yom Kippur. This one whom God would smite would become an atonement for sin " a "korban", a human sacrifice.

Yet to this the rabbis object. Judaism says the "akada" is against human sacrifice; it was an abomination. Why would God have somebody sacrifice a human when He said it was evil? In the akada God told Abraham, "Don"t sacrifice your son", and Christians would, of course, say it was because He was going to sacrifice His. The rabbis say human sacrifice is anti-Jewish. I agree that human sacrifice to other gods is demonic; however, the same Rashi who said this is about the Jewish people said it is a human sacrifice! He said it is a human sacrifice! He said it"s the Jews suffering vicariously for the Gentile nations. We can"t have it both ways.

Either Judaism does allow humans to suffer vicariously for the sins of others or it doesn't. Rashi and those who believe Jesus to be the Messiah agree it does. How can you say God does not allow you a human sacrifice for sin on behalf of someone else when the Jewish interpretation itself says it is?

The question is, who was suffering? Was it Israel or was it the Messiah? Well, Isaiah repeatedly castigated Israel for its sin; this servant of the Lord was innocent. He had done no wrong, Isaiah says. He"d done no wrong at all.

He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, for whom the stroke was due…"

The Gentiles were not God's people at that time. He was cut off for the sake of Israel"s sin. He came to the Gentiles afterwards. How could it be Israel when Israel had sin? In a broad sense it resembles Israel, but this was a sinless servant. The question is not who was right, the Christians or Rashi, the question is who was right, Rashi or the earlier rabbis who said it was the Messiah. It is the Messiah. It"s not a question of who's right, the Christians or Rashi, it"s a question of which rabbi do you believe? That is my question.

How could it be the Jewish people primarily if they had sin? How could it be the Jewish people suffering for the sins of the Gentiles whenthey had sin? This was a sinless servant. And how can you say that God would not let one die for the sin of another when Judaism itself says the direct contrary?

If you really believe American Indians are Lamanites despite the irrefutable DNA evidence, please explain to me how. Please This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakfee9dbaf4466b3a7988b1a241055da79').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyfee9dbaf4466b3a7988b1a241055da79 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyfee9dbaf4466b3a7988b1a241055da79 = addyfee9dbaf4466b3a7988b1a241055da79 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textfee9dbaf4466b3a7988b1a241055da79 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloakfee9dbaf4466b3a7988b1a241055da79').innerHTML += ''+addy_textfee9dbaf4466b3a7988b1a241055da79+''; ; I really want to know.

If you can really explain to me why you believe and why I should believe that the Sun is inhabited by these Quaker-like people, I want to know. Please let me know.

Let me know how Satan can be the half-brother of Jesus if God has only one "only begotten" Son. I really want to know this.

Let me know how you can believe a book translated by Joseph Smith when in fact that"s not what the book says.

Let me know how you can achieve sinless perfection.

Now I just want to leave you with two things. I've asked you five questions I hope you will try to answer for me. I'll get back to you, but I want to tell you first of all about another doctrine of atonement and about how you can fulfill the "celestial law" as you call it. The doctrine of atonement of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the doctrine of atonement as taught by Brigham Young and the "Church" of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His doctrine was Adam was not God, Jesus was God, and He was the "last Adam"; He became a man and went to the cross and in my place and in yours; and He was the substitutionary atonement for our sin; that by putting my faith in Him I am justified even though I am guilty. He rose from the dead to give me eternal life; He atoned for my sin; that is the doctrine of atonement of the New Testament. It has no resemblance to the doctrine of atonement as taught by Brigham Young.

Secondly, how can I reach sinless perfection? How can you be counted 100% sinless? There"s only one way " "imputed righteousness": I have no righteousness of my own. When Jesus took my sin on the cross He gave me His righteousness. I can only be counted righteous according to the righteousness of God in Christ. I'm as guilty as anybody, but God counts me as having been righteous and having kept His perfect Law because His Son did it on my behalf. He gave me His righteousness; it"s imputed, it"s not earned, I can"t earn it and neither can you.

There is a doctrine of atonement and there is indeed a Law of God that requires freedom from sin and sinfulness, but I cannot see how theBook of Mormon can fulfill either one; I see how the New Testament fulfills both.

I"m willing to talk to you. I"m willing to hear what you have to say, I"m willing to answer your questions about my doctrine of atonement and my view of the Law of God, are you willing to answer the five questions that I've asked you?

God bless you and thank you.

But I have a final question. I"m going to read from the Hebrew prophet Zechariah 12…

The burden of the word of the Lord concerning Israel. Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, "Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.

The issue is Jerusalem, the final status of Jerusalem. Not the West Bank, not the Gaza strip, not the Golan Heights, Jerusalem is the issue. "All the nations" will come against it.

When the Chinese massacred between 7-8,000 students witnessed by over 1 billion people on television in Tiananmen Square, how many UN resolutions were passed condemning China? None.

When the Moslems massacred 2.3 million black Christians in Sudan " Islamic militias, how many UN resolutions, how many Security Council resolutions, how many calls for boycotts on Sudan? None.

How many UN resolutions passed against Israel? How many Security Council resolutions passing? 50% of all resolutions in the General Assembly and more than 50% in the Security Council. Go ahead, kill a couple of million blacks. Who cares? They"re poor, they"re black and they have no oil. Who went to the Gaza Strip to get people to stop shooting Katyusha rockets and killing your children? The world wants to condemn you.

It makes no sense, but how will this end? Zechariah tells us in this chapter in verse 9…
"And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced…

…crucified…

…and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son…

Who said so? Jacob Prasch? No. Try Rabbi Moshe Elshick. Read what the sages said about this and who it was. They"ll look upon Him pierced and mourn as one mourns for an only son. The one we rejected, the one whose name we spit at, the one we curse is the one who"s come to save us? Yes, He is coming to save you. That is my question.

If He is the one who fulfilled these prophecies, if He had to come and die already, if He was the atonement for your sin, if He"s the one coming to save Israel, and if He"s the one who has already come to save you, do you want to be saved? How can anybody call this rejecting Judaism? That is my question. How can rejecting a Jewish Messiah who taught a Jewish thing in a Jewish way to Jewish people and made non-Jews believe in a Jewish God and read a Jewish book and believe a Jewish book, how can anybody call that "non-Jewish". "anti-Jewish". or departing from Judaism? It may be a departure from what people did to Judaism, it may be a departure from the Judaism responsible for the assassination of Rabin, it may be a departure from the Judaism that proclaimed bar Kochba from being the Messiah, but it is not a departure from the Judaism of your fathers. of the patriarchs, or of Moses and the Prophets.

My Jewish friend, return from sin. You made teshuva, you asked the God of your fathers to forgive your sin that Yeshua paid for in His death. In His resurrection He rose to give you eternal life.

Yes, He did raise. Who said so? Jacob Prasch? No, try reading The Resurrection of Jesus by Rabbi Pinchas Lapide, Orthodox professor of Hebrew University. Try reading Rabbi David Flusser, Orthodox professor, Hebrew University. From a Jewish perspective the resurrection of Jesus is irrefutable. The idea that a Messiah would come and die and then raise again, that"s what the Chabad say about Schneerson, only Schneerson didn't raise from the dead, the rabbis say he raised from the dead.

Jesus came and He would die at Pesach and after dying at Pesach He rose from the dead. His rabbis didn't like Him but said He did miracles as no other rabbi. His disciples did miracles in His name including raising others from the dead. Coming to die at Pesach, raising from the dead doing miracles, His disciples doing miracles, and then ascending to heaven from the Mount of Olives. From where do I quote? The Gospels? No, I quote from the avida zerah. That was not written by Jews who believed in Jesus, that was written by rabbis who were against Jews believing in Jesus. When your fathers will admit these things it"s one thing, when your opponents say it"s true it"s something else. Is He the Messiah? Yes, He is. It"s your decision.

Please This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakb7c41412e5ed8a7a8a3747618a6025ed').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyb7c41412e5ed8a7a8a3747618a6025ed = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyb7c41412e5ed8a7a8a3747618a6025ed = addyb7c41412e5ed8a7a8a3747618a6025ed + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textb7c41412e5ed8a7a8a3747618a6025ed = 'e-mail us';document.getElementById('cloakb7c41412e5ed8a7a8a3747618a6025ed').innerHTML += ''+addy_textb7c41412e5ed8a7a8a3747618a6025ed+''; or write us here in Britain:

Moriel P.O. Box 201 Maidenhead SL69FB

Please contact us. Please e-mail us. Please talk to us. We want you to meet other Jewish people that have found the truth. The truth is the Tanak was right, the Prophets were right, the Messiah has come. The Messiah has died for sin, He has risen from the dead and conquered death, and He"s
coming again. Git zay g"zunt.

My next question concerns the teaching of the Quran on “Ummah" – unity among Muslims, that you are one nation and one people. Now Christianity does not require Christians to be one nation and one people, Christianity acknowledges multiple nations. Jesus said, “Think not I came to bring unity but a sword". (Mt. 10:34) Paul the apostle writes. “There must be divisions among you to prove which is true". (1 Cor. 11:19) Tragedy that it is, Northern Ireland can still be allotted for in the Christian belief system. The killing and prejudice cannot be, but the fact that there"s a schism within the belief system can be. The Quran is different. While Jesus prayed that the true believers would be one, He said he came to bring division. There"ll be factions among you to prove what is true, teaches the New Testament, but Ummah says that Muslims are one.

Now in the Katub, in the book of Genesis, we are told that Esau"s sword will always be against his brother and that Ishmael's seed will always be divided. Islam teaches that the Arab nations are descendents, of course, of them. Christians and Jews believe the Messiah, the Savior, would come through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Islam takes the Old Testament prophecies that Christians believe to be about Jesus and applies them to Mohammed. Having said that, I have to ask which is right: Is Esau"s sword against his brother? Is Ishmael"s seed divided? Or are Muslims “Ummah"? Are they one nation and one people?

One of the most popular films ever made by the motion picture industry was based on a book about the legendary T. E. Lawrence, Lawrence of Arabia, a British military officer who attempted to unite the warring Arab tribes against the Turks. He tried to unite them from fighting each other to a combined force to attack the Turks who were aligned with Germany. The Turks, who were themselves Muslims, mistreated the Bedouins and virtually enslaved those people who were today called, or call themselves, “Palestinian Arabs". Lawrence of Arabia tried to unite these people, but they would not stay united. Islam was always looking for a Mahdi figure to unite Islam, but the Mahdi was defeated by the British ultimately despite the Battle of Khartoum and the death of General Gordon. Abdul Gamal Nasser tried to make Ummah, a pan-Arab unity militarily backed by the Soviet Union, but it did not work or did not last.

Many people have tried to bring Ummah. Mohammed was no sooner dead when the Sunni and Shi"a began to fight each other, ultimately in the Battle of Karbala, over who should take his place, Ali or his theocrats. Then there was a third sect, “Khariji". They said Allah would reveal who was to be the successor of Mohammed on the battlefield. They began to slaughter each other. This hatred and killing went on until the 20th Century in the war between Iran and Iraq. 1.5 million Muslims were killed by other Muslims in a war between Sunni and Shi"a going back to the Battle of Karbala. (We"re going back here to the 8th Century.)

Why has it never worked? Why is there no Ummah? Why is it that the only way it appears to a Westerner that Muslims can be united is if they have a common enemy? Because it seems unless they have a common enemy they will kill each other.

The invasion of Kuwait – raping, burning, pillaging. The Americans and British liberate Kuwait and the Kuwaitis begin pogroms against the Palestinians, murdering, raping, pillaging.

When Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs tried on the Jordanians what they today are doing with the Israelis – Palestinian nationalism – in September of 1970, King Hussein of Jordan systematically exterminated between 15-18,000 Palestinian Arabs in 12 days.

This is Muslims doing it to Muslims. They kill far more of each other than the Americans, the British, the West, or the Israelis ever killed. The West or the Israelis have never done to Muslims what they have done to each other. 1.5 million killed in the war between Iran and Iraq alone? The wars between Yemen and North and South – it goes on – the Polisario conflict in Morocco. I've heard the followers of Arafat saying, “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people. First we"ll kill the Jews, then we"ll kill the Christians." Right now they're killing each other. Again, they did the same thing in Lebanon. Without a common enemy they kill each other.

If Allah is God, and if the Quran is true, why is it that Ummah has never been able to deliver what it promised?

Now again, Christendom can allow for schism and division; however, whenever two Christianized nations had a war, one was not a democracy. In the Western Judeo-Christian world, as opposed to the Muslim world, no two democracies have ever had a war. I have heard fundamentalist Islamic imams in Iran sing of the virtues of the English Puritans because of their piety, but they overlook the fact that those same English Puritans, for all their mistakes they may have had, established parliamentary democracy. Not a single Muslim country in the world is a democracy. Not really. Turkey comes the closest but it isn"t.

Not a single Muslim country will give Christians and Jews the rights they demand in Britain or America, but that is not my point or my question. My question is this: Since no two Westernized Christian Judeo-Christian democracies have ever had a war, but most Jihads – and they"ve called them “Jihads" – have been Muslims killing other Muslims, which religion should I believe? Should I believe a religion that has given rise to democratic institutions where no two democracies based on Judeo-Christian principles have ever had a war, or a religion where because of the religion there"s been nothing but war? There is no Ummah.

Historically there has been no Ummah, there never has been Ummah. The book of Genesis seems right. Esau"s sword remains against his brother, Ishmael"s seed remains divided. The Quran and Hadith has clearly been wrong. My question, my dear Muslim friends, and I"m only asking the question, if I have a Judeo-Christian worldview that has given rise to democratic freedom that does not exist in the Islamic world, why should I believe in Islam that cannot deliver the goods?

You only need to drive across the causeway from Malaysia to Singapore; you only need to cross the border at Elath into Jordan or Tabot into Egypt; you only need to take a ferry across the Bosporus or from Algeciras, Spain to the north coast of Morocco. The moment you as an educated Muslim go from the Judeo-Christian world to the Muslim world you see a big change. You know the air smells different. I just don"t mean the dirt or the grime or the congestion, I mean the freedom, the tolerance. Why have the sciences not bloomed in the Islamic world since its Golden Age when it was dominated by a philosophical Islam controlled by the Turks, not by a fundamentalist Islam controlled by the Saudi Wahab or the Iranian Shi"a imams? It just doesn't work. Why every morning in Terminal 3 at Heathrow are there so many Muslims bending over backwards to get into Britain? Why are they arriving in Italy and France every day of the week illegally? Why are they doing anything they can to get into to the United States via Mexico or whoever? Why don't they want to stay in the Islamic world? Some would say because they are missionaries for Islam, sent to convert it. These are not imams, most of them, these are economic refugees and you and I both know it; they"re intellectuals coming for intellectual freedom not available; they"re escaping war and conflict between Muslims like they do from Somalia.

Again, my question is since you have no Ummah, since your religion has been unable to deliver what it promised, why should I turn my back on a religion that has and accept one that hasn't? Why should I reject something that has worked in favor of something that has not? Let"s be honest – if it worked, you wouldn't be here.

In the 1st Century sexual perversion was culturally endemic and seen as normative. . Homosexuality and bisexuality was seen as co-equally normal as heterosexual relationships. What Paul wrote in Romans 1 would have been highly inflammatory. Well, it"s highly inflammatory again. As we speak there"s a preacher in jail in Sweden for preaching, doing exposition, on Romans 1. A Canadian pastor was fined £1,500 for preaching from Romans 1. We"re seeing more and more anti-vilification laws trying to restrict our freedom.

Now of course the way it worked in the Early Church, the way persecution came, the way the Gospel provoked it, had to do with a combination of factors. One, the Roman government"s laws insisted in their multiethnic, multiracial, multireligious empire to maintain social harmony at all costs for political purposes. You had to respect every religion and you had to acknowledge the Pontificus Maximus as the bridge builder between religions. At Ephesus on the gate was a sign, €œCaesar, son of Zeus". €œZeus" €“ €œGod", which was a corruption of €œzeus", of €œgod". And by walking under it you would be acknowledging Caesar was the son of God. Of course the believers would not do that, so they took the believers and tied them to posts and they used them as street lamps; they set them alight to illuminate the streets. This really and actually happened, this conflict of cultures between the Judeo-Christian and the popular one. Sexual perversion was culturally endemic.

Secondly, it was a culture of violence where violence was the popular entertainment. Take a movie €“ someone like Oliver Stone, a serious director €“ he"ll make movies that contain violence, but he"ll tell a story about El Salvador or Vietnam or something like that. They"ll contain violence but they won't be about violence. Violence is simply subordinate to the plot or to the docu-fiction about what happened. Most Hollywood movies today containing violence are not like that. The plot only exists to facilitate the violence, people going to the movies to see their heads blown off. It"s about violence. Now the Bible contains violence, even graphic depictions of violence, but it never glorifies it and it"s not about violence, it"s about salvation. It includes violence because that"s the way the fallen world is, but that"s not what it"s about. In the Greco-Roman culture violence was popular entertainment.

I once read something a few years ago where the average child by the age of 12 will have watched something like 3,400 murders in television/video games. Kids watch thousands of murders. Crazy! Crazy! Well, the 1st Century was like that. It was a culture of violence.

It was also a culture of perverse standards of justice. Isaiah warned about those who call good evil and who call evil good. (Is 5:20) Well it was like that. You just look now.

I wouldn"t advise you to watch it, but you can go onto one of the Islamic websites and you can watch Ken Bigley being decapitated, or one of the Americans, and they"re screaming as their heads are being sawed off, and they"re singing Islamic hymns and reading from the Quran and praying to Allah and all this while doing it. It"s a religious ceremony to them, decapitating people and putting it on so his family will see it. Do you know what that does to somebody"s family? Screaming while they"re doing it? I only watched one; I couldn"t watch more than one, it was just too ugly but it was horrible. It was absolutely horrible! Now somehow in the thinking of the Guardian newspaper or the Independent newspaper or Channel 4, we"re supposed to be absolutely indignant because the most horrific thing we've ever seen in our lives is American or British soldiers who stripped these Islamo-Fascists naked and put paper bags on their heads €“ that's the great injustice. €œHow could you do such a terrible thing? To make a pyramid of them and put paper bags on their heads, how unspeakable!" I"m not saying I agree with it, but somehow we"re supposed to be indignant about that. That"s what was in the newspaper every day. The fact that these are the people sawing people"s heads off because of their religion, don't expect any justice from the media. Well, the Christians experienced no justice in the 1st Century. Don't expect to experience much justice in the last century. There"s not going to be justice. People"s standards of right and wrong €“ their values and priorities are going to be highly, irrationally convoluted.

The Emperor Caligula gave birth to a daughter and proclaimed him a son. And by law the kid was legally established to be something it was not. It did not have the benefits of transsexual surgery. Today we do have the benefits of so-called transsexual surgery €“ there was one on Channel 4 to entertain people €“ however, we are what we are chromosomally, X and Y. DNA in every cell of the transsexuals" bodies still says they"re a male, not a female. Scientifically it"s irrefutable, they"re still a male, but we"re expected to legally establish that they"re females. Now in Connecticut and America one of these people was a policeman who is now a police woman and we"re expected €“ we"re expected €“ to accept something that is completely irrational, void of any scientific basis. That's the way it was in the 1st Century. Things that were utterly depraved and just abnormal and made no sense make a big comeback. What they were up against then is what we'll be up against as we preach the Gospel in the Last Days.

Here"s something I got in a newspaper yesterday. I don"t usually read tabloids, ( I read the Telegraph, personally) but I couldn't resist buying this: €œChristmas Banned in Religious Education". It"s a video. Hundreds and hundreds of schools around the country ordered this video. It has Ramadan, it has Chinese new year, it has the Bali for the Hindus, but no Christmas, no Easter. It"s put together by a former producer for Channel 4, filmmaker Katie Jones, and she says, €œI don't understand what the fuss is about. How will others learn of tolerance?" So we have to teach our kids about Hinduism, Taoism, Islam. Why don"t they have to teach the Hindu kids and the Muslim kids about Christianity? We talked about this in the 1st Century, every religion was €œreligio elicita" (legal) except Christianity was €œreligio illicita" (illegal); it's getting more like that. And we see it happening right before us. It"s getting more like that. As we think about preaching the Gospel in the Last Days let's look at a few other things.

The fastest growing so-called Christian sect in the United Kingdom, as you heard me point out every year for the last few years: the Mormons. Of the original Mormons in Utah, 70% of them came from the north of England. The biggest Mormon temple in the world, therefore, is in the north of England in Chorley, no longer in Salt Lake City. Quite a thing! Now Mormonism €“ we"ll look at this next in Five Questions for Mormons, but Mormons believe what Catholics believe: You can save people after they"re dead. And of course they do this by taking a verse in Corinthians out of all context, getting baptized on behalf of the dead €“ it"s actually a pagan practice.

You can save people posthumously and they issue baptismal certificates for them and they issue eternal marriage certificates for them. They €œsaved" Christopher Columbus. You laugh, but they have. At least they say they have; I"m not kidding you. I picked these up in the States a few weeks ago, I am not kidding you. I have here a baptismal certificate €“ I didn't even know he was a Mormon €“ for a certain gentlemen and his wife. Place of birth, Braunau, Austria; baptized September 30, 1993; endowed into eternal heaven 27th of April 1994; name, Adolf Hitler. Hitler was a Catholic €“ he must have changed his religion after he died. I"m not kidding you! This is real! Here is Eva Braun"s, and here"s their wedding certificate. I don"t blame you for laughing; I was laughing for about two hours. But they believe this! They believe it! That is the fastest-growing Christian sect in this country.

€œPreachers Angry at Leaflet Law". The possibility of a £500 pound fine for distributing Gospel literature. €œFive police arrest and handcuff preacher, second appearance due" €“ Victoria Station, London. He preached there for years, now it"s €œlock him up, a preacher without a license". The state has to approve what you preach €“ that"s the way the law is going. Here in the United States, it"s the police dragging away and handcuffing a man who disagrees with the court decision to take the Ten Commandments out of a court building.

We warn people when the liars of Satan, when the backsliders running the mainstream denominations, are saying it was a revival and of course we said it was a counterfeit. They was saying €œprepare for blessing", it"s coming from Toronto or Pensacola or something like that; we were telling people to prepare for persecution. I haven't seen the revival €“ but the persecution?

Poor Harry Hammond. They spent £2,000 €“ £2,500 of your money to fly a witness from Australia to testify against a 69-year-old street preacher in Bournemouth. One of the policemen forced to arrest him didn't want to do so and attempted to testify for the defense and a policewoman arrested him. He was attacked by a gang of homosexuals throwing handfuls of dirt and water at him and they were not arrested, he was. They"re trying to appeal the case posthumously, but it takes a lot of money. One newspaper was not backing it. Not easy! It"s going on and on and on.

What will preaching the Gospel of the Last Days be like? Let us look at the Messianic element. Turn with me, please, to the book of (Acts 2:14), Peter"s charigma.

But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

This was like that analogy.

"And it shall be in the last days," God says, "That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams; Even on My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit And they shall prophesy. And I will grant wonders in the sky above And signs on the earth below, Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness And the moon into blood, Before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come. And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Now as you might know from the “Future History of the Church" tape, of course, (I"m just touching on things you already know right now) none of that happened, did it? The moon didn't turn to blood, the sun wasn"t darkened, He didn't poor out His Spirit on all flesh, there was no visions, there was no dreams, no wonders in the sky. It didn't happen then, but so it shall be in the Last Days. The preaching of the Gospel in the beginning of the church is a harbinger of what the preaching of the Gospel will be like in the Last Days.

Now obviously this was the Hebrew Feast of Weeks, “Hag Shavu"ot", the Day of Pentecost, when the book of Ruth is read – the megilot is read in the synagogues virtually to this day. A powerful Jewish man takes a Gentile bride and exalts her. We"re told in the Mishnah the rabbis calculate that the Law was given on Mt. Sinai on this same day. Only when the Law was given – according to the Mishnah now, this is not in the Bible – according to the Mishnah a whirlwind was heard from heaven, and based on the table of nations in Genesis 10, they said, 70 tongues/languages were heard from the whirlwind when the Law was given. So, therefore, when the Holy Spirit was given, 70 tongues were heard. Those 70 tongues were heard. To the Jews this would have been, “Wait a minute! What happened on Mt. Sinai is happening again!" The Old Covenant was given, now there"s a new one. Only when the Law was given 3,000 fell, when the Holy Spirit was given 3,000 were saved. But you know that, OK? But the rest of the stuff didn't happen. The rest of the stuff simply didn't happen. But it isto happen in the Last Days. This eschatological scenario has to transpire, and much of it concerns the Jews. Peter begins next, “Men of Israel".

Let"s turn back to what he was quoting from. Turn with me, please, to the book of Joel – “Yo"el Hanawbe", chapter 2, verse 28…

“It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions. “Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

“I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, Blood, fire and columns of smoke. “The sun will be turned into darkness And the moon into blood Before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.

After the Lord comes.

Now you know from the “Rapture" tapes the “Day of the Lord" is introduced when the church is raptured and the resurrection happens. Once we are taken out of here, the Day of the Lord arrives. The Day of the Lord commences with the “koloboo" – the “amputation" in Greek, the removal of the church. “Those days will be cut short for the sake of the elect". (Mat 24;22) Once we"re taken out of here, it's the Day of the Lord. The Day of the Lord is when God pours out His wrath on the kingdom of Antichrist and draws the nations against Israel to destroy the enemies of Zion. We"re taken out of here before this happens we"re told.

“And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord Will be delivered; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem There will be those who escape,

Then it goes back, much of a Jewish focus…

As the Lord has said, Even among the survivors whom the Lord calls.

Where it says all Israel will be saved it is talking about those who survive the Great Tribulation.

“For behold, in those days and at that time, When I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations And bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there On behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, Whom they have scattered among the nations; And they have divided up My land.

I believe the Jews are back in Israel and obviously they have to stay in Israel until Jesus comes, particularly in Jerusalem. But already we see efforts to re-divide the land, don"t we? Now this is all tied up with the Antichrist and so forth, he"s going to make a covenant and break it . The reestablishment the state of Israel certainly fulfills prophecy – they have to be back in Jerusalem for Jesus to come as in Matthew 23, Luke 21 and 24 and so forth, but they will pack up. Bush is doing it, the UN is doing it, they"re all trying to do it, making conditions so bad you"ve got Russian Jews going back to Russia now. It goes on explaining what will happen, but we know how it will all end in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. It"s the Jewish element. Turn to (Mat 10:23), please…

“But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.

Israel must be thoroughly evangelized before Jesus comes. In Romans 11, the natural branches will be grafted in again, Israel must be evangelized for Jesus to come. In understanding the Gospel of the kingdom this is one of two basic texts that tell us about what the Scriptures call “hastening His coming". (1 Cor 1:7, 2Pet 3:12)

How do you hasten His coming? Evangelism. We"re not waiting for Jesus to come back. Remember what He said? “When the crop permits the Lord of the harvest sends the harvester". (Mar 4:29) We are not waiting for Jesus to come, He is waiting for the church to be ready. We can hasten his coming with evangelism; the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. (Rom 11:25) We hasten His coming by evangelizing Israel. His coming can be hastened. In eternity it"s fixed, relative to us it"s a variable. We can make it happen quicker. In other words the C-section, the Cesarean. An obstetrician is only going to let an expectant mother family stay in labor so long – after that point it becomes dangerous. There"s the procedure, it induces labor, whatever"s necessary. Get it over with quick. We can get it over with quick. We can make it happen faster. Witnessing and evangelism can bring back the return of Jesus faster, providing the people who get saved are also discipled. Witnessing and evangelism can hasten the return of Christ.

1 Samuel 17, Goliath"s challenge.

Now the Philistines gathered their armies for battle; and they were gathered at Socoh which belongs to Judah, and they camped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephes-dammim.

Saul and the men of Israel were gathered and camped in the valley of Elah, and drew up in battle array to encounter the Philistines. The Philistines stood on the mountain on one side while Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, with the valley between them. Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath…

Today it"s near Kiriath Gat, a settlement of Russian Jews.

…whose height was six cubits and a span. He had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was clothed with scale-armor which weighed five thousand shekels of bronze. He also had bronze greaves on his legs and a bronze javelin slung between his shoulders. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver"s beam, and the head of his spear weighed six hundred shekels of iron; his shield-carrier also walked before him.

Whenever you see a superhuman villain in the Bible, somebody distinct from other people who is a nefarious creature, and you see a combination of three sixes in association with him, we"re looking at a type of the Antichrist. Let"s again look at the dimensions of Goliath"s armor. Height was six cubits – one span, then the weight was five. Then of course, we get down to the weaver"s beam, the size of the spear, which it"s weight was six hundred. So you put it together, obviously you have six-six-six. There"s three sixes. Whenever you see a play on numbers adding up to three sixes where it"s multiples of eighteen in association with a nefarious creature, we"re looking at someone who typifies Antichrist in some way. And not infrequently when you find someone who typifies Antichrist you"ll find someone going before him. Here it"s the armor bearer. Of course the false prophet goes before the beast. There are many, many clues about the Antichrist and what he will be like and what he will do throughout Scripture, but we should always be looking for the number of the beast. Among other things you're looking for somebody who's not just a villain but a villain of superhuman quality because he"s trying to counterfeit Christ – a superhuman.

Now the villain"s conspicuously superhuman; Christ was inconspicuously superhuman. He had no formal comeliness that we shall look upon Him. (Isa 53:2) That tells us something in itself about the spirit of Antichrist and how it works. It can take people in because it"s conspicuous. Only those who are discerning will see through it, but only those who are really discerning will see the meekness of Christ, the One who really is superhuman, instead of the counterfeits. Now I only mention this in passing because we know that Antichrist uses false religion in conjunction with the world"s political system to attempt to usurp the dominion of Christ before Jesus comes back.

He stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel and said to them, “Why do you come out to draw up in battle array? Am I not the Philistine and you servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves and let him come down to me. If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will become your servants; but if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall become our servants and serve us."

The ultimate struggle is between Christ and Antichrist. Recall Jesus in Judaism, in Judeo-Christianity, “ben-David Yeshua" – “Jesus, Son of David". Our victory is always in Him. Christ must conquer Antichrist; Jesus must conquer the devil. Our victory is always in our Leader. His victory becomes ours. The outcome of the battle will not be determined by what we do but by what our Leader has done.

Once Israel saw that their leader as a working David, humble and out of nowhere, killed the leader of the Philistines, Israel"s victory was assured. And so our victory is assured.

Again the Philistine said, “I defy the ranks of Israel this day; give me a man that we may fight together." When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid. Now David was the son of the Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, whose name was Jesse…

…that is, “Yishay"…

and he had eight sons. And Jesse was old in the days of Saul, advanced in years among men. The three older sons of Jesse had gone after Saul to the battle. And the names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and the second to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah. David was the youngest. Now the three oldest followed Saul, but David went back and forth from Saul to tend his father"s flock at Bethlehem.

So often the people God uses are shepherds. If you can look after a few sheep you can look after a flock. Amos, Moses – all types of Christ as the Good Shepherd.

The Philistine came forward morning and evening for forty days and took his stand.

“40" is the number of testing in biblical typology, isn't it? It rained 40 days and 40 nights in the saga of Noah, Gideon faced the invader for 40 days, Jesus fasted 40 days and 40 nights, Moses fasted 40 days and 40 nights, the children of Israel sojourned 40 years in the wilderness, and Jonah gave the Ninevites 40 days to repent. “40" is the number of testing, of divine testing. The story then continues…

Then Jesse said to David his son, “Take now for your brothers an ephah of this roasted grain and these ten loaves and run to the camp to your brothers. “Bring also these ten cuts of cheese to the commander of their thousand, and look into the welfare of your brothers, and bring back news of them.

Resembles the story of Joseph and it prefigures Christ being sent to look after the welfare of His brothers.

“For Saul and they and all the men of Israel are in the valley of Elah, fighting with the Philistines."

So David arose early in the morning and left the flock with a keeper and took the supplies and went as Jesse had commanded him. And he came to the circle of the camp while the army was going out in battle array shouting the war cry. Israel and the Philistines drew up in battle array, army against army. Then David left his baggage in the care of the baggage keeper, and ran to the battle line and entered in order to greet his brothers. As he was talking with them, behold, the champion, the Philistine from Gath named Goliath, was coming up from the army of the Philistines, and he spoke these same words; and David heard them.

When all the men of Israel saw the man, they fled from him and were greatly afraid. The men of Israel said, “Have you seen this man who is coming up? Surely he is coming up to defy Israel. And it will be that the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father"s house free in Israel."

“Free" meaning “tax-exempt."

Then David spoke to the men who were standing by him, saying, “What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should taunt the armies of the living God?" The people answered him in accord with this word, saying, “Thus it will be done for the man who kills him."

Now Eliab his oldest brother heard when he spoke to the men; and Eliab"s anger burned…

…not against Goliath, but…

against David and he said, “Why have you come down? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your insolence and the wickedness of your heart; for you have come down in order to see the battle." But David said, “What have I done now? Was it not just a question?" Then he turned away from him to another and said the same thing; and the people answered the same thing as before.

When the words which David spoke were heard, they told them to Saul, and he sent for him. David said to Saul, “Let no man"s heart fail on account of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine." Then Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth while he has been a warrior from his youth." But David said to Saul, “Your servant was tending his father"s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and took a lamb from the flock, I went out after him and attacked him, and rescued it from his mouth; and when he rose up against me, I seized him by his beard and struck him and killed him. Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, since he has taunted the armies of the living God." And David said, “The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine." And Saul said to David, “Go, and may the Lord be with you." Then Saul clothed David with his garments and put a bronze helmet on his head, and he clothed him with armor. David girded his sword over his armor and tried to walk, for he had not tested them. So David said to Saul, “I cannot go with these, for I have not tested them." And David took them off. He took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd"s bag which he had, even in his pouch, and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine.

Now of course we know the Torah as the five books and the Law as engraved on stone according to Corinthians. (2 Cor 3:7) The Torah is engraved on stones, these five stones obviously represents the Hebrew Bible.

Then the Philistine came on and approached David, with the shield-bearer in front of him.

The types of the Antichrist usually have this forerunner, a counterfeit harbinger. What John the Baptist was to Jesus, what the ministry of Elijah is to the return of Christ, so the false prophet will be an equivalent, the Satanic equivalent, of that with the Antichrist. You know what I"m saying? One is a counterfeit of the other.

When the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, with a handsome appearance. The Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?" And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. The Philistine also said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field."

This, of course, resembles Ezekiel 37 through 39.

Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin…

Notice he had a short-range weapon, a medium-range weapon, and a long-range weapon.

…but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. “This day the Lord will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel,

David was not seeking his own glory but God's and the honor of His people.

and that all this assembly may know that the Lord does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the Lord"s and He will give you into our hands."

He"s not looking for the glory only for himself – “our hands".

Then it happened when the Philistine rose and came and drew near to meet David, that David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine.

Everybody else was afraid, he ran for it.

And David put his hand into his bag and took from it a stone and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead. And the stone sank into his forehead, so that he fell on his face to the ground.

Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David"s hand. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled. The men of Israel and Judah arose and shouted and pursued the Philistines as far as the valley, and to the gates of Ekron. And the slain Philistines lay along the way to Shaaraim, even to Gath and Ekron. The sons of Israel returned from chasing the Philistines and plundered their camps. Then David took the Philistine"s head and brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his weapons in his tent.

Now when Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner the commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is this young man?" And Abner said, “By your life, O king, I do not know." The king said, “You inquire whose son the youth is." So when David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul with the Philistine"s head in his hand. Saul said to him, “Whose son are you, young man?" And David answered, “I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."

And of course from this lineage, the Messiah to come going back to the book of Ruth.

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('cloak0fad0fbf9929f8649553434229029fea').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy0fad0fbf9929f8649553434229029fea = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy0fad0fbf9929f8649553434229029fea = addy0fad0fbf9929f8649553434229029fea + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text0fad0fbf9929f8649553434229029fea = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloak0fad0fbf9929f8649553434229029fea').innerHTML += ''+addy_text0fad0fbf9929f8649553434229029fea+'';

Hello. This is for my friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses. I"ve met a number of them in America and in Britain and in other countries, and they"ve come to my door several times. And we spent time together, sometimes hours.

In my youth I had a friend named Buster Rothman. He was a Jewish man with a fascination with the Bible, an incredibly interesting person. And Buster had a radio program in the heyday of radio before there was television; he was a remarkable man. But he was the first person who introduced me to Jehovah's Witness. He used to go to their meetings although he never became one. He brought me along to their meetings and so I went and I listened. I listened with an open mind because I was seeking religious truth. I was seeking meaning, so I went with my friend Buster in New Jersey but this rightly in New York City. And today not far from there there"s a movie theater taken over in Jersey City, New Jersey by the Jehovah's Witnesses and they have tours of the theater. I used to go to the movies in that theater at Journal Square as a kid. This is, of course, right across the river from New York City " Manhattan.

I had a lot of exposure to Jehovah's Witnesses in those days, and  I began reading the Watchtower, and I read Awake magazine, and I went back and read their earlier publications like Millennial Dawn and studies in Scripture by Pastor Russell. In fact I"ve even been to Pastor Russell"s grave in Pittsburgh, not that that means anything, but that's where the Jehovah's Witnesses began as the Dawn Bible Society back in the late 1800"s. I was really interested in this organization because they claimed to be the one organization in the world that is only based on the Bible, and therefore they are Jehovah"s organization, the only one based only on the Bible, the others were all corrupt. That's what the Jehovah's Witnesses believed, that's what they told me that they believed, and so I began to go with my friend Buster Rothman and I began to listen. And we would talk about it and I'd read Watchtowers, I"d read Awake magazine, I"d spend time talking to them, and over the years I had various other encounters.

I have certain questions that I have to ask before I could join any group. Before I could become part of any religion I"d have to be sure I was doing the right thing. Before I committed myself to any organization as the way of salvation, as the way to God, I really would want to make sure that they were right. And so I began to study the Scriptures in light of what the Jehovah's Witnesses had told me. And I came up with a few questions that I would really appreciate it if somebody could answer. I would really appreciate it if you could write me or contact me or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak4ab75059be7f05e5b720d82d8cac3b1c').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy4ab75059be7f05e5b720d82d8cac3b1c = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy4ab75059be7f05e5b720d82d8cac3b1c = addy4ab75059be7f05e5b720d82d8cac3b1c + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text4ab75059be7f05e5b720d82d8cac3b1c = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak4ab75059be7f05e5b720d82d8cac3b1c').innerHTML += ''+addy_text4ab75059be7f05e5b720d82d8cac3b1c+''; . You can send me an e-mail on our website and I would love to hear from you if you can answer these five questions. You can write me at:

Moriel P.O. Box 201 Maidenhead SL69FB

Write me, email me,  please answer these questions. I think it's fair to say that I"m somebody who does believe the Bible is the Word of God, I"m somebody who does believe Jehovah is God, and I"m somebody who wants to know the truth. And the person who directed you here is the same; we only want to know the truth.

Now I"ve studied your claims, I've read your literature, and I've read the Scriptures. I have something of an advantage: Although my background was science, I did learn how to read Greek and Hebrew. In fact, my family is Israeli " I can speak Hebrew.

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.

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('cloakebddcffc9c5b24164cc139a66c98e07e').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyebddcffc9c5b24164cc139a66c98e07e = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyebddcffc9c5b24164cc139a66c98e07e = addyebddcffc9c5b24164cc139a66c98e07e + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textebddcffc9c5b24164cc139a66c98e07e = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloakebddcffc9c5b24164cc139a66c98e07e').innerHTML += ''+addy_textebddcffc9c5b24164cc139a66c98e07e+'';

Moriel Ministries is an international multi-faceted ministry of Jewish and non-Jewish regenerate believers one in Jesus the Messiah.

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('cloak1d1cff9e9d99e45c390130e418abc18c').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy1d1cff9e9d99e45c390130e418abc18c = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy1d1cff9e9d99e45c390130e418abc18c = addy1d1cff9e9d99e45c390130e418abc18c + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text1d1cff9e9d99e45c390130e418abc18c = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloak1d1cff9e9d99e45c390130e418abc18c').innerHTML += ''+addy_text1d1cff9e9d99e45c390130e418abc18c+'';

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('cloak8d17482f381caedcdd0455c44a891361').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy8d17482f381caedcdd0455c44a891361 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy8d17482f381caedcdd0455c44a891361 = addy8d17482f381caedcdd0455c44a891361 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text8d17482f381caedcdd0455c44a891361 = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloak8d17482f381caedcdd0455c44a891361').innerHTML += ''+addy_text8d17482f381caedcdd0455c44a891361+'';

But I have a second question. When I talk to my Jehovah's Witness acquaintances who come to my door and who I"ve met over the years, that question is about the Holy Spirit. My Jehovah's Witness friends tell me that the Holy Spirit is only a force or a power " it"s God's guiding force or power. Now in some way by analogy I can understand some of what they say.

The Bible attributes some things to the Holy Spirit which in biblical times can only have to do with personality. He sees, He feels, He hears. We can have a parabolic microphone that in some sense " it's inanimate, it"s not a person " but it can hear. We can have sensory detectors. Although they"re creatures and have no personality, they can in some sense feel, picking up pulsations. And a camera, although it has no personality and it is not a person can in some sense see. And, I am told by my Jehovah's Witness friends, that must be something like that; I expect that's what they think. My question is this: Can you blaspheme a camera? Can you grieve a sensory detector? How can a machine, how can an inanimate force or power, how can something that is not a person with no personality, how can a non-person be blasphemed or grieved?

A sensory detector can detect pulsations, motion. You have ones that can detect heat using infrared technology, even subtle changes in heat. You have ones that can detect motion, you have ones that can detect changes in light patterns, changes in light refraction, you have machines that can do all those things. There are forces that can do things and pick things up. When you're driving on the motorway they send out a microwave beam. Go through the speed trap, there"s a change in frequency. Yeah, it can pick things up; it"s a force that has the power to detect and communicate something. Now, a speeding motorist might curse at the speed trap, he might curse at a speed camera, he might denounce it, but the camera is not going to get offended. How can someone who can get offended, that can be grieved, that can be cursed against and blasphemed not be a person? And how can a person who can be blasphemed be anyone other than God?

The Greek word is "blasphemeo"; there"s other words for "curse", but "blasphemeo"? Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the one sin somebody can"t be forgiven of Jesus said. (Mt. 12:31) They"re telling me that it's okay to commit murder and be forgiven, you can commit adultery and be forgiven, you can commit unspeakable things and be forgiven, but if you blaspheme a force or power that is not even a force or a person, which can't be blasphemed anyway because it"s not a person, you can"t be forgiven. How can you blaspheme and grieve a non-person to the point you can"t even be forgiven for it? Can you please answer me that? You can only blaspheme God. If the Holy Spirit is not a person and He"s not God, how can you blaspheme Him?

I think it is a reasonable and a fair question. I'm only looking for a reasonable and a fair answer. Please tell me the answer. I"m not trying to attack you or mock you or belittle you, I'm trying to find the truth. Please explain to me how you can blaspheme somebody who"s other than God, how you can grieve someone who"s not a person or something that"s not a person. That is my second question.

Rev 14:6
And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people;

That"s (Rev 14L6), the gospel of eternity

Now an angel "in midheaven" " there are those who speculate where "angel" could mean "messenger" it could via satellite and things like that; people have talked about that. We won"t go into that now, but the word there is "aionios". "Aionos " "for eternity", "age to ages", Greek equivalent of Hebrew "olame olamim". The reason is this: In verse 11 of that chapter…

"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever…

…"aionos tou aionos", the same word. If hell is not eternal and conscious, how can you be sure heaven is the same term? You understand? The good news of our salvation is eternal. If you"re annihilated, if you"re into the Roger Forrester/John Stockton concept, if hell is not eternal and conscious, how can you be sure heaven is? You can"t be; but they both are. In fact you can make an argument " I wouldn't be dogmatic about it " but you can make an argument that everybody will go to heaven " not in the universal sense of salvation, but remember the Parable of the Wedding Garment? (Mat 22: 1-14) He didn't have it and put him out? You could say, you could make the argument, that one of the things that"s going to make hell so terrible is they"re going to get into heaven and see what they missed. Remember how they"re bound and put into outermost darkness? One of the things that will make hell what it is is they got in for a minute and then got booted out. That doesn"t mean everyone is going to go to heaven as such, but it does mean you could make the argument. I wouldn"t be 100% dogmatic about it, but is does seem to imply that, doesn"t it? One of the things that"s going to make hell so bad is they"re going to see what they missed; not only what they got, but what they could have had, forever and ever. This is important.

The Gospel is being eroded. Remember the hymn, "It was grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fear relieved". "Oh no, there"s no hell." When you remove that element of fear you remove the impetus of fallen people to repent. God uses fear of judgment to scare people into repentance, make no mistake about it. Great comfort, etc.

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('cloak2bd7bb984ce0e366b6dc48df02e602c1').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy2bd7bb984ce0e366b6dc48df02e602c1 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy2bd7bb984ce0e366b6dc48df02e602c1 = addy2bd7bb984ce0e366b6dc48df02e602c1 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text2bd7bb984ce0e366b6dc48df02e602c1 = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloak2bd7bb984ce0e366b6dc48df02e602c1').innerHTML += ''+addy_text2bd7bb984ce0e366b6dc48df02e602c1+'';

5月の学び会の続編になります。

But that leads me to my final question. I am told by my Jehovah's Witness friends that the resurrection of Jesus was not literally physical. They said when He appeared and took a physical form it is because He had other bodies after the resurrection which He appeared in because people couldn"t recognize Him at first like Thomas didn't recognize Him, or didn't believe it was Him. The resurrection was not literal.

Well first of all, if it was only spiritual and the spirit of the pnuma " the psuchei, call it what you will " is only "breath", how could Jesus have risen? His breath rose? Now I'm confused. How could "breath" appear as a person? The tomb was empty. We"re told in John the tomb was empty. (Jn. 20:1-10) there was no corpse found in it. In  John 2:21   Jesus said his body would rise. The Greek word "soma" " His bodywould rise.

Let"s look at John 21:12. I"d like to read it to you.

Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples ventured to question Him, "Who are You?" knowing that it was the Lord.

"Come eat breakfast". When Jesus raised a little girl from the dead He said, "Talitah  t"kumi", and His first instruction was, "Give her something to eat". (Mk. 5:40-43) When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead the next thing we see them doing is eating in John 12. Whenever somebody raises from the dead in the Gospels you always seem them eating. "Come eat breakfast". On the road to Emmaus He goes to the house and they recognize Him in the breaking of bread. (Lk. 24:30-31) Why is He eating? Any time in the Bible when someone rose from the dead they ate to prove it was a literal, physical resurrection. It was only a ghost? No, it could not have been. Let me explain why.

Let's look to the story of Jesus calming the raging sea. It says they thought He was a ghost. (Mt. 14:26; Mk. 6:49) He said no it"s not a ghost; a ghost does not have flesh and bones. He appeared physically. So if He was only some kind of a ghost, a phantom, how could He have appeared physically when He said ghosts don"t do that? I'm told He had multiple bodies and this only happened because when Thomas didn't recognize Him or on the road to Emmaus when they didn't recognize Him. But we are rather told in Luke 24:16 they were keptfrom recognizing Him. The reason they didn't recognize him was not because He had other bodies, because they were kept from recognizing Him; in other places they knew it was Him such as in John 21:12, it says they knew He was Him.

At His resurrection of John 20:17, Jesus says, "Stop clinging tor Me". You can"t cling to a ghost. The tomb was empty. Why would bribes have been paid to say His disciple stole the body if it was only a spiritual resurrection? It just doesn't make any sense. It makes no sense whatsoever. First I am told that psuchei, that pnuma is only "breath" and that I"m told His "breath" rose? His body had to rise " "Stop clinging to Me". The tomb was empty, He ate physically, He said directly that His body would raise up from the dead in John chapter 2:21. If Jesus said His body, His physical body " He used the word "soma", He didn't use the word "psuchei", the text does not use the word "pnuma" " but "soma", "body". He says His body would raise from the dead. If the tomb was empty, He said "Stop clinging to Me", if He repeatedly did things like eat and so forth, how can you say it was not a literal, physical resurrection, it was only spiritual? How? How could it be anything other than an actual literal, physical resurrection? How?

They told us there was a revival and they told us to laugh. While the armies of the Philistines assembled to march against this nation they were laughing. I watched it on television news when in Southwark Cathedral, a place where Christians were martyred in aftermath of the Reformation by Queen Mary, lesbians and homosexuals had a televised gay and lesbian service for homosexual and lesbian clergy. And right across the river at Holy Trinity Brompton Nicki Gumbel and Sandy Millar had people on the floor laughing, rolling saying there was a revival going on. I watched it.

Defeated armies and a defeated church and aggressive Philistines and there"s nobody going to stop it. Not Purpose Driven, not Alpha, notToronto, Pensacola, not Kansas City, none of them can stop if. They can do nothing " they"re all proven losers led by proven hypocrites and cowards. They do not even have the Christian integrity to repent and admit they were wrong, that no revival cane and we're in serious trouble. Instead they say the Muslims can be saved without Christ. Just ask Colin Chapman or Steve Chalke. And these men are respected and welcomed? The commanders of the army of Saul.

What can happen? What can anybody do? Notice King David came out of nowhere. He was not someone anyone ever expected. If this invasion can be stopped, those who God raises up to stop it will not be visible on the horizon.

1 Samuel 17, Goliath"s challenge.

Now the Philistines gathered their armies for battle; and they were gathered at Socoh which belongs to Judah, and they camped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephes-dammim.

Saul and the men of Israel were gathered and camped in the valley of Elah, and drew up in battle array to encounter the Philistines. The Philistines stood on the mountain on one side while Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, with the valley between them. Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath…

Today it"s near Kiriath Gat, a settlement of Russian Jews.

…whose height was six cubits and a span. He had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was clothed with scale-armor which weighed five thousand shekels of bronze. He also had bronze greaves on his legs and a bronze javelin slung between his shoulders. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver"s beam, and the head of his spear weighed six hundred shekels of iron; his shield-carrier also walked before him.

Whenever you see a superhuman villain in the Bible, somebody distinct from other people who is a nefarious creature, and you see a combination of three sixes in association with him, we"re looking at a type of the Antichrist. Let"s again look at the dimensions of Goliath"s armor. Height was six cubits – one span, then the weight was five. Then of course, we get down to the weaver"s beam, the size of the spear, which it"s weight was six hundred. So you put it together, obviously you have six-six-six. There"s three sixes. Whenever you see a play on numbers adding up to three sixes where it"s multiples of eighteen in association with a nefarious creature, we"re looking at someone who typifies Antichrist in some way. And not infrequently when you find someone who typifies Antichrist you"ll find someone going before him. Here it"s the armor bearer. Of course the false prophet goes before the beast. There are many, many clues about the Antichrist and what he will be like and what he will do throughout Scripture, but we should always be looking for the number of the beast. Among other things you're looking for somebody who's not just a villain but a villain of superhuman quality because he"s trying to counterfeit Christ – a superhuman.

Now the villain"s conspicuously superhuman; Christ was inconspicuously superhuman. He had no formal comeliness that we shall look upon Him. (Isa 53:2) That tells us something in itself about the spirit of Antichrist and how it works. It can take people in because it"s conspicuous. Only those who are discerning will see through it, but only those who are really discerning will see the meekness of Christ, the One who really is superhuman, instead of the counterfeits. Now I only mention this in passing because we know that Antichrist uses false religion in conjunction with the world"s political system to attempt to usurp the dominion of Christ before Jesus comes back.

He stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel and said to them, “Why do you come out to draw up in battle array? Am I not the Philistine and you servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves and let him come down to me. If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will become your servants; but if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall become our servants and serve us."

The ultimate struggle is between Christ and Antichrist. Recall Jesus in Judaism, in Judeo-Christianity, “ben-David Yeshua" – “Jesus, Son of David". Our victory is always in Him. Christ must conquer Antichrist; Jesus must conquer the devil. Our victory is always in our Leader. His victory becomes ours. The outcome of the battle will not be determined by what we do but by what our Leader has done.

Once Israel saw that their leader as a working David, humble and out of nowhere, killed the leader of the Philistines, Israel"s victory was assured. And so our victory is assured.

Again the Philistine said, “I defy the ranks of Israel this day; give me a man that we may fight together." When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid. Now David was the son of the Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, whose name was Jesse…

…that is, “Yishay"…

and he had eight sons. And Jesse was old in the days of Saul, advanced in years among men. The three older sons of Jesse had gone after Saul to the battle. And the names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and the second to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah. David was the youngest. Now the three oldest followed Saul, but David went back and forth from Saul to tend his father"s flock at Bethlehem.

So often the people God uses are shepherds. If you can look after a few sheep you can look after a flock. Amos, Moses – all types of Christ as the Good Shepherd.

The Philistine came forward morning and evening for forty days and took his stand.

“40" is the number of testing in biblical typology, isn't it? It rained 40 days and 40 nights in the saga of Noah, Gideon faced the invader for 40 days, Jesus fasted 40 days and 40 nights, Moses fasted 40 days and 40 nights, the children of Israel sojourned 40 years in the wilderness, and Jonah gave the Ninevites 40 days to repent. “40" is the number of testing, of divine testing. The story then continues…

Then Jesse said to David his son, “Take now for your brothers an ephah of this roasted grain and these ten loaves and run to the camp to your brothers. “Bring also these ten cuts of cheese to the commander of their thousand, and look into the welfare of your brothers, and bring back news of them.

Resembles the story of Joseph and it prefigures Christ being sent to look after the welfare of His brothers.

“For Saul and they and all the men of Israel are in the valley of Elah, fighting with the Philistines."

So David arose early in the morning and left the flock with a keeper and took the supplies and went as Jesse had commanded him. And he came to the circle of the camp while the army was going out in battle array shouting the war cry. Israel and the Philistines drew up in battle array, army against army. Then David left his baggage in the care of the baggage keeper, and ran to the battle line and entered in order to greet his brothers. As he was talking with them, behold, the champion, the Philistine from Gath named Goliath, was coming up from the army of the Philistines, and he spoke these same words; and David heard them.

When all the men of Israel saw the man, they fled from him and were greatly afraid. The men of Israel said, “Have you seen this man who is coming up? Surely he is coming up to defy Israel. And it will be that the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father"s house free in Israel."

“Free" meaning “tax-exempt."

Then David spoke to the men who were standing by him, saying, “What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should taunt the armies of the living God?" The people answered him in accord with this word, saying, “Thus it will be done for the man who kills him."

Now Eliab his oldest brother heard when he spoke to the men; and Eliab"s anger burned…

…not against Goliath, but…

against David and he said, “Why have you come down? And with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your insolence and the wickedness of your heart; for you have come down in order to see the battle." But David said, “What have I done now? Was it not just a question?" Then he turned away from him to another and said the same thing; and the people answered the same thing as before.

When the words which David spoke were heard, they told them to Saul, and he sent for him. David said to Saul, “Let no man"s heart fail on account of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine." Then Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth while he has been a warrior from his youth." But David said to Saul, “Your servant was tending his father"s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and took a lamb from the flock, I went out after him and attacked him, and rescued it from his mouth; and when he rose up against me, I seized him by his beard and struck him and killed him. Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, since he has taunted the armies of the living God." And David said, “The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine." And Saul said to David, “Go, and may the Lord be with you." Then Saul clothed David with his garments and put a bronze helmet on his head, and he clothed him with armor. David girded his sword over his armor and tried to walk, for he had not tested them. So David said to Saul, “I cannot go with these, for I have not tested them." And David took them off. He took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd"s bag which he had, even in his pouch, and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine.

Now of course we know the Torah as the five books and the Law as engraved on stone according to Corinthians. (2 Cor 3:7) The Torah is engraved on stones, these five stones obviously represents the Hebrew Bible.

Then the Philistine came on and approached David, with the shield-bearer in front of him.

The types of the Antichrist usually have this forerunner, a counterfeit harbinger. What John the Baptist was to Jesus, what the ministry of Elijah is to the return of Christ, so the false prophet will be an equivalent, the Satanic equivalent, of that with the Antichrist. You know what I"m saying? One is a counterfeit of the other.

When the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, with a handsome appearance. The Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?" And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. The Philistine also said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field."

This, of course, resembles Ezekiel 37 through 39.

Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin…

Notice he had a short-range weapon, a medium-range weapon, and a long-range weapon.

…but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. “This day the Lord will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel,

David was not seeking his own glory but God's and the honor of His people.

and that all this assembly may know that the Lord does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the Lord"s and He will give you into our hands."

He"s not looking for the glory only for himself – “our hands".

Then it happened when the Philistine rose and came and drew near to meet David, that David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Philistine.

Everybody else was afraid, he ran for it.

And David put his hand into his bag and took from it a stone and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead. And the stone sank into his forehead, so that he fell on his face to the ground.

Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David"s hand. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled. The men of Israel and Judah arose and shouted and pursued the Philistines as far as the valley, and to the gates of Ekron. And the slain Philistines lay along the way to Shaaraim, even to Gath and Ekron. The sons of Israel returned from chasing the Philistines and plundered their camps. Then David took the Philistine"s head and brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his weapons in his tent.

Now when Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner the commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is this young man?" And Abner said, “By your life, O king, I do not know." The king said, “You inquire whose son the youth is." So when David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul with the Philistine"s head in his hand. Saul said to him, “Whose son are you, young man?" And David answered, “I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."

And of course from this lineage, the Messiah to come going back to the book of Ruth.

"Marhaba. Ismi Yakub." Hello, my name is Jacob, happy to meet you,

I"ve been meeting a lot of Muslims in Britain and America and other countries and I've been talking to them about their faith. And most of them are quite enthusiastic about sharing with me the beliefs of Islam, the teachings of Mohammed in the Quran, and why they feel I should believe it. Often they will point to things like the moral disintegration of Western society, with which I agree, and they will point out many other things. They will claim we have the same God, and it"s even been pointed out that the Quran speaks more about Jesus than it does Mohammed.

Well, actually I"ve read the Quran; I have a Quran in my hand. And it has spoken more about Jesus than of it does Mohammed, only the things it says about Jesus disagree with what the Gospel say about Jesus. The Gospels, of course, say that He was God, that He died. The Quran says He was not God and did not die.

I"m speaking to you not as an enemy. I'm speaking to you as, I hope, a friend and somebody who wants to know the truth. I've listened to what Muslims have said about Islam, why they feel it"s right, why they feel Christians, Jews, and others should believe it, why it is the true religion.

Now of course there are multiple kinds of Muslims. There are Sunni, there are Shi"a, there are Baha"i, there are Aleywa, there are Achmahdi, there"s the Nation of Islam, and Sufi, and they will disagree on many fundamental points among themselves. However, the same would be true of Christianity. You"d have Catholics, Protestants " different kinds, Methodists, Pentacostals " and these would often disagree themselves. But what is broadly called "Christian" will essentially agree on the central points that Jesus was God who became a man to take our sin, that He died on the cross and rose from the dead to give eternal life, and He"s coming again. All people who say they are "Christian" will agree, in essence, on that. ALL people who call themselves "Muslims" will agree on the five pillars of Islam. They will all agree on the inspiration of the Quran, that Mohammed was the prophet, that in their view there no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, and in the five pillars of Islam. They will all agree on the basic things. Others will add other things about Ali and so forth, but they all agree on the basic things. The Wahabbists will not accept anything that goes beyond 950 A.D., but they"ll still agree on the five pillars, the five pillars of Islam.

We know that there are people who are culturally Muslim. They"re Muslim because of culture, upbringing, social background, but may not be Muslims by way of personal faith; it"s their culture. In the West we see much of this nominal Islam and its growing. The same is true in Christianity. Most people who say they are Christians are Christians by culture and not by personal faith. I would encourage my Muslim friends to realize what is true of Islam is also true of Christianity " not everyone who says he's a Muslim is really a Muslim by way of personal faith, some of them are only Muslims by way of culture. In Christianity that same thing is true, and in secular society even more so; they are Christians by way of culture.

I don't speak for those who are Christians by way of culture, I speak for those who are what we call "born-again" Christians, those who are Christians by way of conviction " general faith " much as a Wahabbist, a Wahab would speak by way of conviction, that he believes in Islam.

And so I"ve read the Quran and I"ve read the Hadith, I"ve talked to a number of Muslims, and I"ve been from one end of the Muslim world to the other. Over the years I"ve been to Morocco, I"ve been to Egypt, I"ve been to Jordan, I"ve been to Turkey, I"ve been to the Persian Gulf, I've been to Brunei and Malaysia and the Far East. I"ve seen Islam in Africa, I've seen Islam in the Middle East, I've seen Islam in the Far East, I've seen Islam in Britain and in America. I"ve seen it in its Western form, its African form, its Middle Eastern form, and in its Asian form. I"ve been to a lot of Muslim countries; I"ve been to a lot of them. I'm not completely ignorant about the religion or faith of Islam. I don't speak Arabic very well, but I do speak some Arabic, and I"ve lived in the Middle East for a number of years. And so in listening to what Muslims have told me " some of them have been people that have been business associates of mine, people that I"ve done business with in the tourism industry in Egypt and Turkey, people that I"ve had good friendships with, working relationships with, people who themselves disdain fundamentalism. people who are against terror because it"s destroyed their businesses and forced them to put people out of work. The tourism industry was vital to the economies of countries like Egypt and Turkey, and because of Islamic fundamentalism when tourists stopped coming out of fear, foreign-exchange disappears, tax revenues disappear, jobs disappear,

I know that not all Muslims are terrorists. I know not all Muslims agree with the fundamentalist agenda. We could make the argument that Islam has been hijacked by fundamentalists who have that agenda and that people will say the moderate Muslims need to take it back. You could make that argument, but I'm not dealing with that argument, I"m simply dealing with my own questions about your religion. So have al-katab and al-quran, the Bible, and the Quran.

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('cloaka1c159284a74b77578e8f0233615a73b').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addya1c159284a74b77578e8f0233615a73b = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addya1c159284a74b77578e8f0233615a73b = addya1c159284a74b77578e8f0233615a73b + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_texta1c159284a74b77578e8f0233615a73b = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloaka1c159284a74b77578e8f0233615a73b').innerHTML += ''+addy_texta1c159284a74b77578e8f0233615a73b+'';

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.

The second question I would like to ask is this one: I was always told in Catholic schools and by my mother that Peter was “the rock". “Upon this rock I will build my church" from Matthew 16. (Mt. 16:18)

I was told that in English and, when I was a little boy, I was taught to read Latin. The Bible was the Vulgate, the only one read ritually; it was not studied. However, having learned to read the original Greek and Hebrew languages, I looked at the original meaning in the original languages. I would not call myself a Protestant, but remember Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Cranmer and every one of the reformers, every one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation was from the intelligentsia of the Roman Catholic priesthood. Everyone had been a Roman Catholic priest who went back and read the Scriptures in the original languages. I"m not defending Protestantism, I don't identify with it; I"m a Christian, but I"m just asking the question, “Is Peter the rock?"

I lived in Israel for many years and at the base of Mt. Herman there"s a place called “Banyas". In the Bible it was called “Caesarea Philippi" and it is there where Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build My church". And I was told that He gave the keys and power to Peter. “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". (Mt. 16:19)

I'd like to read directly from the Greek language what it says in the New Testament. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but when Matthew wrote it down on the testimony of the apostles who"d been eyewitnesses he wrote it in Greek. Or if it was written in another language it was quickly translated into Greek. We have one historical reference that Matthew might have been in Hebrew or the Hebrew dialect of Aramaic according to Haggis Sippus, but there"s no manuscript ever found. We have the Greek. And it is the translation of the Greek which the Roman Catholic church bases its doctrine that Peter is “the rock". Is that what it says?

Verse 18, and I"ll translate it word by word:

“Kago de" – “Also I" or “And also I"…
…"soi lego" – “to thee" or “to you say"…
…"hoti sy ei Petros" – “thou art Peter" or “you are Peter"…
…"kai" – “and"…
…"epi" – “around" or “on, but in the context it would mean “on", with that I agree…
…"taute te petra" – “on this rock"…
…"oikodomeso… (from where we get the word “oikos" – “house") …mou" – “I will build of Me"…
…"ten ekklesian" – “the church".

It would be built on Christ, not of Peter.

At Banyas – Caesarea Philippi, there"s a cascade with millions and millions of flat chips of stone washed out of the cascade. The Greek word “petros" – “Peter", “little Peters". There is a big boulder on which the temple of the Greek god Pan that had been there at one time had been built and the temple to Caesar Augustus, the deified emperor, had been built that Jesus was referring to where the house would be built. That is called a “petra". “You are one of these little chips of stone; upon this boulder I will build my church of Me."

When asked to explain this, Roman Catholic scholars say, “But Jesus was speaking Aramaic, or a language related to Hebrew. and because Peter was a male He had the use the masculine form 'petros', which is the word for 'a little rock' instead of 'petra' which is the word for 'a boulder"". I went to a pretty good university and a pretty good bible college and I'm told by people who are from Greece that my Greek is not bad so far as my understanding of its meaning. But I know people who are really, really fluent in Greek, they grew up speaking it and they"re experts in reading the Old Testament, the church fathers, and so forth, they are from Greece. I know people like this in Australia particularly, and they confirm what I say is right. And so if there"s any academic or a person with a degree in Greek saying what I say is right, what I say is what I was taught. Gender in Greek does not have to do with sex in any primary sense; it has to do with the way a word is used in the context of the sentence. It is not male and female as in sex, it"s male and female as in the way the word is used in the context.

Let us look 1 Corinthians 10:4…

and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

In Greek it says, “de he petra en ho Christos". “Petra". Christ Himself who was a male is referred to in the feminine. The idea that they changed the gender because Peter was a male is ridiculous. That is not how Greek grammar works. I don't believe St. Paul made a mistake, nor did the Holy Spirit when He inspired St. Paul to write Corinthians. “The rock" is Christ and it"s called “petra". What does it say in Matthew 16? “You are "petros" and upon the "petra" I will build My church." You cannot use a little chip of stone the size of your thumb as the foundation for a building; you cannot use a “petros" as the foundation for a building; you can only use a “petra". If you"ve been to Caesarea Philippi you would see it makes no logical sense. If you know Greek you would see it makes no logical sense.

But there's more. In 1 Corinthians 3:11 we read something else.

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man"s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man"s work. If any man"s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man"s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

If anyone – if anyone – builds on the foundation of something else – gold, silver, precious stones, etc., it"ll be manifested on the day of the Lord; it will be revealed with fire; it won't stand. The only foundation we can build on is Christ, not Peter. Was St. Paul wrong? For that matter, were the early Roman Catholic popes and councils wrong? Or were the later ones wrong who said that Peter is “the rock" instead of Christ even though the New Testament says the opposite, and even though their early popes said the opposite?

The Roman Catholic Church claims that its doctrines are not only “apostolic", but “patristic" – they come from the church fathers. I do not believe in the doctrinal authority of the church fathers. I do not believe the “apostolic" necessarily equals the “patristic". However, even if I did, of the church fathers the Roman Catholic church looks to as a way to define what the apostles believed, most of the church fathers said that “the rock" was Christ, not Peter. A minority of them said “the rock" was the faith of Peter. Most say “the rock" was Christ, a few said “the rock" was Peter"s faith. None – not even one of their own church fathers – not only one of your church fathers has ever said that “the rock" was Peter,

Given the fact that you cannot use a chip of stone the size of your thumb – a flat chip of stone the size of your thumb – as the foundation for a building, given the fact that the original language says “You are the "chip of stone" and upon "the boulder" I will build My church", given the fact as St. Paul says we can build on no foundation other than Christ Himself, and given the fact of the New Testament says that Christis “the rock" – “petra", “the boulder", and given the fact that none of your own church fathers of the Roman Church believed that “the rock" was Peter, why do you? Why do you believe something which is practically, historically, biblically, patristically unfounded? And in fact, having been to Caesarea Philippi so many times, I have to say asbsurd. Why, in the early centuries, did no one believe it? Popes were fired – sacked by church councils. That is the question.

My mother has the view that many people would have – Irish, Catholic, British, Protestant. I just got back from Ireland a few days ago and I"ve studied Irish history at some length. I was astounded to discover that most of the founders of Irish Republicanism, originally called “The Home Rule Movement" – Isaac Butt, Theobold, Napper Tandy, Charles Parnell, Wolfe-Tone – every one of them was a Protestant. “The Irish patriots like Jonathan Swift, the author of Gulliver's Travels, was a Protestant. It was only later identified with Catholicism in the times of Daniel O'Connor and so forth. But I was more astounded to learn how the “English", quote/unquote, first got involved in Ireland. There was a non-English king, an ethnic Norman. He was not Anglo-Saxon, he was a French Viking. Henry II was threatened with excommunication by Pope Adrian IV if he would not invade Ireland and put an end to the local Celtic church in Ireland, and force them to acquiesce to Rome and the papacy. How did the English first become involved in invading and occupying Ireland? The pope sent them.

The term is “revisionism". I"m no admirer of Voltaire"s values, but he was a talented writer. And he was right about one thing: “History is the lie everybody agrees on". When you read what really happened you get a different picture. But the problem I have in speaking to my very Catholic mother is her Catholic identity is part and parcel of her Irish identity and can't see beyond it. There is a historical prejudice that's emotionally charged. It would be family disloyalty. Jesus said, “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me". (Mt. 10:37) Do I love my mother? Yes, but I love God first and I want them to know the truth.

When I looked for the truth I found that “the rock" was and is Christ, not Peter, not only according to the New Testament but according to Roman Catholic history itself, That's my second question: Why do you believe Peter is “the rock" when the New Testament and your own church fathers and just the practical circumstances of trying to build a house on a chip of stone all dictate he could not possibly be?

Popes have been warlords. They ordered nations to go to war with each other. They"ve been homosexuals, they"ve had illegitimate children. The banking families of Europe would vie to get their man into the papacy – the Borgia popes, the Medici family. Sometimes there would be two or three people claiming to be pope and the one that had the biggest military backing, usually from France, would declare the others to be antipopes. Well, I'll leave that to others to sort out. The only question I'm asking you is how can Peter be “the rock"?

And even if he was “the rock", where does it say that Peter was empowered to pass that position on to others? If Peter was the first pope, why is it in the book of Acts 15 at the first council of the church that James presided, not Peter? James says, “Brethren, listen to Peter"? No, “Listen to me". (Acts 15:13) And he does not rule by decree. He says, “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us". (Acts 15:28) It was a collective decision by all the apostles, it was not the pope speaking autocratically ex cathedra. Why was James presiding and doing all the talking if Peter was the pope? It"s a fair question.

Why did St. Paul rebuke Peter in the presence of all in the book of Galatians? (Gal. 2:11-14) When is the last time you saw a bishop or a cardinal or a priest standing up in public and face-to-face challenging the pope and telling him off for being a hypocrite or behaving hypocritically? I've seen them kneel down and kiss his ring, but I've never seen any of them tell him off. You don't talk that way to the pope. If Peter was the pope, why did Paul talk to him that way? Fair question? Why did James preside if Peter was the pope?

Even in its earlier centuries the Roman Church didn't believe that. Now of course I would argue that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist as such until the 4th Century, but we"ll put that aside. The question I'm asking is in light of the evidence – biblical, patristic, and historical and practical, how can you possibly believe Peter is “the rock" when the Bible says “the rock" is Christ and we can build on no other foundation?

But I have yet another question.

In the Gospel of St. John 6 I've heard it quoted, quoted, quoted, and re-quoted as applying to the Eucharist. We read the following, I"m beginning in verse 47…

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Notice St. John, quoting Jesus, says that Jesus said if you believe in Jesus you have eternal life. “He who believes in the Son has eternal life, he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." – the Gospel of St. John 3:36 in the Roman Catholic Bible. Jesus said, “If a man believes in Me though he die yet shall He live for he"s passed from death to life" – the Gospel of St. John 5:24according to the Roman Catholic Bible. Belief is the key to eternal life.

“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

Jesus is saying that the manna that fell in the wilderness in the book of Exodus is a symbol of Him. It is the type, He is the antitype.

Now I am told that this refers to communion, the Lord's Supper at the Eucharist. The Lord"s Supper – the Eucharist, comes of the Jewish Passover. The Last Supper was a Jewish Passover meal called a “seder". But Jews had to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem at Passover time; this was not at Passover and it was not in Jerusalem. Whatever applies to the Lord"s Supper does not apply in the direct sense because it's not the Last Supper. It's the wrong time of year, it"s the wrong place. It is, first of all, talking about how the Exodus was a symbol of Jesus – the manna.

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

He would give His flesh for the life of the world.

Then the Jews…

…that means the Judeans, not all Jews but the religious establishment,,,
…began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

Those influenced by the Pharisees would have had this argument.

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

Unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you cannot live.

I'm told this is the Eucharist and it is the key to eternal life. That's what I was taught in Catholic school. The context, however, going all the way back to verse 32 is the Exodus. No fewer than three places Jesus says in the same passage that the key – the key – to eternal life is belief. But I am told the bread and wine was transubstantiated, turned into His literal body and blood and then eaten. How do I account for this? Well, the first problem I had as a Catholic looking at this was this: Just reading on…

These things…
…in verse 59…
…He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum"…
…not at the Last Supper in Jerusalem when the Lord"s Supper communion was instituted.

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing…

How can eating His flesh be the key to eternal life if “the flesh profits nothing"? “Eating the flesh" meant believing His words. I will prove it.

We have to read this as a literary unit, as a “gospel". In John 1 of this same gospel St. John writes that “the Word became flesh" (Jn. 1:14) – the Greek word “sarx". “Logos" became “sarx". Jesus is the Word of God incarnate.

Look at the New Testament, first of all in the book of Revelation 10:10. This Same St. John, the same apostle who wrote this in the Apocalypse, says…

I took the little book out of the angel"s hand and ate it…

Belief equals eating the Word of God; you make it part of yourself. He was the Word incarnate, it becomes incarnate within us, it becomes part of us. He ate the Word.

Let"s look at the book of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel 3…

Then He said to me, “Son of man…
…just as Jesus is called “Son of Man"…
…eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll.

So he ate the Word of God.

The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah said the following in 15:16…

Your words were found and I ate them…

The Word becomes flesh. You “eat" the Word by believing it. “He who believes has eternal life". Jesus says in John 6, the flesh profits nothing. How could it possibly be the key to eternal life? You have three problems; that's what I discovered as a Catholic.

The first problem was on one hand I was being told that the sacrament of the Eucharist was the key to eternal life, but the catechism told me salvation comes by the sacraments of baptism and penance – that"s how sin is taken away. It contradicts itself. Which sacrament saves? Now in fact by reading the Bible I came to realize no sacrament saves – Jesus saves. It's not an ex opere operato ritual called a “sacrament". The sacraments are emblems; it"s believing in Him through faith and repentance. That is the first problem. How can the Eucharist be the key to eternal life if your own catechism says it"s other sacraments?

The second problem: Once more, in the first church council of the book of Acts of the Apostles chapter 15, the apostles, including Peter,outlawed the consumption of blood as a pagan demonic practice. Cannibalism was outlawed as pagan and demonic. Christians were told not to do it. If it is literal blood, you can"t drink it. The apostles were told by the Holy Spirit to forbid its consumption. “The flesh profits nothing". That"s the second problem.

The third problem is, again, Jesus was a Jew. This had to be celebrated at Passover in Jerusalem. What He would have said, the Hebrew prayer, would have been, “Za guphe sha ani ashbar b"ad"chem zot asu l"zichroni; ha"cos ha"zot he ha"brit ha"had asch zot asu l"zichroni." “This is my body I"ve broken for you, this cup is the cup of the new covenant of my blood poured out for you, do it in remembrance of Me." (Lk. 22:17-20) The apostles and Jesus were Jewish; they understood it would have been a memorial if they understood what it meant at all. Obviously the Sanhedrin and the people they influenced did not. It"s a memorial. “Do this in remembrance of Me". Consumption of blood was a pagan practice, not a Jewish one.

That is my question. If your own catechism says salvation comes by baptism and penance, how can it come by the Eucharist? If the flesh profits nothing, how can it be talking about literal flesh, given the fact that the apostles condemned its literal consumption? The doctrine of transubstantiation was formulated in its present form in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas based on Aristotle"s “philosophy of accidents" which was debunked by modern science, chemistry, and physics. I won't go into that now, but that is my question. If the flesh profits nothing, if Jesus said the key is belief – eating His flesh is believing the Word, if the consumption of blood was outlawed, how can it be what I was told as a Catholic and what you were told? It can't possibly be if you"re not allowed to consume blood and the flesh profits nothing. Please answer my question. I've yet to find a priest who can, maybe you can.

The first question I would like to ask you is this: There are two reasons most Jewish people I know – neighbors, friends, family – two reasons most I know reject any idea of Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. Those reasons are always “anti-Semitism" and “Why, if He was the Messiah, did He not bring in worldwide peace?" Therefore He could not be the Messiah. Let's begin with the most sensitive of issues, anti-Semitism.

I had an uncle who was in a German camp. He was a prisoner of war. The Nazis were going to kill Him. He was rescued by the Russians at the last moment as my wife's father was rescued by the Russians at the last moment as he was against the wall about to be shot. The Germans were trying to kill as many Jews as they could before they evacuated, before the retreat in the face of the oncoming invasion. My wife is the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Most of her family were murdered. And, of course, they were murdered in the name of Jesus Christ. The remaining orthodox church, the Roman Catholic Church and most of the Lutheran church in Germany collaborated with the Nazis. Hitler quoted Luther at length. It was not just Catholics, it was Protestants. How can I believe that the person in whose name one Inquisition after another, one pogrom after another, and ultimately the Holocaust should be even considered as a possible candidate to be the Jewish Messiah, when in His name nothing but genocidal extermination and persecution has come to Israel and the Jews? That"s the question I asked myself, but this is the question I would like to ask you.

If you were to read the Tanak, “Yirmayah Ha"nabiy" – Jeremiah the Prophet was arrested and thrown into a cistern. (Jer. 38:6) He pointed people to the Law, the Torah. He warned them of impending doom and judgment and God's anger with them because of idolatry and immorality. And like most of the other prophets he was persecuted. But he was not persecuted in the name of Ba"al; he was not persecuted in the name of Molech. Most of the Hebrew prophets who were persecuted or murdered by their own people were murdered in the name of Yahweh and Moses. They were accused of speaking against the Torah and Moses when they said that God's judgment was going to come upon Jerusalem.

I recall several years ago when an Orthodox Jew wearing a yarmulke drew a pistol in north Tel Aviv and fired bullets directly into the back of the Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. He did this in the name of Judaism; he did this in the name of the Torah; he did this in the name of Yahweh; he did this in the name of Moses – “Moshe Rabbeinu". An Orthodox Jew assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, gunned him down, murdered his own prime minister in the name of Moses and Judaism. Can I reject Moses and Judaism because somebody assassinated Yitzhak Rabin in his name? Can I reject Moses and Judaism because the prophets were persecuted and killed in their name?

Simon bar Kokhba came and was extolled as a hero. He was proclaimed to be the Messiah by Rabbi Akiva in the name of Moses and the Prophets. The Israeli general and archeologist, the first chief of staff of the Israeli military Ya"alon said something different. He described bar Kokhba as something of a brute tyrant who once kicked a 90-year-old rabbi in the head and killed him; a warlord, someone who"d been power-hungry. Some saw him that way, but Rabbi Akiva said he was the Messiah. And in the name of Moses and Judaism, Rabbi Akiva promised the Jewish people he was the Messiah and would bring them deliverance. At the battle of Betar, the worst holocaust in proportionate terms that has ever happened to Israel took place, (something in proportionate terms as bad as the Holocaust of the 1930"s and 40"s) only it happened in their own land. Because Rabbi Akiva proclaimed bar Kokhba to be the Messiah in the name of Moses and Judaism, can I reject Moses and Judaism? No, Rabbi Akiva did not bring peace to Israel and establish worldwide peace through his Messiah bar Kochba. Bar Kochba did not establish worldwide peace and bring peace to Israel even though in the name of Moses and Judaism they said he would.

If you"ve studied Judaism you know about Shabbetai. Most rabbis in major areas of Europe and North Africa, most in major areas and many others in a variety of areas, said he was the Messiah, but he was not a Messiah. In the end he led the people into what can best be described as something debaucherous and grossly disappointing. Yet it was in the name of Moses and the Prophets that the rabbis proclaimed Shabbetai Zevi to be the Messiah. Can I reject Moses and Judaism because the rabbis misled the Jewish people into following Shabbetai Zevi in the name of Moses and Judaism?

Two generations later the rabbis did it again and they said Jacob Frank was the Messiah on a wide scale. But Jacob Frank was not the Messiah, yet in the name of Moses and Judaism the rabbis said he was. And some very bad things happened to the Jewish people. There"ve been many people who the rabbis have said is the Messiah right up to the present age, and they always proclaimed them to be the Messiah in the name of Moses and Judaism. Murder and atrocity was committed in the name of Moses and Judaism. Genocidal persecution of the Jews resulted as a direct result of Rabbi Akiva"s action perpetrated in the name of Moses and Judaism.

On what basis can I reject Moses and Judaism because of what was done in the name of Moses? I cannot reject Moses and Judaism because of what was done in the name of Moses. I have to accept or reject Moses on the basis of what Moses said and did, not on the basis of what others said and did in his name. The issue is not what was done in the name of Moses, the issue is Moses. So then my question to you is, “On what basis can I reject Yeshua – Rabbi Yeshua bar Jozef m"Netseret, whom the Gentiles call 'Jesus of Nazareth' – on what basis can I dismiss Him and reject Him?" On the basis of what was done in His name to the Jewish people and to others? The issue is not what was done and said in His name by others, the issue is what did He say and do? The issue is not what Jesus is said to have said, the issue is not what others did generations and centuries after His public ministry in Israel, the issue is not what others said and did in His name. The issue is not that, the issue is He Himself.

I considered Moses apart from what was done in his name. Now you don't think of it, but goys – Gentiles will say much the same thing about you that you think about them. They have these myths of conspiracy theories and Jewish bankers and Jewish merchants and Jews trying to take over the medical profession and the academic institutions, making Jews the scapegoats for most of man"s faults and problems when in fact we all know there are both good Jews and bad Jews the same as there"s good Gentiles and bad Gentiles. But it"s easy just to say, “Oh, the Jews!", and it"s just as easy to say, “Oh, the Christians!" No real Jew would commit murder in the name of Judaism; no real Jew would persecute their own prophets in the name of Judaism; no real Christian would commit murder in the name of Christianity. no real Christians would murder God's own chosen people, the Jews, in the name of a Jewish faith. Christianity is a Jewish faith.

How can you reject Jesus on the basis of what was done in His name unless you reject Moses on the same grounds? I don't reject Moses for those reasons, it wouldn't be fair to Moses and it wouldn't be fair to myself. The issue is was Moses right? I hope you won"t reject Jesus on those grounds. It wouldn't be fair to Him and it wouldn't be fair to you. The issue is, “Was Yeshua right?" Not the Gentile “Jesus", not the Catholic or Protestant “Jesus", but the Jewish Jesus: Was He right?

By the 2nd Century the Jewish historian Max Dimont tells us that 25% of the Jews in Jerusalem believed he was the Messiah. The only reason Gentiles believe in Him is because Jews believed it first. The only reason there"s a New Testament is that Jews wrote it. Both those calling themselves Jews and those calling themselves Christians are the products of revisionism, a rewritten distortion of history. There is nothing Gentile about Jesus or His message except that He loves Gentiles and wanted to save them and wanted them to believe in the Jewish God and the Jewish way of salvation. That is all. “la"or goyim" – “a light to the Gentiles". (Is. 42:6).

That's my first question, my dear Jewish friend, how can you reject Jesus because of what was done in His name when the same things were done in the name of Moses and Judaism?

The first question I have is the person and character of Mohammed. According to the Quran and according to the Hadith, Mohammed grew up next to the well of Zumzum. Now today the Zumzum is considered holy water by the Wahab in Saudi Arabia. And in his youth he saw the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to worship at the Ka"bah. His father's name was Abdullah, the servant of Allah. So the Hajj already existed, the Ka"bah already existed, the well of Zumzum already existed, and even the worship of Allah existed in ancient pre-Islamic Arabia. There were multiple stones " some would say 360, one for each day of the lunar year in the Ka"bah. Mohammed began his reforms and crusades; he removed all of the stones except one. He said there was one God.

"Allah" is a generic term in Arabic for "god", but it"s also the specific name; it was the specific name of a moon-god. And of course we see the moon crescent on mosques to this day. That brings the question, was Allah, or is Allah, the same God as Christians and Jews because it is the Arabic word for "God"? It is an Arabic word for "god" " that is without dispute, but there is another word called "El" that we hear little about. Now in the Katub, in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, God is called " Allah is called " by a name. His name is not called "Allah", His name is called "Yahweh". Yes, the Hebrew "Elohim" " "God" can be translated into "Allah", but "Yahweh" cannot be translated into "Allah".

If the worship of Allah, the well of Zuzum, the Ka"bah and the Hajj all existed before Muhammad began Islam, how can we say Muhammad began Islam? If Islam itself acknowledges these things existed, was it not something that came from the pagan religions of ancient Arabia? For Mohammed was told of monotheism.

He met some Christians who were black Africans from Ethiopia who used the term in Arabic of puppy dogs opening their eyes. You see a little bit that there"s one God. Mohammed ventured with his uncle and he learned certain things from the Zoroastrians of Persia, but he saw in those days Jews and Christians did not fight each other because they had one religion. He lived at a time of tremendous social injustice and he believed if the Arabic nations out-monotheised, they would have the same kind of peace and tranquility that seemed to happen between Jews and Christians, that Christians and Jews had within their own community. That is what, broadly speaking, the Quran and the  Hadith say about Mohammed.

But my first question would be if all these things existed, if Allah was first worshiped as a moon-god, if there was a Hajj " the pilgrimage was already there, if the well of Zumzum was there, if the Ka"bah was there, how is Islam the same religion historically in its origins as Judaism and Christianity? How is it?

I can prove the relationship between Christianity and Judaism " even the Quran acknowledges that. But the Quran is claimed to be a "third testament" correcting the errors in the other two. Even though the last thing it says in the Christian Bible is don"t add to the Word of God, (Rev. 22:18-19) the Quran comes along and has added another book saying it"s a third testament. My first question to you, my Muslim friends, is this: On what basis can you say that Allah is the same God as Christians and Jews, on what basis can you say it is another manifestation of the same Judeo-Christian, monotheistic belief? On what basis can you say Mohammed began this religion when its institutions, its fundamental tenets and practices " the Hajj, the well of Zumzum, the Ka"bah, the worship of Allah " already existed? I know you believe it does, but examining it historically and examining it in light of the Jewish-Christian scriptures I cannot see how it does. Can you please explain to me how it does? That is my first question, and I say it not to insult you; I say it to ask.

What was the first opposition little David, not yet king but king-to-be, little David faced? Was it the Philistine? No. Was it Goliath? No. It was his worthless, loser brethren. "Who left you with those few sheep? You"ve got a little church! We"ve got Kensington Temple!"Kensington Temple doesn"t seem capable of stopping the march of Islam; Kensington Temple can not only not get pornography off the television, it can"t even close the the porn shop on the corner right across the street from it.

"Who left you with those few sheep?" Those who have real power, any real capacity to do anything are not the big ones. The big ones have sold out long ago. Your first enemy " the first enemy " will be the loser, coward brethren. "I know your insolence!" King David says it was just a question. "No, it was the wrong question!" On the contrary it was the right one.

Mr. Weaver, you promoted Toronto, you told us it was revival. Mr Glass, Mr. Lewis, you told us this was revival, this was the breakthrough. Mr. Colt you said a revival has happened, revival has come. Where is it? We"re pushing 10 years and they"ve all gotten bigger, we"ve lost more turf, where is it? I"m asking the question why should we believe you now? We're far worse off now than we were 10 years ago. ReadThe Brierly Reports or the Barna report in America. We are losing while you were laughing. What are you going to do now?

What are you going to do now that Christians are being arrested on the streets of London and Bournemouth for evangelism? What are you going to do now when they"re teaching religious education in the school " Hindu, Muslim, Taoist, but not Christian? What are you going to do? What are you going to do when a man from Liverpool has his head sawed off on the Internet? And people will openly speak out against this country saying, "Good for them". When the next day after children were shot in the back on Dresden and in Russia. A Muslim clergyman contended in London said it would be justified to do the same thing in England. Did the politicians say anything? No, why should they? The church wouldn't, except Colin Chapman and Steve Chalke, "Oh, these people can be saved without Christ."

"You ask the wrong question!"  No, David asked the right question. You"re a loser; where"s your big talk now? You said it was revival, you said there was victory, you said there was blessing. Were you a liar or a moron or both? I'm only asking the question.

And so I look at the Scriptures in the original languages. That is one of my questions. Having read The New World Translation and the diaglot, I had problems with what the original Greek manuscript said and the way certain things were translated. But let me begin with my first question.

I"m reading from the epistle to the Hebrews in chapter 1. Beginning in verse 5…

For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again, “I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me"? And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him." And of the angels He says, “Who makes His angels winds, And His ministers a flame of fire." But of the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions." And, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands; They will perish, but You remain; And they all will become old like a garment, And like a mantle You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end." But to which of the angels has He ever said, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies A footstool for Your feet"? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

I agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses that there are angels. But the Jehovah's Witnesses told me something that I researched: They said that Jesus was an angel. They identified Him with the angel Michael the Archangel. The idea that Jesus was an angel was something that began with someone called Arius of Alexandria in the early centuries of Christendom. And the Jehovah's Witnesses had this view that He was an angel, not God. They will say He is “a god".

Now there's a problem. “En arche kai ho logos". “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God". (Jn 1:1) My Jehovah's Witness friends told me that in The New World Translation it says “a god"; the Word was “a god". But there is no indefinite article in the Greek language.

In the book of Isaiah Jehovah says, “I am God and there is no God other than Me". (Is. 45:5) If there"s no God other than Jehovah, and there is no indefinite article – “a god" – in the Greek language (and in that text it"s not there), how can Jesus only be “a god" if there"s only one God? That is the question. I"ve never been able to find somebody who could answer.

When I simply ask the question they say the word “trinity" is not in the Bible. But you know, my Jehovah's Witness friends would use words like “theocratic rule" and “millennial kingdom". Now I believe in a millennial kingdom, but the word “millennial kingdom" and “millennium" are not in the Bible. The doctrine of the millennium is in the Bible but the word isn"t. I don't understand why it is acceptable to use words not in the Bible for some things but not for others. Do I reject the millennial reign of Christ or a millennial rule because there's no word “millennium"? No, I don't. The question is not, “Is the word "millennium" in there?", the question is, “Is the doctrine, the teaching in there?" Well, it is. I agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses, there is a millennium.

Now I have an advantage a lot of people don"t have. The name of God they call “Jehovah", and they insist that is His personal name. But speaking Hebrew I was kind of startled how few Jehovah's Witnesses knew what it meant. In Hebrew it does not say “Jehovah", it says “Yehowah". Some people pronounce it “Yahweh". “Jehovah" is another word based on “Yehowah", but they didn't know where it came from. So I told them where it came from.

There was a hymn written by someone who was not a Jehovah"s Witness, Guide Me Now, O Great Jehovah. But the term came from Diaspora Jews in Europe. Jews considered the name of Yahweh ineffable – inutterable, for fear of taking it in vain. So they either referred to God as “the Name" – “Hashem" or they referred to God as “the Lord". When an Orthodox Jew reads the Old Testament, when it says “Yahweh" he says “Lord" – “Adonai". So what they did was they took the accents and syllables of “Adonai" – “Lord", and combined it with the word “Yehowah". “Yehowah Adonai Yehowah" – “Jehovah". That"s how they got it.

I met many Jehovah's Witnesses who would insist on believing these things – some of them true things – but they didn't know where they came from or what they meant. Well, I have no problem saying “Jehovah", but His name is “Yahweh". “Jehovah" is a made-up word combining “Yahweh" with “Adonai". However, to say that Jesus was only “a god" when there"s only one God, this brings a question. I was told He was an angel. My question is this: In verse 8 of Hebrews 1 it says…

… “Your throne, O God, is forever…

…and it quotes from Psalm 45:6-7…

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your fellows.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the word here for “God" is “God" – “Elohim". But the Lord has “anointed" somebody. That word “anointed" is where we get the word “Messiah" – “Mashiach" in Hebrew, translated to Greek, “Christo" – “Christ". And so the epistle of the Hebrews tells us that Psalm 45 is talking about the Anointed One, the Messiah – Christ. And I agree with it. It"s a good translation into Greek from Hebrew. And I just read you a good translation from Greek into English. This is my question: if Christ it's called God and there is only one God, and if Hebrews 1 makes it clear He was not just an angel but if Hebrews 1 by comparison says, “To which one of the angels did God ever say "Your throne, O God, is forever"", how can you say Jesus is simply an angel?

Hebrews 1 says, “Let the angels of God worship Jesus" in verse 6. Why would they worship Him if he was not God? The Greek word is “proskynesatosan", from the word “proskuto" – “worship". It"s not “obeisance", it is translated from the Hebrew “hishtachvaya" and there"s an accusative particle: They worship Him. Please answer me that question. How can He be an angel when Hebrews 1 says He's not and the angels worship Him? How can He only be “a god" when there's only one God? “I"m the Lord, your God, you"ll have no gods before Me". (Dt. 5:6-7)

Questions are always asked of me. I don't mind when people answer my questions with a question as long as they eventually give me the answer. But so far I haven't gotten one from a Jehovah's Witness and maybe you'll be the one who is able to give me the answer, Some of the questions they ask me is this: “Well, how could Jesus say His Father is greater than Him if He's God?" Now I"m happy to answer that question as long as you can answer mine.

In Philippians 2:8-11 we read about something that theologians would call “kinosis". In Philippians 2 we read how it can happen.

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation…

…not “work for"…

… work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

God becomes a man in the person of Jesus and therefore as a man He is less than His Father.

For instance, there"s an electrical company called “Robert Jones and Son". The father is a master electrician, his son began as his apprentice. They were both called “Robert Jones" – Robert Jones, Sr. and Robert Jones, Jr. They were both human beings. They were both males. They were both one in nature, but the senior was greater in position than the junior. They were co-equal in nature, they were both humans, they were both electricians, they were both men, but one was greater than the other in position. Based on Jesus becoming a man, being equal with God, but not saying it"s something we couldn't grasp, I have no problem saying His Father was greater than Him.

That is my answer to your question, the question that Jehovah's Witnesses always ask me. But please tell me your answer to my question: How can He be an angel if the angels worshipped Him? How can He be “a god" if there"s only one God and when the text “Your throne, O God, is forever" says He"s not an angel? Well, when I continue to ask for an answer, I"m usually told, “Well then who was Jesus praying to if He was God?" I"ll answer that question providing you and can answer my question.

In Hebrew the confession of faith is what Jesus said when they asked Him the greatest commandment. He said, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is oneness". (Mk. 12:29) “Sh"ma Yisra"el Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad". (Dt. 6:4) There is no Hebrew word for “water", only “waters" – “mayim"; there is no Hebrew word for “sky", only “skies" – “shamayim"; there is no Hebrew word for “God", only “Gods" – “Elohim", it is plural. You have an abbreviated form called “El", but it is simply a conjunctive or something used in in place of “Elohim" where it"s used in connection with other words. “Elohim" is plural. “Sh"ma Yisra"el Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad". “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our GODS is oneness". That's what it says. Does this say there is more than one God? No, He is “oneness" but the word is “echad", it"s a plural oneness. It is the same oneness when Adam and Eve become one flesh. (Gen. 2:24), you shall become “echad"; the two become one. And a third person is procreated, there is one in three, there is three in one. We are made in His image and likeness. Yes, there is one God but there is more than one person.

You're confused? When Stephen was martyred he saw Jesus at the right of the Father. (I don't pretend to be able to understand this any more than the Bible reveals it, but I understand it well enough to know it is true because that's what it says.) His Father is God and He is God. They are two different people yet one God. What makes me with my finite mind think I can understand God's own nature this side of eternity? The Scripture says one day we will know as we are fully known (1 Cor. 13:12), but right now I know well enough to know I have enough in the Bible to tell me that it is true. Who was He praying to? He was praying to His Father. His Father was God, yes, and how could He be God? Because He was. How could Robert Jones, Sr. and Robert Jones Jr. both be Robert Jones? One is greater in nature, greater in position? No, greater in position but not in nature. They"re co-equal in nature, different in position.

When I"m looking at a pregnant lady, an expectant mother, am I Iooking at one person or two people? They are metabolically integrated. I"m looking at both one person and two people. When a marriage is being consummated God says they become one flesh. In God's eyes am I looking at one person or two people? Well, biblically I"m looking at two people but I"m also looking at one person. The Bible says your wife's body is your own and so forth, (1 Cor. 7:4) and the husband"s body is the wife"s. We"re made in His image and likeness – it teaches something about Him; we"ll understand it when we see Him face to face, right now we see through a glass dimly (1 Cor. 13:12) but we know it is true.

That is my answer to your question, now I would like to hear your answer to my question. If the angel's worship Him and if it says, “To which of the angels did He say, "Let the others worship Him", if it says, “Your throne, O God is forever" and there"s only one God, if there"s no indefinite article in the Greek – the word was “a god" is not in any Greek manuscript and would make no sense in the Greek language – can you please explain to me how Jesus is not God and only an angel?

The Trinity, things like this, I'll be happy to talk to you about further – I'll be happy to answer your questions, but please answer mine. That"s my first question for my Jehovah's Witness friends. Please answer this question and we"ll talk further.

My second question is: Mohammed was the greatest prophet "  greater than Jesus, greater than Moses " al-asam so teaches: "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet". And Allah claimed, according to Mohammed, that Mohammed was the one who would bring this message that there's no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet through the angel Gabriel who appeared in a cave and gave the Quran to Mohammed " "angels" being one of the five pillars of Islam.

So I look at Mohammed and I compare him with the character of Christ. The Quran speaks more of Jesus than it does Mohammed. And although the other things it says about Jesus are usually in disagreement with what the New Testament says about Jesus " "Isa", "Yeshua", the Quran never once faults His moral character. The Quran never once faults the moral character of Jesus. Never once. Never once. It says things about Him that disagree with the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, but it never faults His moral character. The Quran never faults the moral character of Jesus.

In the Hadith, however, we read something that corresponds to Quran Sorah 33:52, where something happened in the life of Muhammad where he was told by Allah, supposedly, it is no longer lawful for you to marry after this unless it is someone you already own like a handmaiden. What was this to which I refer in the Hadith?

"Fe"el hadith Mohammed, fell hadith Musa, ben tur abo baqir mah allude setah. Fe"el hadith ai-eesha ben tur abu baqir mah allude setah. Fe"el hadith Mohammed ho mubaraq oh fe"el hadith Mohammed orva mutah."

I don't ask that question to offend you. According to the Hadith, Ayesha the daughter of a Abu Bakr, was six years old when Mohammed married her. He took her virginity at the age of nine according to the teachings of Islam. You had a man, perhaps in his fifties " probably around 54, scholars are not exactly sure " who had sex with a nine year-old girl whom he married at the age of six. And the Quran tells him that Allah was somehow displeased, apparently, and said you couldn"t marry any more after this unless it was a slave or something you already owned. Even if you found a woman attractive you couldn't have any more of them. In fact, I've had Muslim scholars admit that Mohammed had one of his stepson's divorce his wife so he could take her. The question I asked in Arabic, and I"m only asking the question, is the Hadith right? Was Mohammed blessed of God or was Muhammad a pedophile? I'm only asking was your religion right in what it teaches? I'm only asking the question; I'm not trying to incite religious hatred, I'm not trying to offend you, I"m only asking the question, "Is the Hadith right?" Did Mohammed marry a six year-old little girl and have sex with a little child? Did he do that? Is your religion right? Is this what he did?

Now if you believe what your religion teaches, if you believe in the historicity of the Quran and of the Hadith, if you believe it is true, then of course you believe Muhammad had sex with a little girl. My question is if it is what you believe, please tell me how you expect me or any other Westerner, any Christian, any Jew, anyone else to believe such a man was God's greatest prophet? Even in many Islamic countries today, if someone did that with a girl that young, he would be arrested and criminally prosecuted, conceivably executed in some of them.

Now a few years ago in the United States, it showed some very wealthy Saudi members of the House of Saud sheiks who were oil-rich arriving in India on private jets. They did not call it "slavery" and they don"t call it "slavery" in Africa, but essentially for as little as $200 they were giving to families of very poor people and taking little girls, some of them quite young like 14, back to Saudi Arabia. When questioned they said, "What"s wrong with it? Our prophet did it." These are Wahabbist Saudi Arabians. "Wahab" " fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Sunnis who don't accept any later interpretation of Islam after 950. These are ultra-conservative Wahabbists, they are rigid, rigid Quranists. Yet they found it acceptable to go and do this " and it was on television " because Muhammad did it.

Now I hope you appreciate as a Westerner, although this goes on in Christendom, although there have been a number of Roman Catholic priests who have done it, when they get caught they get arrested. When there"s a conspiracy to sweep it under the rug they get sued. Why is this tolerated in the Islamic world? In Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam, why was this institutional pedophilia in a form of slavery tolerated in the modern world today? And they say, "Because Mohammed did it." That's what they said on television.

That is my second question: "How can you expect me or any Christian or any Westerner to believe that a man who engaged in something acknowledged by the Hadith to be pedophilia is the prophet we should listen to and follow?" I'm asking you a sincere question.

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, €œyou 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: €œThe 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('cloak63d98dfe6123d59c63e82edb200a7292').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy63d98dfe6123d59c63e82edb200a7292 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy63d98dfe6123d59c63e82edb200a7292 = addy63d98dfe6123d59c63e82edb200a7292 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text63d98dfe6123d59c63e82edb200a7292 = 'contact us';document.getElementById('cloak63d98dfe6123d59c63e82edb200a7292').innerHTML += ''+addy_text63d98dfe6123d59c63e82edb200a7292+''; , 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.

€œBe 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 €¦

€œSo 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, €œOh, 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. €œAn 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, €œWell, 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! €œWe 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 €œBeth Sarim" in Hebrew €“ €œhouse 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, €œWe 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 €œBeth 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.

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 €œOrientalists".

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, €œHow 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 €œMary" but €œMiryam",  and the sister of Moses" name was also €œMiryam". They were both named €œMiryam". 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, €œIf 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?

My next question concerns the teaching of the Quran on “Ummah" – unity among Muslims, that you are one nation and one people. Now Christianity does not require Christians to be one nation and one people, Christianity acknowledges multiple nations. Jesus said, “Think not I came to bring unity but a sword". (Mt. 10:34) Paul the apostle writes. “There must be divisions among you to prove which is true". (1 Cor. 11:19) Tragedy that it is, Northern Ireland can still be allotted for in the Christian belief system. The killing and prejudice cannot be, but the fact that there"s a schism within the belief system can be. The Quran is different. While Jesus prayed that the true believers would be one, He said he came to bring division. There"ll be factions among you to prove what is true, teaches the New Testament, but Ummah says that Muslims are one.

Now in the Katub, in the book of Genesis, we are told that Esau"s sword will always be against his brother and that Ishmael's seed will always be divided. Islam teaches that the Arab nations are descendents, of course, of them. Christians and Jews believe the Messiah, the Savior, would come through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Islam takes the Old Testament prophecies that Christians believe to be about Jesus and applies them to Mohammed. Having said that, I have to ask which is right: Is Esau"s sword against his brother? Is Ishmael"s seed divided? Or are Muslims “Ummah"? Are they one nation and one people?

One of the most popular films ever made by the motion picture industry was based on a book about the legendary T. E. Lawrence, Lawrence of Arabia, a British military officer who attempted to unite the warring Arab tribes against the Turks. He tried to unite them from fighting each other to a combined force to attack the Turks who were aligned with Germany. The Turks, who were themselves Muslims, mistreated the Bedouins and virtually enslaved those people who were today called, or call themselves, “Palestinian Arabs". Lawrence of Arabia tried to unite these people, but they would not stay united. Islam was always looking for a Mahdi figure to unite Islam, but the Mahdi was defeated by the British ultimately despite the Battle of Khartoum and the death of General Gordon. Abdul Gamal Nasser tried to make Ummah, a pan-Arab unity militarily backed by the Soviet Union, but it did not work or did not last.

Many people have tried to bring Ummah. Mohammed was no sooner dead when the Sunni and Shi"a began to fight each other, ultimately in the Battle of Karbala, over who should take his place, Ali or his theocrats. Then there was a third sect, “Khariji". They said Allah would reveal who was to be the successor of Mohammed on the battlefield. They began to slaughter each other. This hatred and killing went on until the 20th Century in the war between Iran and Iraq. 1.5 million Muslims were killed by other Muslims in a war between Sunni and Shi"a going back to the Battle of Karbala. (We"re going back here to the 8th Century.)

Why has it never worked? Why is there no Ummah? Why is it that the only way it appears to a Westerner that Muslims can be united is if they have a common enemy? Because it seems unless they have a common enemy they will kill each other.

The invasion of Kuwait – raping, burning, pillaging. The Americans and British liberate Kuwait and the Kuwaitis begin pogroms against the Palestinians, murdering, raping, pillaging.

When Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs tried on the Jordanians what they today are doing with the Israelis – Palestinian nationalism – in September of 1970, King Hussein of Jordan systematically exterminated between 15-18,000 Palestinian Arabs in 12 days.

This is Muslims doing it to Muslims. They kill far more of each other than the Americans, the British, the West, or the Israelis ever killed. The West or the Israelis have never done to Muslims what they have done to each other. 1.5 million killed in the war between Iran and Iraq alone? The wars between Yemen and North and South – it goes on – the Polisario conflict in Morocco. I've heard the followers of Arafat saying, “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people. First we"ll kill the Jews, then we"ll kill the Christians." Right now they're killing each other. Again, they did the same thing in Lebanon. Without a common enemy they kill each other.

If Allah is God, and if the Quran is true, why is it that Ummah has never been able to deliver what it promised?

Now again, Christendom can allow for schism and division; however, whenever two Christianized nations had a war, one was not a democracy. In the Western Judeo-Christian world, as opposed to the Muslim world, no two democracies have ever had a war. I have heard fundamentalist Islamic imams in Iran sing of the virtues of the English Puritans because of their piety, but they overlook the fact that those same English Puritans, for all their mistakes they may have had, established parliamentary democracy. Not a single Muslim country in the world is a democracy. Not really. Turkey comes the closest but it isn"t.

Not a single Muslim country will give Christians and Jews the rights they demand in Britain or America, but that is not my point or my question. My question is this: Since no two Westernized Christian Judeo-Christian democracies have ever had a war, but most Jihads – and they"ve called them “Jihads" – have been Muslims killing other Muslims, which religion should I believe? Should I believe a religion that has given rise to democratic institutions where no two democracies based on Judeo-Christian principles have ever had a war, or a religion where because of the religion there"s been nothing but war? There is no Ummah.

Historically there has been no Ummah, there never has been Ummah. The book of Genesis seems right. Esau"s sword remains against his brother, Ishmael"s seed remains divided. The Quran and Hadith has clearly been wrong. My question, my dear Muslim friends, and I"m only asking the question, if I have a Judeo-Christian worldview that has given rise to democratic freedom that does not exist in the Islamic world, why should I believe in Islam that cannot deliver the goods?

You only need to drive across the causeway from Malaysia to Singapore; you only need to cross the border at Elath into Jordan or Tabot into Egypt; you only need to take a ferry across the Bosporus or from Algeciras, Spain to the north coast of Morocco. The moment you as an educated Muslim go from the Judeo-Christian world to the Muslim world you see a big change. You know the air smells different. I just don"t mean the dirt or the grime or the congestion, I mean the freedom, the tolerance. Why have the sciences not bloomed in the Islamic world since its Golden Age when it was dominated by a philosophical Islam controlled by the Turks, not by a fundamentalist Islam controlled by the Saudi Wahab or the Iranian Shi"a imams? It just doesn't work. Why every morning in Terminal 3 at Heathrow are there so many Muslims bending over backwards to get into Britain? Why are they arriving in Italy and France every day of the week illegally? Why are they doing anything they can to get into to the United States via Mexico or whoever? Why don't they want to stay in the Islamic world? Some would say because they are missionaries for Islam, sent to convert it. These are not imams, most of them, these are economic refugees and you and I both know it; they"re intellectuals coming for intellectual freedom not available; they"re escaping war and conflict between Muslims like they do from Somalia.

Again, my question is since you have no Ummah, since your religion has been unable to deliver what it promised, why should I turn my back on a religion that has and accept one that hasn't? Why should I reject something that has worked in favor of something that has not? Let"s be honest – if it worked, you wouldn't be here.

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.

Mezuzot (The Doorposts) Part 1 of 2 by James Jacob Prasch

Reading from Judges chapter 14: "Then Samson went down to Timnah, and saw a woman in Timnah, one of the daughters of the Philistines. So he came back and told his father and mother, 'I saw a woman in Timnah, one of the daughters of the Philistines; now, therefore, give her to me as my wife.' Then his father and his mother said to him, 'Is there no woman among the daughters of your relatives or among your own people, that you would go and take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?' But Samson said to his father, 'Get her for me, for she looks good to me.'"

The sin that so easily besets: Samson had a weakness for unbelieving women. Understand that the issue here was not the woman's race; females are not circumcised, except in certain Islamic tribes of Central Africa. However, the issue was her belief. At that time, a Jew marrying a non-Jew would have been equivalent to a believer today marrying a non-believer. The issue, in other words, was her belief.

Samson had a predisposition toward being attracted to unbelieving women. By the time we reach chapter 15, we see that it has gotten him into a real mess. Although God worked in the relationship for His purposes in terms of Providence, it got Samson into real trouble. In verse 18 of chapter 15 we read: "Then he (Samson) became very thirsty, and he called out to the LORD and said, 'Thou hast given this great deliverance by the hand of Thy servant, and now shall I die of thirst and fall into the hands of the uncircumcised?'" Samson's relationship with this woman eventually landed him in trouble, first with her father and then with the Philistines; and God rescued him. That was his first recorded bout with an unbelieving woman.

We have other teachings on Samson, one of which is 'The Vow of the Nazirite', which deals with the midrash, including the typology of the hair. It also deals with the wicked woman of Proverbs chapter 5, which speaks of giving one's strength to the adulteress. This was the Pesher meaning, the deeper spiritual meaning; now, however, let us look at the Peshet, the straightforward, clear meaning of the text as we read chapter 16 of the book of Judges:

"Now Samson went to Gaza, and saw a harlot there, and he went in to her." He does it again; he finds another unbelieving woman. 'The sin that so easily besets' - ". . . and he went in to her" - in Hebrew, bow l'ah. As you may know from other messages, one person is inside of another person, and a third person is procreated: we are created in the image of God - Imago Dei - we are theopomorphic men and women. This aspect of God's image in us is the main reason that adultery and fornication are so serious in His sight; these sexual sins cause us to pollute and obscure the image of God in which we were created. On the doorposts of my house in England, there is a small box called a 'mezuzah', which has on it the Hebrew letter 'shem'. Shem is also the first letter of the Hebrew confession of faith. In the Gospels, when they asked Jesus what the greatest commandment is, He said, "Shema Israel Adonai Elohenu Adonai ekhad baruch Ha Shem; "Hear O Israel, the LORD your God is oneness; you shall love the LORD your God with all your soul, all your heart, and all your strength." That word akhad means a plural oneness; the word for the oneness of God is the same word for Adam and Eve becoming one flesh - akhad. Again, this reproduces His image and His likeness.

The small box on my doorposts is called a mezuzah; but what a mezuzah actually was in ancient Hebrew culture was the doorpost itself; so the little box is named after that upon which it rests; a doorpost. In the Book of Exodus when the hyssop was taken and dipped into the blood of the Paschal lamb, they were to put it onto the mezuzot, the doorposts, in the form of a bloody cross. More about that in a moment.

The husband shall cling to his wife, and they shall be akhad. The Hebrew word translated there as 'cling to' is daveq. Clinging to God in Judaism is called devequt. When you see Orthodox Jews with the payoot, the ear-curls, you may observe them making a certain gesture, which to them indicates clinging to God. They are trying to capture something called zumzumim, or 'holy sparks'. In modern Hebrew, daveq is the word for glue, and cellotape in Hebrew is nyr daveq, literally meaning 'glue-ribbon'. In the Bible, however, the idea conveyed by that word is not glue, but rather superglue. What is the difference, then, between glue and superglue? Glue sticks, but superglue bonds. Superglue forms a polymer; you have an exchange of electrons. Once the superglue comes into contact with atmospheric pressure, the change of electrons begins and forms the bond. The polymer bonds; it is not merely sticking now, but actually bonding on a molecular level. There is a co-valency established by polymerization. In this way, Samson clings to this unbelieving woman.

Let us go on: "When it was told to the Gazaites, saying, 'Samson has come here,' they surrounded the place and lay all night in wait for him at the gate of the city. And they kept silent all night, saying, 'Let us wait until the morning light, and then we will kill him.' Now Samson lay until midnight, and at midnight he arose and took hold of the mezuzot - the doorposts - of the city gate, and the posts, and pulled them up along with the bars. Then he put them on his shoulder and carried them up to the top of the mountain which is opposite Hebron." The bars here are made of iron - in Hebrew barzel. Samson's burden, like the Cross, is made of wood and iron.

This is not the first time he got himself into a mess because of his weakness: Paul calls this 'the sin that so easily besets'. Thanks to the advertising industry, which has reduced human sexuality to a means of selling anything from spring fashion to toothpaste, I do not know anybody under the age of 87 who is not vexed by sexual temptation. The world and Satan have combined in the advertising industry to make everything from MTV to magazine adverts degrade human sexuality to an animalistic level.

In Samson's situation, however, we simply know what his weakness was. For you and me, it may or may not be something sexual, but everyone has a weak spot. Not only do you have one, and I have one, but also the enemy knows what they are. Although I knew better, when I was in University my life was based on cocaine, sex, dope, rock'n'roll, and classical music. Although I professed to be a Marxist, I realized that because cocaine costs money, I needed a good education in order to get a good job with which I could subsidize my decadence. What a hypocrite! If you had asked me as a young believer what I thought would be the weakness that would hold me back, what would be the enemy's main weapon against me, I would have said it would be cocaine and cannabis. Yet in hindsight, I cannot think of anything that the Lord has given me a more total deliverance from than substance abuse. I cannot even stay in the same room with someone who smokes a cigarette, let alone a joint. I have been to parties at which people were taking this stuff, getting stoned, and not only have I had no temptation, I have even been able to witness to these people and tell them how God gave me power over the addictions and delivered me from them, giving me something better. Substance abuse is something over which God has given me complete victory, although that was the thing that I thought would drag me down. I have no issue with it, although other people do struggle with it. That is not my weakness; my weakness is this:

In England we have a lot of traffic. So one day I will be on my way to a church to speak to a hundred people, and there's a lorry driver up ahead with an 18- or 22-wheeler with a European license plate, tying up traffic for miles. When I finally manage to overtake him, now that I'm forty minutes late, I see him with a mobile phone in one hand and a cigarette in another, and I want to shoot him. My indignation may itself be righteous, but wanting to put the man in his grave is certainly not.

My weakness is explosive anger: there is a big difference between holy anger and being wholly angry. When Moses took the tablets with the Decalogue - the Ten Commandments - and threw them down from the mountain because Israel had made and worshiped golden calves, he told them they had broken the Law of God; that was holy anger. When I want to shoot the lorry driver, however, that is not holy anger. Being right in what you say does not automatically translate to having a righteous indignation or holy anger. We speak of this further on the 'Sons of Zadok' tape. That is my personal weakness.

Let me give you an example of another weakness: I know people who are saved Christians to whom alcohol is not a beverage, but a drug. Enjoying a glass of wine with dinner or a beer with lunch is not possible for them. These believers should never go near alcohol in any form, because that is their personal weakness.

Insurance companies may not know anything about medical science, but they certainly do know about money. Therefore they know about statistics. When you fill out an insurance form, you will notice that one of the first questions they ask is whether or not you smoke. The instant a person quits smoking cigarettes, they automatically go into a lower-risk category. Conversely, the moment you pick up a cigarette and begin smoking you enter a higher-risk category statistically. It is said that for every minute someone smokes, a minute is subtracted from his lifespan. Every cigarette, in other words, is a nail in your coffin. Yet I know saved Christians for whom cigarettes are a weakness. They may go for a day - maybe two days - without one, yet they consistently return to the habit. Some Christians scoff at the idea that this should be an issue, yet when you walk outside of a church and an unsaved person happens to see you light up a cigarette, there goes your testimony. "Yeah, Jesus changed my life. Gotta match?"

"Thou shalt not covet" - How, then, can Christians gamble? I honestly do not know. There are things today that are facilitated by technology. Sin by proxy, as it were, as if that makes it less sinful. For example, there are Christians who would never actually go out and have an affair, betraying their spouses, yet I assure you that tonight there are thousands of born-again Christians in chat rooms committing adultery by cyber-proxy. They will do things over the Internet that they would never actually go out and perform, thinking that this somehow makes it better. But God has said that if you so much as lust for someone else's wife or husband you have already done it. There are thousands of Christians involved in ungodly chat lines. I know one Christian in particular who got herself into very serious trouble in this way.

'The sin that so easily besets'; maybe it is sexual for you, or maybe it is not. Maybe it is substance abuse, maybe not. Maybe it is violence or temperament, maybe it isn't. Whatever it may be, however, every Christian has one thing that they continue falling into. The godliest people I have ever met had a weakness that became conspicuous. In looking to Scripture, we find that the patriarchs had basic defects in character even into their old age. We see God trying to work these defects - these 'sins that so easily beset', as Paul calls them - out of their lives, even until their deaths. In the Greek, when Paul spoke of this besetting sin, he did not speak in the past tense. He said, "I am the chief of all sinners" - present tense, even as a believer.

Samson's besetting sin was his lust for unbelieving women; earlier we saw in Judges 15 that this sin lands him in trouble, but God delivers him from it. Now in chapter 16, however, we find him doing it again: the more you give in to that sin, the deeper you get caught in it, and the more dangerous it becomes. This time, he's up to his eyeballs in quicksand; he is surrounded by his enemies who have laid a trap for him.

The devil is not interested in carnal pleasure; not even in the fleeting pleasures associated with sin. If you read 'The Screwtape Letters', you will find that C.S. Lewis was quite correct: he recounted an old demon's advice to a young demon regarding how to tempt a Christian to sin, warning him to be careful of pleasure because it was something that had been created by their Enemy, God. The older demon points out that if they corrupt pleasure in order to use it in luring their victim, they should do so cautiously. You see, to the devil the fleeting pleasures of sin are only the bait he must use. Satan does not wish anyone to have any pleasure whatsoever - he only wants people to go to Hell. On this side of eternity, the human mind can comprehend neither the love of God in its totality nor the depravity of Satan in its totality.

To return once more to Samson's plight in Judges 16, again we note that he is surrounded. What does he do? In other words, what should you and I do when we find ourselves in a mess because we have fallen into doing the same stupid thing once again? Samson's enemies were waiting to ambush him when? Not at midnight, but at dawn. Samson was comfortably in bed; but he jumped up at midnight. If he had waited until dawn, his enemies would have had him.

To apply this to our own lives: the very instant you realize that you have fallen once again into the same mess and are in trouble, this time even worse than before, you must not wait to put it right. Put it right immediately! To hesitate is to make yourself a sitting target; your enemies are waiting to get you and to get me - demons are real. Samson immediately put his situation right, though he had to jump out of bed to do it. The moment you allow yourself to be comfortable in the sin, you have set yourself up.

So we see that Samson jumped up; however, he was still surrounded. How did he get himself out of the trap? And how do we get ourselves out when we are thick enough in the head to get ourselves into it to begin with? Samson grabbed hold of the mezuzot; the Cross of Jesus Christ, the wood and the iron. There are a million ways into that mess, but there is only one way out of it. Samson put the Cross on his shoulder and carried it with him as he went. Put it right immediately - pick up the Cross at once.

You hear a fiery preacher, but let me tell you about this fiery preacher: Once when I was a young believer - before I was married, before I entered the ministry or went to seminary, even before I was in Israel (I was still in New York) - I met a woman on the East Side of Manhattan who was a bit older than I and rather good-looking. I responded to her advances in the wrong way: instead of witnessing to her, I reacted to her flirtatious invitations. Before I knew it, I was in a taxi with her; not long after that, I found myself in a bath with her; and finally, I was in her bed with her. I was so very close to taking the situation to its natural conclusion, continuing to act in the way I had before I knew Jesus. Yet at the last minute I asked myself what on earth I was doing, and began to wonder how I would get myself out of the situation. My flesh wanted its way, but I began to pray, saying, "Lord Jesus, look what I've done! I am stupid, but Lord, please get me out of this somehow." Well, I don't know what I said, but it must have gotten right up her nose. While I don't remember exactly what I said, I'll never forget what she said: she began running around the room screaming at me to get out, get out, get out! My old creation wanted the sin, but my new creation only wanted to get out of there. To delay is to make yourself a target. There is only one way out: crucify the flesh.

God was gracious to me as He was to Samson: Samson lifted the mezuzot - iron and wood - and to the mountain he went. What happens next? Let us read on to find out: "After this it came about that he loved a woman in the Valley of Sorek whose name was Delilah." Sure enough, Samson does it again! He goes out and finds another one! We do not know how many times Samson actually did this, but we know it was at least as many times as the Bible records. The first time we're told about, he got himself in up to his neck; the second time, up to his eyeballs; what will he do this time?

Your besetting sin may or may not be sexual, as Samson's was; but never doubt - you have one, and I have one. You know what yours is, and so does God, and not least of all, so does the enemy. That one thing, that stupid, idiotic, moronic thing you just keep going back to. What will Samson do now?

"And the lords of the Philistines came up to her and said to her, 'Entice him, and see where his great strength lies, that we may overpower him, that we might bind him to afflict him. Then we will each give you eleven hundred pieces of silver.'" Unsaved people care about one thing: Money. Unbelievers will do almost anything if the price is right. Here we see that Delilah is being offered money to entice Samson. Things have now changed: the enemy changes strategy. Up until now, their attempts on Samson were opportunistic; now they are seeking to set him up and trap him. As it says in Ecclesiastes, because the consequences of an iniquity are not instant, people are deceived into thinking they will get away with it. The Bible tells us something remarkable about sin: it personifies sin, saying that it can deceive us. Not only can Satan deceive us, not only can other people deceive us if we fail to be discerning, not only can we deceive ourselves, but sin itself can deceive us. That besetting sin can deceive you into thinking that you can continue pulling it off.

The strategy of Samson's enemies changes now, because they have realized they will not get him through happenstance. When you do something wrong and get yourself into trouble by doing it, that's good, relatively speaking. Once we begin pulling it off and not reaping the consequences of our sins, that's when we're in real trouble - only we don't know it.

This can be very much likened to the first time a person picks up a cigarette and tries to smoke it: he will cough violently because his body is trying to tell him something; the repercussions of inhaling the nicotine and tar are instant. After he has become metabolically acclimated to it, the coughing stops and he is led to believe he is all right, when the diametric opposite is the actual truth. He has in reality become a statistical candidate for respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and all kinds of cancer. Cigarettes contain carcinogens; yet it becomes easy to think there's no problem or danger once the coughing stops. The smoker was better off coughing; at least then he knew it was no good.

Continuing with verse 6: "So Delilah said to Samson, 'Please tell me where your great strength lies, and how you may be bound to afflict you.' And Samson said to her, 'If they bind me with seven fresh cords that have not been dried, then I shall become weak and be like any other man.' Then the lords of the Philistines brought up to Delilah seven fresh cords that had not been dried, and she bound him with them. Now she had men who were lying in wait in another room, and she said, 'The Philistines are upon you, Samson!' But he snapped the cords as a string of yarn snaps when it is touched by fire. So his strength was not discovered. Then Delilah said to Samson, 'Behold, you have deceived me, and told me lies! Now please tell me how you may be bound!'"

Samson is playing with fire; he's in bed with an $1100.00/night hooker, the pimp's in the next room with a loaded gun, and he's playing bedroom games. In the same way we often get flirtatious with the sin we think we can keep on getting away with; it becomes a game to us. Russian Roulette is also a game: you drop the bullet into the barrel and you spin it; only the person you're playing against knows which cylinder the bullet is in. Click, click, click - but sooner or later, probably sooner than later - bang.

Verse 11: "So he said to her, 'If they bind me tightly with new ropes that have not been used, then I shall be weak and be like any other man.' So Delilah took new ropes and bound him with them, and said to him, 'The Philistines are upon you, Samson!' Men were lying in wait in the inner room, but he snapped the ropes from his arms like a thread." Notice that the strategy only changes very slightly the second time. "So Delilah said to Samson, 'Up to now you have deceived me and told me lies;'"- Here she is, trying to get Samson killed, yet reproaching him for his immorality. This is like the Pope saying it is immoral to bomb Iraq, while he is the head of the pedophile religion that protects its sexually perverted clergy who destroy the lives of children. He wants to tell others how to be moral, while his own church is a cesspool of depravity. "'. . . tell me how you may be bound.' And he said to her, 'If you weave the seven locks of my hair in a loom and fasten it with a pin, I shall be weak and be like any other man.'" Do you notice what is happening here? Step by step Samson is getting lured into the trap; now he lets Delilah know that the secret has to do with his hair. The stakes are raised; in our lives, when we successfully get away with the sin a few times, we get confident and careless, and we raise the stakes just as he did. It's like going to a casino or a racetrack; the house always has the odds, or they wouldn't be in business.

Understand what is happening here: why is he beginning to tell this unbelieving woman intimate things about his relationship with God? She isn't the girl next door, she's a femme fatale, and a shichah to boot. Couldn't he find a nice Jewish girl? He begins sharing with her intimate things that should not be shared outside of holy wedlock. Why? Because of deveq; bound. You cannot sleep with someone and avoid being covered with superglue.

I used to live across the street from the United Nations in New York City during my younger days as a believer. I was cohabitating there with an attractive Italian girl, who was a great cook as well as being great at a few other things. The relationship was based on two things, the first of which was Fettuccine Alfredo; the second I will leave to your imagination. When I began following Jesus, the leader of Jews for Jesus at that time told me that I either had to get married or get out; so I told her to get out. I then took the rest of my drugs, as some of you know, and threw them out the window, where they landed twenty stories down on First Avenue. As I often point out, it is a good thing the Polish Ambassador had diplomatic immunity, or he'd still be in the birdcage singin' the blues. I led the woman to the Lord: I can now go to a church almost anywhere in the world, and the women in these churches are sisters in faith, nothing more nor less. Yet if I saw that Italian woman, there would always in this life be something there that should not be there. If you talk to people who have endured the agony of a divorce, they will tell you that it does irreparable damage.

But I have another question. Slightly more than half the world's population are women. We all know that in Saudi Arabia a woman can"t even drive a car. We all know that Islam allows up to four wives although Muhammad himself had many more. However, Ghazali the Islamic scholar 700 years ago taught that Islam teaches that marriage is a form of slavery. Razi and Ibn al-Anabi said that by dowry a wife is the property of her husband in the sense of a slave. In Kitob 4:3 we are told that Islam allows women to be kept as sex slaves, and beating and sexual slavery of women and sexual deprivation are acceptable forms of correcting your wife.

I"ve read books by women who escaped harems such as Princess in the West. These are not books written by Western women, these are not books written by Christians or by Jews or by enemies of Islam, they are written by Muslim women. According to the Home Office here in the United Kingdom, every year " every year " there are at least 1,000 known arranged marriages of under-aged girls that are forced, where British girls are taken by family and compelled to marry people, sometimes 30 to 40 years older than them, whom they"ve never met. A 15 year-old girl from Glasgow was compelled to marry a 54-year-old uncle in Pakistan. The case is not unusual. We"ve seen a few cases on TV of the abductions and women being forced to marry relatives they have not even met by their own families. This is going on in Britain " how much more of that goes on in the Islamic world?

Mohammed owned black slaves, didn't he? Ask the Orientalists. In fact, even ask the Wahab. Because on that basis it is justified; they don't call it "slavery", they call it "employment contracts". They go, of course, to poor black African countries and give relatively small amounts of money to the families and take the little girls back to the harems. It is called "child slavery" by the United Nations, but fundamentalist Islam calls it permissible and it is practiced in Muslim countries.

I have never seen that kind of the injustice in the Western world in my life. The United States fought a war where one of every eight white Americans was killed or wounded to abolish slavery, to put an end to the enslavement of the black man and woman. One out of eight were killed or wounded in the American Civil War. In proportionate terms it is the most bloody conflict in the history of America and one of the most bloody in the history of the world in proportionate terms. I have never found a single Islamic country that has had a civil war to put an end to slavery, and the slaves are normally black. And so I ask black people of America and Britain who are listening to Louis Farrakhan, given the fact that the first countries to abolish slavery were Christian " as in William Wilberforce and the Earl of Shaftesbury, as in Abraham Lincoln " given the fact that the first countries to abolish slavery were Christian but the enslavement of blacks still exists in the Islamic world, on what basis can you say Christianity is a white man's religion, and that Islam is the faith of Black freedom and upward mobility?

Four wives? The right to beat, sexually deprive? Enslave, according to your own scholars? I"m not talking about what is ancient; I have been to your countries. It still goes on. Even here there"s arranged, forced marriages. On what basis can you expect a Western woman to turn her back on a religion that says your wife is your co-heir in Christ and become one of four, and somebody will have the right to beat and sexually deprive, and worse still?

In the Hadith we read, "Man will say to his brother, "Look upon my wife. If you desire her I will divorce her for you"", that you can divorce her and give her to another. Now these are early writings in Islam, but remember the Wahab of Saudi Arabia only accept the early writings. It still goes on. How can you expect a woman to turn her back on a faith that says she"s a co-heir in Christ, love her body the way you love your own, with a religion that says she can be sexually deprived, beaten, mistreated, and even divorced and given away, when you allow automatic custody of the children under Sharia Edin? How can you expect a black man to believe that Christianity is a white man's religion when to this day Islam is a religion that has black slaves?

"I know your insolence!" I know your cowardice and hypocrisy. David says let me at them. Being a shepherd boy was a boring way to earn a living. He broke up the monotony by composing hymns, old songs. These are  what we call in Hebrew "Mizmorim" or Psalms. The only thing that broke up the monotony really was when a lion or a bear or a wolf attacked the flock, and he"d go out and use his stick and his sling.

God prepares people for the extraordinary in the ordinary. When one of those devils grabbed the lamb I learned to rescue him. Can you look after one lamb, one new believer? Can you protect them from the wolves, from the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Benny Hinns in this world, from the Lions? God prepares people for the extraordinary in the ordinary. Never despise the day of small things. He knows what He's doing.

Slow, steady growth is always better than maverick growth. I have seen it again, again and again. What is left of the Airport Vineyard Church in Toronto, Canada? Nothing. What is left of the Brownsville Assemblies of God church in Pensacola, Florida? Nothing. Remember the biggest ministry in the world, the PTL Club, prime time TV, et al? In one day Jim and Tammy Baker " nothing. Slow, steady biblical, Christ-centered growth is always better than maverick growth. Quality is always more important in the long run than quantity. Do not despise the day of small things. Your little church, your little house, grows from week to week, month to month, year to year. You don't seem to be getting anywhere, but God is training people how to shoot. Let us continue.

But I have another question. The question is on "Jihad" " "holy war". Western Muslims like to say, "Jihad is a struggle within oneself to keep the five pillars of Islam within your own life." It is a holy war within your own self. But it is still defined in the Quran and the Hadith as a struggle to defend Islam and, the fundamentalists say, to advance it for Mohammed said, "Allah has commanded me to make war against all nations and all people until all say there's no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet".

He organized 65 military campaigns and personally organized 27. To this day the indigenous people of North Africa, the Berbers, are second-rate citizens in their own country; the Kurds are second-rate citizens in their own ancient homeland. Why is Iran, which as a Zoroastrian nation, Muslim? Why in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia Muslim? Why is Turkey Muslim? Why is Iran Muslim? They were invaded and occupied and forced to become Muslim at the point of a sword. That is the history Islam. Everyone knows it. How then can it be a religion of peace?

Now again, westernized Muslims would say, "Jihad is the struggle within oneself". I accept that there are those who do not agree with it and they will put it in the same category as what the English did to the Irish or what the Europeans did to the American Indians and so forth, but let's look at Jihad.

Whether you interpret "Jihad"  one way or the other is not the issue. The Quran says, "Allah will give the Muslim victory in the jihad against the infidel". Irrespective of your view of Israel and Palestine and whose land is it and who was there first or who has the right to be there, let's just look at the subject "Jihad".

One Arab leader, one Muslim leader after another " both Sunni and Shi"a " have called the struggle "Jihad". After six Jihads, surrounding Muslim nations " just the Arab ones of 150 million plus in population " cannot defeat less than 5 million Jews. There"s 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, only 13 million Jews. Israel, even with the West Bank, consists of less than 1% of the land that is today Arabic-speaking. Less than 1%. It"s small, it"s surrounded, it"s under-populated, and has none of the vast oil wealth found in the Arabian pan handle, or in Iraq or Iran or Libya. Why is it? If Allah is God, and if He will give the Muslim victory in the Jihad against the infidel, that Israel has proven consistently indestructible?

When I"ve asked this question I've been told it"s because of America. I don't believe God is afraid of America or of any nation. If Allah is God, He"s not afraid of America or Russia or China or India or Britain or France. He"s not afraid of anybody, He"s God! On that I think we can agree. But how can it be because of America if Allah"s going to give you victory?

The fact is, under Nassir when the Soviet Union was backing the Arab-Muslim nations against Israel in 1967, America did not begin backing Israel in any significant way until 1973. East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip were conquered in 1967 " June of "67 " six years before the Americans began backing them. Your argument makes no sense.

Now the Katub " the Bible, says the Jews would return to the land. Jesus said Jerusalem would be trampled down by the feet of the Gentiles until the time of the Gentile was completed. (Lk. 21:24) They go back to Jerusalem. The prophet Zechariah says they would be there and they would be indestructible because of Jesus. Read it. You can read it in Arabic. They"ll look upon Him whom they have pierced. (Zech. 12:10) When the nations come against Jerusalem He will make war against the surrounding nations.

"Here! Alright, you"re going to take them on? Wear my armor!" He tries it on but it only makes him cumbersome. It inhibits his maneuverability. His speed and agility are impeded. He makes himself an easy target. Don"t wear Saul"s armor. It didn't do Saul any good, why should you wear it? Rely on the Lord and the weapons He has trained you how to use. Don"t wear Saul"s armor.

If you want to see the old-time Pentecostal power come back, get out of the Assemblies of God or Elim as fast as you can, as one example. Don"t wear Saul"s armor; it will only make you an easy target.

Do you know what a Muslim will say to an Evangelical Anglican, even a good Anglican? "Oh, your church ordains homosexuals." You"re wearing the armor; he"s got you right there. "Well I don"t agree with it!" Then why are you paying money into a diocesam system, paying his salary? They"ve got you. Don"t wear his armor. They"re in dread of Islam, they"re in dread of militant homosexuality, they"re in dread of these things.

It's gotten to the point where they can no longer withstand Darwinism so you have so-called neo-evangelicals pursuing the path of theistic evolution, trying to compromise with it despite its lack of scientific and theological credibility; trying to compromise with paganism; trying to compromise with Eastern religions, even with cults, with Rome, with anybody. If you can't beat them join them? No, if you join them you will serve them. You join them, you serve them. There is no cordial friendship with Goliath. The Philistine is an invader, nothing more and nothing less.

Are you one nation, one people, or are you a divided nation and a divided people who needs a common enemy to create the illusion? Are you really a nation of peace and tolerance? Then why will you not give the same freedom to Christians and Jews that you demand here? You can build your mosques wherever you want. Why can't we build one church in Saudi Arabia or Iran, let alone a synagogue? If you"re a religion of peace and tolerance, why do you still allow slavery of children and blacks, even though you call it by another name? If you're a nation of peace and tolerance, why do your scholars have to come to France, Britain, and America to publish? If Allah is giving you the victory in the Jihad, how come He"s not giving it to you? How come the God of Israel has given it to them? In the schism between the Sunni and Shi"a it was said Allah would determine who he favors on the battlefield. So then, by the standards of Islam, God has favored the Jews. Why is it that the West had to liberate Kuwait? You have no Ummah, you have no Salim, you have no victory in Jihad. But the real question is, do you have salvation?

One of the pillars of Islam as you know is "Insha"Allah" " everything that happens whether good or bad is Allah"s will. There is no assurance of salvation. And salvation is obtained by submission to Allah"s will as defined in the Quran. But given the fact that there are so many things in the Quran which cannot possibly be true logically and reasonably, given the fact that the teachings of Islam have not been able to produce the freedom and prosperity that exist in the West, let alone the peace or the justice, how can you be sure it can give salvation?

I"ve considered the claims of Mohammed, of the Quran, and of the Hadith, and I have these five questions. I'd asked them of you. I invite you to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak385b9dc45aa83bea3806cca8cbaefc30').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy385b9dc45aa83bea3806cca8cbaefc30 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy385b9dc45aa83bea3806cca8cbaefc30 = addy385b9dc45aa83bea3806cca8cbaefc30 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text385b9dc45aa83bea3806cca8cbaefc30 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak385b9dc45aa83bea3806cca8cbaefc30').innerHTML += ''+addy_text385b9dc45aa83bea3806cca8cbaefc30+''; with your response or write us here in Britain:

Moriel P.O. Box 201 Maidenhead SL69FB

I invite you to write me, explain Mohammed"s marriage to Ayesha, explain the Islamic position on slavery and women, explain the findings of your Orientalists, explain why there is no Ummah, no victory in your Jihad. If you can"t answer those questions, how can you be sure Islam can give you salvation?

I"ve considered the claims of your religion. please consider the claims of Jesus. In John 5:24 He says…

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

He"s promising eternal life if you really believe that He died for your sins, to pay the price for what you did. And I'm reading from the apostle Peter, 1 Peter 1:3…

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…

…Yeshua HaMashiach…

…according to His great mercy..

No, God does have a Son. Not begotten by sex, but begotten from eternity. He always existed.

…according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled that will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in this last time.

I"ve considered the claims of Mohammed. If you are fair and reasonable you will consider the claims of Jesus.

I don't desire your destruction; I desire your salvation. I don't desire to discredit your religion for the sake of offending anybody; I desire to arrive at the truth. I have questions " serious questions " and I've asked them. If you have serious questions, please answer my questions and then I"ll answer yours.

Rai ees susalam majdon hallelujah Yesu HaMasia. Salam.

The sermons in listed in the sidebar were made to give to the unsaved. But they"re also made to give you ammunition of a specific kind. Once David brought Goliath down he chopped off his head with his own sword. You bring them down with the stone, you decapitate them with their own sword.

What is the most effective weapon against the Roman Catholic Church? The material I was reading last night, their own papal edicts and encyclicals. What is the most powerful weapon to decapitate a Jehovah"s Witness? Back issues of the Watchtower and Awake magazine as we read yesterday. What is the most effective instrument to decapitate a Mormon? The Book of Mormon, The Book of Abraham, The Pearl of Great Price, The Journal of Discourses of Brigham Young " their own literature. You take off Goliath"s head with his own sword. What"s the most effective way to decapitate an Orthodox rabbi? The Mishnah, which supports Christian interpretations of messianic prophecy. You always take off their head with their own sword.

Yes, they are big, yes, they are well-defended, yes, they are well-armed, but there"s something they can"t protect and there"s a stone made just for that target. But do you know how to shoot?

Why does God keep David looking after a few sheep for a long time? He didn't have much opportunity for anything, but he sure did have a lot of target practice. He always had to be vigilant. "I"ll write a hymn to the Lord and then I"ll go out and practice." And every once in awhile a lion would show up and the lion would be sorry he did. "Who left you with those few sheep?" That doesn"t matter. Which spot, which stone can you shoot?

Then, after he chops off his head, he puts the sword in his own tent, doesn"t he? He takes it out of Goliath"s sheath and puts it in his own tent. You might need it for future reference. Go get your elders.

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('cloake47557674ac62370a6ff4954dd4a4d28').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addye47557674ac62370a6ff4954dd4a4d28 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addye47557674ac62370a6ff4954dd4a4d28 = addye47557674ac62370a6ff4954dd4a4d28 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_texte47557674ac62370a6ff4954dd4a4d28 = 'e-mail us';document.getElementById('cloake47557674ac62370a6ff4954dd4a4d28').innerHTML += ''+addy_texte47557674ac62370a6ff4954dd4a4d28+''; . 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?

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.

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?

I have a fifth and final question. Your religion teaches there are three heavens, as it were: The "telestial", the "terrestial", and the "celestial". Those who are Christians but are not Mormons will be in the terrestrial; those who are not even that will be in the telestial, as it were, condemned; but those who follow the teachings of the Church of Latter-day Saints will be in the celestial kingdom. But to arrive in the celestial kingdom you must keep the celestial law, which requires perfection " sinless perfection. Not only utter sanctification, but something beyond that because according to the celestial law once you achieve it, if you sin, all your other merits of everything you've accomplished are counted null and void. This "perfection" " how can you get this perfection?

Can you find me a single Mormon " a bishop, a priest, I don"t care who he is " one who has never sinned as a Mormon? The New Testament says all have sinned, all fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23) If we say we haven't. we are a liar according to First John. (1 Jn. 1:10) Can you show me one who has achieved this? Because in order to enter the celestial kingdom you must achieve it. Now the New Testament says no one has ever achieved such a standard except Christ. Are you sure you are without any sin when the Scriptures say allhave sinned, all full short of the glory of God? "None is righteous, no not one." (Rom. 3:10) Are you sure that you"re the exception, that you"ve kept the celestial law? How can you be assured of salvation? That"s an important question.

I am told that Mormonism stresses family values and morality, and that its prophets and revelators like Mr. Hinckley have a direct relationship with God that others don't have. If you remember The Salamander Text, the Mormon letters, Mr. Hinckley said they were authentic from Joseph Smith. They were proven to be forgeries and a Mormon began blowing people up with terrorist bombings to try to cover it up. Why was Mr. Hinckley wrong if the texts really were from God via Joseph Smith?

I'm looking at Utah, I have been there. I know that the Mormons strongly stress family values, family and morality, raising your children to be godly. Can you tell me, please, why of the 50 American states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia the highest suicide rate among teenagers is in Utah where 70% of the population are Mormon? What could devastate a family more than the suicide of a child, of a teenager? If your family values are so strong, can you account for the suicide rate, can you account for the reason why the highest divorce rate in America " a country riddled, rife with divorce " is in Mormon Utah? The Church of Latter-day Saints professes a higher degree and standard of morality than others. I'm willing to listen; show me the proof. Divorce, suicide? There"s a problem.

We both know there are many people who are simply what you call "Jack Mormons". It is their culture. They write "LDS" " Latter-day Saints after their name to get a job or to keep one in Utah and certain Western American states but they really don't believe it. And they"re made out to be bad Mormons. Are they bad Mormons because they don"t believe there"s Quakers living on the moon? Are they bad Mormons because they don"t believe black people are ugly, depraved, and mischievous and you should be shot if you marry one of them? Are they really bad Mormons because they believe in the scientific evidence of mitochondrial DNA which is conclusive? Does that make somebody a bad Mormon? Or is a bad Mormon somebody who gets divorced or takes their own life as a child? Is a bad Mormon somebody who practices racism? Is that a bad Mormon? I only want to know. Do you really believe this?

Unfortunately this is such a wonderful story for little children, we relegate it to that. When my children were little in Israel I used to tell them this bedtime story at least once a week. They"d want to hear it again and again and they used to sing in Galilee, "David melech Yisra"el, chai chai v"kayam David melech Yisra"el, chai chai v"kayam". They loved hearing it again and again. Yes, it is a wonderful bedtime story for little children.

I do not understand why there are even Christians who"ll read Harry Potter, story of the devil, instead of David and Goliath. There"s no such thing as Harry Potter and they try to defend Harry Potter by saying it teaches little children about things like coverage and integrity. Harry never existed, and if he did he"d never have any courage or integrity. But King David really did exist. I don"t need a fantasy or a fairy tale to teach little children about courage and integrity and faith, I"ve got a real story.

And so we teach it in Sunday School, the story of David and Goliath, to engender faith and courage. That is all true. Unfortunately that"s what we"ve made of it, a Sunday School story for little kids. It is that and it"s good for that, but there's much more to it than that. Somehow most of the mainstream leaders of the church in evangelical Britain and elsewhere do not.

"How are we going to stop Goliath? He"s so aggressive, so powerful, so big, so well-armed, so malicious, so vicious, so hostile, how can we stop him? How can we stand the  onslaught of homosexuality and lesbianism? It"s taking over the schools, we have to let them teach it to our children! How can we stop it? How can we withstand Islam? What can we do? Just look at them! Nobody will dare speak against them! Everyone"s afraid! The church is afraid! What can we do? What? Darwinism " all biomedical information is predicated on it from the time you"re a little kid to the time you"re a Ph.D.! What can we do about it? What? How can we stop the invasion? What can we do? What? What?"

The question is not "what", the question has never been "what". "Here" is "what". Find the soft spot, find the stone, learn how to shoot, and pick up his own sword. "What" to do is not the question " we know what to do. The Word of God tells us want to do. "What to do" is not the question, the question, my dear brethren in Jesus, is not "what", the question is "who".

God bless.

Stephen Sizer, the little devil, justifies apartheid in the name of God. I refused to speak in South Africa when they had apartheid. You know our ministry runs orphanages in South Africa, yes? I know people who suffered under apartheid. What an insult to people who really suffered under apartheid.

When I went to Hebrew University we had plenty of Arab students. My wife went to Technion in Haifa where there were plenty of Arab student " about 20%, 15% at least. Some universities " Israeli universities " had at least 20%. Non-Muslim students from Malaysia, people who are non-ethnic Malays, have to go to university in Australia or Indonesia; you can"t even go to school in a Muslim country. That"s real apartheid. Nobody's calling for an academic boycott of Malaysia. You want to find apartheid? How about a country where a woman can"t drive a car? That"s Saudi Arabia. Yet this is the Christian church calling for it.

Free speech in Europe, how long will it last? The Lords have been overruled. The definition of the new offense of judicious libel in EC law as conduct seriously prejudices a community's interests and damages the institutions and image and reputation. The rights that can be restricted include not only free speech and the right to life but also the right not to be punished in retroactive legislation, the right of a fair trial, the assumption of innocence, and the absence of double jeopardy, a provision which Jack Straw (British Secretary of State for Justice) wants to take advantage of already. In other words, if you"re acquitted of crime you can be tried twice. In other words, if you"re found guilty of something and they pass a law against something they can say retroactively after you"ve already been sentenced, "No, you were sentenced to 10 years, we"re going to make it 20". In other words " this is unbelievable " because of retroactive legislation, speaking against Europe can be criminalized. They want to criminalize it. Now, I"m not kidding.

"Euro Court Outlaws Criticism of the EU". (I"ll show anyone these documents who wants to see them.) The ruling states that the Commission could restrict dissent in order to protect the rights of others and punish individuals who damage the institution"s image and reputation. If you talk about the corruption of the common agricultural policy, you"re damaging the reputation of Europe. "The court called the economy book aggressively derogatory, insulting, and taking particular umbrage at the author"s suggestion that the economic and monetary union was a threat to democracy". You think it"s a threat to democracy? You"re under arrest. "To imply Mr. Conde"s criticism of the EU is akin to extreme blasphemy." I thought you could only blaspheme God, contrasting Rosenthal"s column here. Beware foreign policeman at your door. If you do something that is not even a crime in Britain but a crime in another country, a policeman from Poland or another country will have the right to come and arrest you in Britain, deport you to a country, and you would be put on trial for something that"s not even against the law in Britain, including countries where there's no presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Of course, the British government wants this. This is from the Telegraph, Thursday, July 9th. Unbelievable.

The Daily Telegraph: "The Criminal Justice System Will Limit Trial by Jury. The extradition bail will bring into UK law one of the EU commission's most cherished symbols of political and legal integration, the EU arrest warrant. The government appears unmoved by opposition to this measure which has united pressure groups. The bill will allow British citizens to be extradited for a wide range of offenses, many of them relatively minor and ill-defined which are not crimes in the UK. British defendants will be tried under judicial systems where there is a presumption of guilt."

"Freedom of speech is under assault from an initiative of the EU Social Affairs Directorate. The "racism and xenophobia directive", which is soon to be enshrined into British law. Under the law racism itself, as opposed to inciting racial hatred, becomes an offense. Under the astounding, broad definition the public condoning of war crimes and the public dissemination, including by the Internet, which attracts pictures or other material containing expressions of racism or xenophobia becomes an offense. But so does trivialization of what Slobodan Milosevic (former President of Yugoslavia) did and things of that nature." The problem is who is going to define what"s racism?

There are black intellectuals in Zimbabwe who said Mugabe (President of Zimbabwe) has destroyed the country, he"s driving that nation into poverty. White people were able to leave, the black intellectuals were arrested and charged with making racist comments. These are black people themselves. Because you denounced Mugabe, that becomes the definition of a racist. They want to bring that here.

"Slow march of the compulsory identity card which is currently packaged in a cuddly new labor language as the "Universal Entitlement Card"". I mean it goes on and on. How do you preach the Gospel in such an environment?

You have a bishop in Denmark who doesn"t believe in God. They can"t fire him because it"s against the law.

They"ve created a hermaphroditic human being by cloning it in a test tube. They"re creating monsters. I thought bio-medical science was aimed at preventing birth defects " they"re creating freaks.

The pope put out a statement recently about a month ago. "Devotion to Mary to bring one closer to God." says the pope, and he"s pushing it to go with other religions. In the same month " that is September of last month, I got this in Australia and in another paper it was here and I"m sure it was in America, "The Vatican"s Big Secret: Criminale Solicitessiones". It was issued by Pope John XXIII 40 years ago and reissued two years ago by the present pope. It instructs bishops to protect pedophile priests and nuns by transferring them abroad out of the country, away from the jurisdiction of the law where the offenses were committed. A Vatican instruction! And so the church pays hush money to sex victims, including the cardinal in London. He"s only doing what the pope told him. That was September. Guess what else happened in the month of September? Devotion to Mary. "Criminale Solicitessiones" " don"t protect the little children, protect the pedophiles. This is the Hindu feast of Aarti " it goes back to Shiva worship. "I am the Lord your God; you will have no other gods before Me." (Deut 5:6-7) That"s the pope in India taking the Aarti. That"s OK with Nicki; "Let"s work together". That is the man that people have looked to re-evangelize this country, and we're talking about preaching the Gospel of the Last Days. Let's talk about it. In such a climate, how do we preach the Gospel? In such a climate persecution is looming. People already on the streets preaching the Gospel are in jail for it. How do you preach the Gospel in such a climate?

Remember, we always pointed out, the oldest enemies of the Gospel in Ireland were the Druids; now the Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the national church is one. The new Archbishop of Canterbury praises Alpha. I mean, if a Druid likes it, it must be alright. If a man who ordains homosexuals praises Alpha, it must be a good thing

Essentially what is happening is that these other groups are growing. In essence, the New Age movement is nothing but the growth of Hinduism and mystical Buddhist and Taoism, but it"s basically Hindu. The growth of Islam, the fastest-growing institutionalized religion, the growth of Mormonism the fastest-growing so-called Christian religion, the Ecumenical movement. Although Rome is declining it is gaining momentum by ecumenical union, These things are growing, we are declining. And, of course, our leaders who promised us revival? "Bring a broom. Bring a broom". When you confront them with the facts all they can do is bring the broom, (Isa 14:23) sweep it under the carpet. As Ezekiel said, they get the whitewash out. (Ezek 13:10) The question, "Why should you believe them now?" Don"t ask that question because they can"t answer it. The fact is you shouldn"t believe them now, you shouldn"t have believed them then. But people will still believe them. It's amazing how people will do that! How can you continue to believe people who got it wrong?

This is the Millennial Dawn, published by the Jehovah"s Witnesses in 1889 when the organization was is in its infancy. "The battle of the great day of God Almighty, (Rev 16:14) which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of the earth"s present rulership has already commenced." In 1889 they were saying that in 1914, that was going to be it. And at least a half dozen times they've moved the date, but people will still believe them.

What is the difference between a Jehovah's Witness and somebody in the Assemblies of God? None! They"re doing the same thing. How can we preach the Gospel in a climate like this? What will people believe? the unbelievable; Adolf Hitler"s baptism certificate.

Let"s begin by defining our terms. "The Gospel in the Last Days." Again, we have to recap things you know, so I"m just touching on it briefly. First we"ll look at the Word "Gospel", what the Gospel in the Last Days means

The word "Gospel" in Hebrew is "bisorah". It simply means, it could be translated as, "glad tidings", but basically is "good news". "How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings bisorah". (Isa 52:7) In Hebrew, "to evangelize" " "Levasar be"sorah". The infinitive of the verb comes from the noun. Greek, "evangelion". It"s where we get the word "evangelical". "Good news". There is only one Gospel, but there are multiple aspects of it and therefore multiple descriptions. We will look at four. Turn to (Eph 1:13)

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—

Gospel of salvation.

(Eph 6:15) paraphrasing from the Septuagint of Isaiah 52 €¦

and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

Everyone here, I assume, knows "peace" is "shalom", yes? And I"ve explained we have shalom because He came to leshalem. The Hebrew word "shalom" " "peace", does not mean the absence of conflict; that's the Greek idea. "Irene", like the girl"s name is the Greek idea "absence of conflict" or as Samuel Johnson defined it, "a period of separation and deception between two wars." Shalom is not that. Shalom comes from the Hebrew word "sillum", "To pay" " "lashalem" " "to pay", "to fill", "to fulfill". Ultimately shalom will include the absence of war " the nations will beat their spears into pruning hooks and so forth (Isa 2:4, Micah 4:3) in the Millennium, but that"s not what it is. It is "shalom". Jesus said, "My peace I give you, not as the world gives you". (John 14:27) His peace was not this absence of conflict. You can be in the biggest conflict of your life and have shalom. You can be facing a crisis in your life and have shalom.

It"s like sister Winnie here. Her son was tragically killed just before   I had to go abroad and I went to visit her in Manchester. It was devastating, and it still is, it"s just recent. Does she have "peace"? No. Does she have "shalom"? Yes. There"s a brother in my church back there; he"s battling cancer, having major surgery. Does he have "peace"? No to "peace" but does he have "shalom"? Yes. You can be in the biggest crisis of your life and have shalom. Peace, ultimately yes; meanwhile, not necessarily. We have shalom because the Messiah came to leshalem " "to pay", "to fill", "to fulfill". We have shalom because He came to pay the price for our sin to fulfill the law that no man could keep, the Torah, and to fill us with the Spirit. We have shalom because the Messiah came to leshalem. That"s what the "gospel of peace" means. It doesn"t mean the absence of  conflict. Ultimately it will lead to that, ultimately it will include that, but that's not what it is.

So, Where's Jacob Today? 2013:
Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec       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('cloak8e303d5f1891d641003e7c5c39634ea1').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy8e303d5f1891d641003e7c5c39634ea1 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy8e303d5f1891d641003e7c5c39634ea1 = addy8e303d5f1891d641003e7c5c39634ea1 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text8e303d5f1891d641003e7c5c39634ea1 = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloak8e303d5f1891d641003e7c5c39634ea1').innerHTML += ''+addy_text8e303d5f1891d641003e7c5c39634ea1+'';

So we have the Gospel of eternity. But what we"re concerned with is Matthew 24:14…

"This gospel of the kingdom…

Notice it"s emphatic " this gospel of the kingdom.

The Gospel of salvation? Yes, we have the Gospel of salvation. The Gospel of peace? Sister Jean is bereaved of brother Arthur who went to be with the Lord after a battle with leukemia, the same as Mervyn did this time of year. Is it peaceable? No, it"s not peaceable. Is it shalom? Yes to shalom. The Gospel of eternity, it goes on forever and ever. It"s good news forever and ever. Yes, Arthur"s with the Lord, he"s in eternity, it"s going to be good news forever and ever, but right now it"s not easy. You can"t have peace in bereavement, but you can have shalom. This is eternity. All that is true and we could have a whole conference on any one of these gospels. They"re all the same Gospel, of course, just different aspects of it. But our purpose now is this one, the Gospel of the kingdom " what distinguishes it?

Notice it"s in the Olivet Discourse. It is in Jesus" discourse about the Last Days. This Gospel. How can the things of the Last Days be "good news"? We have explained a number of times from Revelation 12 and from Jeremiah that the Scriptures repeatedly use seismology and obstetrics to explain what the Last Days will be like.

Tremors get more and more frequent in the tectonic plate theory, they tell you a big earthquake is going to come. That is compared to birth pangs " contractions that become more frequent and maternal labor before the baby is going to come. How can there be joy and peace in it? How can there be good news? Is maternal labor good news? No. Is the baby born after the maternal labor good news? Yes, it"s an irony of life, isn"t it? Somehow the curse that came on Eve because sin entered the world through the woman comes onto the earth, and so we see the language used to describe maternal labor used to describe what"s happening to the creation.

Turn with me, please, to Romans 8. We"ll begin, please, in verse 18… (Rom 8: 18-20)

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

As in the joy of having a healthy, newborn baby easily eclipses birth pangs of maternal labor, they"re quickly forgotten once a healthy baby has arrived on the scene. Let's look…

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.

Now that word "anxiously longing" is "apokarakokia". It means "almost a desperate sense". Again, in maternal labor the mother has a desperate sense, "I wish this baby would just pop out". And understandably so.

For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.

That word "revealing" is "apokalupsis" " "apocalypse", "the unveiling"; the same as in the book of Revelation. Something that"s there is going to be unveiled, the identity of the true believers in the rapture and the resurrection. The text is eschatological; it uses the word apocalypse even

One of Jacob's sermons
The current and complete list of Moriel CD's, DVD's and books

Now notice "the creation waits eagerly". (Rom 8:20)

For the creation was subjected to futility €¦

The word "futility" in Greek is more like "depravity". Not of its own will €¦

but because of him who subjected it in hope €¦

€¦"elpo" €¦

€¦ that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

The analogy it is making in maternal labor with the contractions, you"re waiting for a baby to come out. In this earthquake it"s like the resurrection. Revelation 12 " you"re waiting for the people to come out. Is it a boy or a girl? You"re waiting. You know, who"s it going to be? Where are they, the true believers?

And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.

We"ve already been justified, we"re waiting for redemption.

For in hope €¦

€¦"elpo" €¦

€¦we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

When someone is expecting out to here, out to here, out to here. Junko is having a baby, I just saw her in Ireland in Belfast last week. She looks real cute. Junko is a Japanese believer, her husband is Irish. (The kid"s going to grow up on sukiyaki and Guinness ®.) She knows the baby"s coming; she knows it"s going to happen; something"s going on. Something"s going to happen.

Jean lost Arthur " I was abroad at the time " I couldn"t make it to the funeral, I was in Australia somewhere or New Zealand. I couldn"t make it. I rang up, gave her my condolences for not being able to make the funeral. I would have liked to have been there, Arthur was a good brother, but there is a hope. I"ve seen it. One of the things God uses bereavement for is to stir up this hope so we won"t trust in this world. (We talked about that on the "Thanantology" tape.) In other words, this word "elpo" " "hope" is a future fact. The same as it is a future fact that the baby is going to be born, it"s a future fact there"s going to be a resurrection, we"re going to be reunited with our loved ones, and the sons of God will be revealed. "Hope" is a future fact

Now let's look at what this text tells us. When man fell, the universe fell. That throws things like "Gap Theory" out the window. There are some Christians who try to make Evolution compatible with Christianity; it doesn't work. There was some kind of cosmic catastrophe, that"s pretty clear from Genesis 1, but the idea there was death before?

I was just in a hurricane in Florida a few weeks ago with my mother. It was unbelievable. I never saw something so frightening in my life, and I"m thinking that stuff happens because of the fall of man. When man fell, the creation fell. It throws out, obviously, these intents by Evangelicals to compromise Darwinism with the Creationism. It just doesn't work. It just doesn't work. The creation fell when man fell. I didn't used to believe in Darwinism but I do now. The reason I didn't used to believe in it is that I couldn"t find any scientific evidence for it, but I"ve since found some. Anybody who believes in that stuff must be related to a baboon.

Let"s look. The creation itself in verse 23 is "waiting eagerly for our adoptions as sons". Why would the creation wait for us to be revealed as the sons and daughters of God? Why? "The meek shall inherit the earth". (Mat 5:5) How are you going to inherit the earth if there isn"t one? There is a millennial reign of Jesus. Not only will we be with our loved ones in eternity, we will be with our loved ones here, only in a place where there are no more mosques, no more hurricanes, and no more death or all the things that cause it. Again, this hope is something God says is a future fact. It"s a future fact. Yes, it"s bad and it"s going to get worse. Well, of course contractions get worse before the baby"s born. What do you expect? Of course it"s going to get worse before Jesus comes. What should we expect? What did Jesus say? He endured the cross only considering the reward that was before Him. (Heb 12:2)

Let's continue looking at this idea of the Gospel in the Last Days. It is not going to be easy. What we"re going to try to propose to do is to equip people to evangelize these growing groups. We"re going to produce a series of tapes which you"re free to replicate and copy " give away (please do so) " Five Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses, Five Questions for Muslims, Five Questions for Roman Catholics, Five Questions for Orthodox Jews, Five Questions for Mormons, five questions…five, five, five, five. You take it, you just give it to them. Copy it, give it to them. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak83d00b42bd60d36e740bfd2d7d631c7d').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy83d00b42bd60d36e740bfd2d7d631c7d = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy83d00b42bd60d36e740bfd2d7d631c7d = addy83d00b42bd60d36e740bfd2d7d631c7d + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text83d00b42bd60d36e740bfd2d7d631c7d = 'Send us';document.getElementById('cloak83d00b42bd60d36e740bfd2d7d631c7d').innerHTML += ''+addy_text83d00b42bd60d36e740bfd2d7d631c7d+''; the name and address of any Mormon, he"ll get a free copy. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak69058ebe10b4e9bd7f00c17a348febad').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy69058ebe10b4e9bd7f00c17a348febad = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy69058ebe10b4e9bd7f00c17a348febad = addy69058ebe10b4e9bd7f00c17a348febad + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text69058ebe10b4e9bd7f00c17a348febad = 'Send us';document.getElementById('cloak69058ebe10b4e9bd7f00c17a348febad').innerHTML += ''+addy_text69058ebe10b4e9bd7f00c17a348febad+''; the name and address of any Jew, he"ll get a free copy. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloake588835a68f875a9abb048a96af0da07').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addye588835a68f875a9abb048a96af0da07 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addye588835a68f875a9abb048a96af0da07 = addye588835a68f875a9abb048a96af0da07 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_texte588835a68f875a9abb048a96af0da07 = 'Send us';document.getElementById('cloake588835a68f875a9abb048a96af0da07').innerHTML += ''+addy_texte588835a68f875a9abb048a96af0da07+''; the name and address of any Catholic, he"ll get a free copy. You copy it and give it to them or we"ll copy it and give it to them, five questions. They"re growing, we are shrinking. But even in these groups in these Last Days, the Lord will have a harvest of people.

I was just in Indonesia. I was lecturing at a Bible college in Indonesia this past summer. (Of course, they don"t have a summer, it"s always summer; but here it was summer.) And there were pastors there from different places in Indonesia. One pastor there from the Malukun Islands " he couldn't go back to the Malukun Islands, he planted two churches and the Muslims planned to kill him. Terrible persecution going on, all swept under the rug, everyone"s quiet about it, especially Stephen Sizer at World Vision. They only care if someone stands up to Islam, they don't care about what Islam does to Christians, seemingly. It"s not their emphasis. And these pastors were telling me about the kind of growth. I was lecturing in a Bible college to student pastors. Every single one of them, when they graduate, is going into a Muslim area to plant churches. They know some of them may pay for that with their lives. They know that not before they graduate, they know that before they come to the Bible college. But it doesn"t stop them from coming to the Bible college. They come sacrificially. They were telling me how many Muslims are saved in Indonesia. Look at it this way: The Lord"s arm is not too short that it cannot save.

I had a Muslim pray with me to receive the Lord in Australia.( I haven"t led many Muslims to Christ but I"ve led Muslims to Christ.) I heard a beautiful testimony of a Shi"a Muslim in New Zealand who prayed with me to receive the Lord a few years ago. He was from Iran; he was a Shi"a, a real nut. You"re not going to find a more beautiful believer. He makes Persian carpets. A beautiful, beautiful artist. The man"s really an artist, really gifted " beautiful carpets. An incredible guy, incredible testimony. Muslims can and do get saved

I have friends who are rabbis. I have friends who are Orthodox rabbis. Orthodox Jews can and do get saved.

I was just in Ireland last week. Even in Belfast, where becoming a Christian means you become a Protestant in the community"s thinking, tons " tons of ex-Catholics, mostly young people (not all, but mostly younger people), Roman Catholics even in the most Catholic environment. You don"t see real Catholicism here; to see real Catholicism you need to go to Ireland or to Poland or to somewhere like that. They get saved. These people can get saved.

That"s what we"re aiming for this year. It"s time to fight back. We know about the error and deception in the church, we all know that. They"re losing. They"re losing the battles, they"re losing the war, they"re never going to get it together. They"ll never get it together! We"ll explain why in a moment.

Missions Moriel is currently undertaking missionary work on five different continents spanning the globe.

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. Matthew 28:18-20

Now we"ve talked a bit about the Gospel of the kingdom. What is it? This gospel. It is using End Times prophecy to see people get saved.

I've talked about it before: My late friend Barry Smith who"s gone to be with the Lord " good friend, dear brother, hopeless Bible teacher as in Y2K, etc., great evangelist. Why? He preached the Gospel of the kingdom. He used prophecy to see people get saved.
Hal Lindsay in his personal life has lost the plot " we know that. But The Late, Great Planet Earth? A wild oversimplification of biblical eschatology admittedly, but a lot of people got saved through it. Why? He preached the Gospel of the kingdom. We have to use End Times prophecy to see people get saved.

Certainly events in the Middle East are shown in Zechariah 12; see what it"s coming to? Genetic engineering of human freaks just as it was in the days of Noah, demonoids becoming human. "Let us destroy those who are destroying the earth", the environment? We have to use End Times prophecy to see people get saved.

Last Days " most of you know this before the tape, I"ve got to do it " Hebrews 1, very quickly…

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son…

"Many portions" refers to the "paroch hashavuah" " "the election" " the annual liturgical reading in the synagogue of the Haftorah. It was written to Jewish Christians. Now the Last Days are in the Last Days. Remember, the rapture and resurrection have already begun, haven"t they? Jesus is the first fruit of the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus was the beginning of the rapture. We"re waiting for our role in it. We are waiting for our role in it, but the events have already begun. The rapture and resurrection began with the resurrection and ascension of Jesus; they were already under way, we're waiting for our role in it. Like the SAS and American commandos who parachuted in back of the German lines on D-Day before the actual invasion came to the beach. But the invasion did not begin on the beaches of Normandy, it began with paratroopers in back of the German lines. Well, it"s already begun. We"re waiting for our role in it. We"re already in the Last Days in the general sense. In the specific sense the Last Days are the events leading up to the Day of the Lord.

So we look at what is the Gospel and what is the Gospel of the kingdom? What are the Last Days? We"ll leave with this: The existing churches and denominations for the most part cannot preach the Gospel of the kingdom; they cannot do it. Because in order to preach the Gospel of the kingdom they would have to renounce too much of the false things they've already embraced. The Gospel of the kingdom involves scaring people, They"re into Rick Warren " "give a positive message"; they"re into psychology they"re into "don"t be negative"; they"re into" cheap grace"; they"re into Alpha; they"re into unbiblical approaches to evangelism. Preaching the Gospel of the kingdom is very different. It"s John the Baptist, "Repent, the kingdom is at hand", (Mat 3:2) and of one more verse " and then we"ll close " (Mat 4:23)

Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people.

Notice it was accompanied with signs and wonders. These signs follow. (Mark 16:20) It was not the signs. they follow. That"s the Gospel of the kingdom; that's the Gospel in the Last Days. We begin in
the next chapter.

"For if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" (Romans 11:15)

In Yeshua's Service,

James Jacob Prasch & MORIEL

The Philistine is powerful, the Philistine is aggressive, the Philistine is confident, the Philistine is haughty, and God's people shake in their boots unable to defend their land from the invasion.

How can God protect Britain when the royal forces will allow a ship in the Royal Navy, her majesty"s vessel, to have a Satanist practicing his religion? But how can the Church of Jesus Christ stand against the onslaught of Darwinism, of militant homosexuality and lesbianism taking over the schools, teaching little children it"s normal, broadcasting their perversion on the BBC " channel 4 and ITV " with impunity?

How can the church stand against the tide of ecumenical deception, and not least of all if not most of all, how can it withstand the aggression of militant Islam in Birmingham, London, Manchester, Bradford, getting worse by the day, seeking to deprive Christians of their rights in this country they deprive us of in their own countries? And a government that will just give it to them. A Christian leader like Steve Chalke saying, "Well they can be loved to Christ". We can"t beat them so we"ll just say they can be saved, too.

How can the church of Christ withstand the rise of a paganism when the Archbishop of Canterbury joins a Druid sect and ordains homosexuals himself?

How can I stop it? No wonder these people are confident. Looking at the church, if the church today were my opponent I would balk at them as well. The church is being mocked and deserves to be; it does not have the wherewithal. All of their battle plans fail, be it Teen Challenge, Alpha, Purpose Driven " none of it can stop the invasion of the Philistine. He gets more aggressive, he gets more bold, he gets more haughty, he gets more aggressive, more assertive, more downright nasty.

And the so-called armies of the Lord cower to the point where a Christian leader will say, "They can belong to Christ, too". Where a Colin Chapman will say, "They can be saved, too. We have to oppose Israel, but we have to embrace the Muslims". That's an evangelical; least he claims to be. Where a Stephen Sizer will turn his back on the persecuted church in the Middle East and embrace the Muslims who persecute them, ganging up on Israel, the one nation that protects the rights of Christians. "We give up; come, Goliath". Goliath doesn't give up. You"re not going to placate Goliath, he"s going to get more nasty; he"s demon-possessed.

Islam is demonic, New Age is demonic, Mormonism is demonic, it"s the fastest growing so-called Christian sect in this country. They are confident. The Mormons are confident. The Muslims are confident. Can you blame them when homosexuals and lesbians are being ordained? Can you blame militant homosexuality for being confident when the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the United Reformed Church will all ordain them? No wonder they"re confident. And anything they try to stop it fails.

It's very important that you clearly understand tha the inclusion of any link from anywhere within the Moriel Ministries web site does not necessarily imply our endorsement of that ministry, resource, or organization featured regarding anything that it does or teaches. The only endorsement that is worthwhile is that which is in alignment with biblical truth. It's our position that we can agree or disagree with you, you can agree or disagree with us, but only so far as it agrees or disagrees with God's Word.

Whilst recognizing the good fruit from these linked sites, we cannot vouch for their every belief. As with all things in this world, the onus is upon you to check out each site and to exercise spiritual discretion, testing everything (even us) against the Word of God.

Please don't hesitate to direct all inquiries or reports of broken links to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloaka28eaea7812546423d8350c06ee7e094').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addya28eaea7812546423d8350c06ee7e094 = 'morielcarol' + '@'; addya28eaea7812546423d8350c06ee7e094 = addya28eaea7812546423d8350c06ee7e094 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_texta28eaea7812546423d8350c06ee7e094 = 'morielcarol' + '@' + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloaka28eaea7812546423d8350c06ee7e094').innerHTML += ''+addy_texta28eaea7812546423d8350c06ee7e094+''; .

He takes his sling and his stick and off he goes. "Who 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. "You 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? "It'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 "Ummah" " you"re "one 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 "loved" 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.

MORIEL is a teaching ministry to believers stressing the need to rediscover the Scriptures as Hebraic literature (as opposed to Hellenistic literature), demanding the hermeneutic models of Second Temple Period Judaism as a basis in biblical interpretation. Essentially this means an attempt to rediscover the methods of interpretation used by the New Testament writers.

We note the Sitz in Leben of Biblical Jewish culture along the lines of various scholars, but in order to see the greater depth of contained meaning we adopt an understanding of early midrashic models in addition to conventional grammatical-historical models of interpretation.

Welcome to The Moriel Japan missions page. The Moriel Japan branch opened up in 2009. We are based in Nishinomiya City, situated in between Osaka and Kobe roughly in the centre of Japan.

The PURPOSE of the Moriel Mission is to obey the great commission of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is to evangelize people around the dump site area and to other communities. To see them saved and to educate people from the word of God for right faith and practice.

The name of this ministry is derived from a Hebrew word that describes someone who is so desperate and in need that the only way up is if someone reaches down and grabs a hand and lifts them up. Our saviour did this with every believer, entering time and space to rescue us from our sin. Our inspiration comes from Psalm 68: 5-6b:

Making donations has never been easier by going online.


Click This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakf49fe70fa4d2370c4b9a98869100bdac').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyf49fe70fa4d2370c4b9a98869100bdac = 'morielcarol' + '@'; addyf49fe70fa4d2370c4b9a98869100bdac = addyf49fe70fa4d2370c4b9a98869100bdac + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textf49fe70fa4d2370c4b9a98869100bdac = 'here';document.getElementById('cloakf49fe70fa4d2370c4b9a98869100bdac').innerHTML += ''+addy_textf49fe70fa4d2370c4b9a98869100bdac+''; to sign up for our Moriel Quarterly newsletter. Select Language Afrikaans Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Basque Belarusian Bengali Bosnian Bulgarian Catalan Cebuano Chichewa Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch Esperanto Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician Georgian German Greek Gujarati Haitian Creole Hausa Hebrew Hindi Hmong Hungarian Icelandic Igbo Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Kannada Kazakh Khmer Korean Lao Latin Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malagasy Malay Malayalam Maltese Maori Marathi Mongolian Myanmar (Burmese) Nepali Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Sesotho Sinhala Slovak Slovenian Somali Spanish Sundanese Swahili Swedish Tajik Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Uzbek Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish Yoruba ZuluPowered by

Moriel Ministries new email News Alert is a publication which is sent directly to your inbox regularly, warning the body of Christ to Be Alert! for the present signs of the soon-to-be Returning King of kings and Lord of lords, our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Our Moriel correspondent, Scott Brisk, is the editor of Be Alert! whose job as watchman is to scan for all news items having a Biblical significance and to alert the body of Christ in these last days.

Moriel Ministries does not necessarily endorse everything that is transmitted to our email groups as being completely trustworthy of Godly as some items could be drawn from secular sources. Nor does it suggest in any way that any individual or organization mentioned should be followed or given any special credence. Be Alert! is for the dissemination of information only and Godly discretion must be applied by recipients to every transmission received by them from us.

Therefore If the present state of events in this dark hour is of concern to you and like us you are looking up for our coming Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, Be Alert! is for you.

So what are you waiting for? Sign-up free today!

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.

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('cloak286fba10897355ba4289310c2a389dd2').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy286fba10897355ba4289310c2a389dd2 = 'moriel' + '@'; addy286fba10897355ba4289310c2a389dd2 = addy286fba10897355ba4289310c2a389dd2 + 'vic' + '.' + 'australis' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au'; var addy_text286fba10897355ba4289310c2a389dd2 = 'moriel' + '@' + 'vic' + '.' + 'australis' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au';document.getElementById('cloak286fba10897355ba4289310c2a389dd2').innerHTML += ''+addy_text286fba10897355ba4289310c2a389dd2+''; 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('cloakc484a30a98cf315decfe5342206f6483').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyc484a30a98cf315decfe5342206f6483 = 'olvomi' + '@'; addyc484a30a98cf315decfe5342206f6483 = addyc484a30a98cf315decfe5342206f6483 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textc484a30a98cf315decfe5342206f6483 = 'olvomi' + '@' + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloakc484a30a98cf315decfe5342206f6483').innerHTML += ''+addy_textc484a30a98cf315decfe5342206f6483+''; 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('cloakbeb923a29fee142ef018a107e693d660').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addybeb923a29fee142ef018a107e693d660 = 'moriel.israel' + '@'; addybeb923a29fee142ef018a107e693d660 = addybeb923a29fee142ef018a107e693d660 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textbeb923a29fee142ef018a107e693d660 = 'moriel.israel' + '@' + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloakbeb923a29fee142ef018a107e693d660').innerHTML += ''+addy_textbeb923a29fee142ef018a107e693d660+''; 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('cloakb10d803d66caa1d5229ffaf0c5916cad').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyb10d803d66caa1d5229ffaf0c5916cad = 'morieljapan' + '@'; addyb10d803d66caa1d5229ffaf0c5916cad = addyb10d803d66caa1d5229ffaf0c5916cad + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'co' + '.' + 'jp'; var addy_textb10d803d66caa1d5229ffaf0c5916cad = 'MorielJapan' + '@' + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'co' + '.' + 'jp';document.getElementById('cloakb10d803d66caa1d5229ffaf0c5916cad').innerHTML += ''+addy_textb10d803d66caa1d5229ffaf0c5916cad+''; 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('cloaka908b3582d5c3546c4788c0f47cd346b').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addya908b3582d5c3546c4788c0f47cd346b = 'moriel' + '@'; addya908b3582d5c3546c4788c0f47cd346b = addya908b3582d5c3546c4788c0f47cd346b + 'vic' + '.' + 'australis' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au'; var addy_texta908b3582d5c3546c4788c0f47cd346b = 'moriel' + '@' + 'vic' + '.' + 'australis' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au';document.getElementById('cloaka908b3582d5c3546c4788c0f47cd346b').innerHTML += ''+addy_texta908b3582d5c3546c4788c0f47cd346b+''; 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('cloak5b3b8480abae633f6ecdf03f2b689ad9').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy5b3b8480abae633f6ecdf03f2b689ad9 = 'moriel' + '@'; addy5b3b8480abae633f6ecdf03f2b689ad9 = addy5b3b8480abae633f6ecdf03f2b689ad9 + 'vic' + '.' + 'australia' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au'; var addy_text5b3b8480abae633f6ecdf03f2b689ad9 = 'moriel' + '@' + 'vic' + '.' + 'australia' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au';document.getElementById('cloak5b3b8480abae633f6ecdf03f2b689ad9').innerHTML += ''+addy_text5b3b8480abae633f6ecdf03f2b689ad9+''; 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('cloak8657759ca6f8bd1030b7919176a7451c').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy8657759ca6f8bd1030b7919176a7451c = 'allison' + '@'; addy8657759ca6f8bd1030b7919176a7451c = addy8657759ca6f8bd1030b7919176a7451c + 'moriel' + '.' + 'org' + '.' + 'uk'; var addy_text8657759ca6f8bd1030b7919176a7451c = 'allison' + '@' + 'moriel' + '.' + 'org' + '.' + 'uk';document.getElementById('cloak8657759ca6f8bd1030b7919176a7451c').innerHTML += ''+addy_text8657759ca6f8bd1030b7919176a7451c+''; 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('cloak76ed49a3e14e116716c829ccf523d075').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy76ed49a3e14e116716c829ccf523d075 = 'morieldavid' + '@'; addy76ed49a3e14e116716c829ccf523d075 = addy76ed49a3e14e116716c829ccf523d075 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text76ed49a3e14e116716c829ccf523d075 = 'morieldavid' + '@' + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloak76ed49a3e14e116716c829ccf523d075').innerHTML += ''+addy_text76ed49a3e14e116716c829ccf523d075+''; 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('cloakbf4f387a2329f6905b146816d07ed3cc').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addybf4f387a2329f6905b146816d07ed3cc = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addybf4f387a2329f6905b146816d07ed3cc = addybf4f387a2329f6905b146816d07ed3cc + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textbf4f387a2329f6905b146816d07ed3cc = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloakbf4f387a2329f6905b146816d07ed3cc').innerHTML += ''+addy_textbf4f387a2329f6905b146816d07ed3cc+'';

Name Address Country Contact Agape Fellowship Belfast Ireland Skip Gillespsi
01232 294 867 Ainsdale Evangelical Church 705 Liverpool Road
Ainsdale
Southport
PR8 3NS
tel: 01704 574282 UK This is Moriel events agent and partnering ministry in northwest England.
Pastor Geoff Farnell
01704 574282 The Barn Fellowship The Barn Community Centre
New Chawson Lane
Droitwich WR9 OAQ UK John Jones  
01905-863489 Bridge Lane Christian Fellowship 54 Bridge Lane
Temple Fortune
London
NW11 0EH UK This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloaka55431f96bd4dfb2ae065d88eb077084').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addya55431f96bd4dfb2ae065d88eb077084 = 'info' + '@'; addya55431f96bd4dfb2ae065d88eb077084 = addya55431f96bd4dfb2ae065d88eb077084 + 'bridgelane' + '.' + 'org'; var addy_texta55431f96bd4dfb2ae065d88eb077084 = 'info' + '@' + 'bridgelane' + '.' + 'org';document.getElementById('cloaka55431f96bd4dfb2ae065d88eb077084').innerHTML += ''+addy_texta55431f96bd4dfb2ae065d88eb077084+'';
Tony Pearce
020 8445 1451
Sally Richardson
07867 793253 Bread of Life Ministries Corner Atlas Road and Denel Road North    
Kempton Park
Johannesburg
South Africa SA  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloaka37da97ccbf53c606058112c5bddf4b9').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addya37da97ccbf53c606058112c5bddf4b9 = 'info' + '@'; addya37da97ccbf53c606058112c5bddf4b9 = addya37da97ccbf53c606058112c5bddf4b9 + 'bolm' + '.' + 'co' + '.' + 'za'; var addy_texta37da97ccbf53c606058112c5bddf4b9 = 'info@bolm.co.za ';document.getElementById('cloaka37da97ccbf53c606058112c5bddf4b9').innerHTML += ''+addy_texta37da97ccbf53c606058112c5bddf4b9+'';
David Nathan
084 470 6995 Calvary Chapel South Hampton St. Winfred's School
Winn Road, Highfield
Southampton, Hampshire
SO17 1EJ UK This is aMoriel events agent and partnering ministry in South Wales.
Pastor Jeremy Reese
01792 774945 Church of the Redeemer Swansea UK   Entrusting the Word (2 Tim 2:2) 200 Jalan Sultan
#09-05
Textile Centre S
199018
tel: 62934349 SIngapore This is also Moriel events agent and partnering ministry in Singapore.
Dr. Jeff Loh Hephizah in Marlow Marlow C of E Infant School
Sandygate Road
Marlow
Bucks
SL7 3AZ UK This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak121799eba911985387377d8bb1b376bc').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy121799eba911985387377d8bb1b376bc = 'info' + '@'; addy121799eba911985387377d8bb1b376bc = addy121799eba911985387377d8bb1b376bc + 'hephzibah-marlow' + '.' + 'org' + '.' + 'uk'; var addy_text121799eba911985387377d8bb1b376bc = 'info' + '@' + 'hephzibah-marlow' + '.' + 'org' + '.' + 'uk';document.getElementById('cloak121799eba911985387377d8bb1b376bc').innerHTML += ''+addy_text121799eba911985387377d8bb1b376bc+'';
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak3d94002a5cfc6fe1ba2dabffac1e9308').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy3d94002a5cfc6fe1ba2dabffac1e9308 = 'hephzibahmarlow' + '@'; addy3d94002a5cfc6fe1ba2dabffac1e9308 = addy3d94002a5cfc6fe1ba2dabffac1e9308 + 'talktalk' + '.' + 'net'; var addy_text3d94002a5cfc6fe1ba2dabffac1e9308 = 'hephzibahmarlow' + '@' + 'talktalk' + '.' + 'net';document.getElementById('cloak3d94002a5cfc6fe1ba2dabffac1e9308').innerHTML += ''+addy_text3d94002a5cfc6fe1ba2dabffac1e9308+''; Hephzibah Oxford Marlow
tel: 01494 764913 UK This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak032f97caff73fedd3bdee23e0a4356f1').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy032f97caff73fedd3bdee23e0a4356f1 = 'enquiries' + '@'; addy032f97caff73fedd3bdee23e0a4356f1 = addy032f97caff73fedd3bdee23e0a4356f1 + 'hephzibah-marlow' + '.' + 'org' + '.' + 'uk'; var addy_text032f97caff73fedd3bdee23e0a4356f1 = 'enquiries' + '@' + 'hephzibah-marlow' + '.' + 'org' + '.' + 'uk';document.getElementById('cloak032f97caff73fedd3bdee23e0a4356f1').innerHTML += ''+addy_text032f97caff73fedd3bdee23e0a4356f1+'';
Cambridge: 01223 263427
Ipswich: 01473 730279 Leeds Messianic Fellowship Cragg Hill Baptist, Horsforth UK Richard
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak8a62e9f2b02b20f1273e648a687b2ede').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy8a62e9f2b02b20f1273e648a687b2ede = 'lmf' + '@'; addy8a62e9f2b02b20f1273e648a687b2ede = addy8a62e9f2b02b20f1273e648a687b2ede + 'tziloom' + '.' + 'net'; var addy_text8a62e9f2b02b20f1273e648a687b2ede = 'lmf' + '@' + 'tziloom' + '.' + 'net';document.getElementById('cloak8a62e9f2b02b20f1273e648a687b2ede').innerHTML += ''+addy_text8a62e9f2b02b20f1273e648a687b2ede+''; Morecambe Full Gospel Church Rainbow Centre
Clarence Street
Morecambe
LA4 5EZ
tel: 01524 426718 UK This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak1a7d0cce430c926375ac5cd8f54260f1').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy1a7d0cce430c926375ac5cd8f54260f1 = 'info' + '@'; addy1a7d0cce430c926375ac5cd8f54260f1 = addy1a7d0cce430c926375ac5cd8f54260f1 + 'mfgc' + '.' + 'net'; var addy_text1a7d0cce430c926375ac5cd8f54260f1 = 'info' + '@' + 'mfgc' + '.' + 'net';document.getElementById('cloak1a7d0cce430c926375ac5cd8f54260f1').innerHTML += ''+addy_text1a7d0cce430c926375ac5cd8f54260f1+''; Ohav Shalom Messianic Congregation 32500 Cathdral Canyon Dr.
Cathedral City, CA 92234
tel: (760) 775-0181 USA Messianic Hotline: (760) 837-SAVE Truth 4 Youth Mrs. Rosa Brighton
2, Broad Park Close
Croyde, North Devon
EX33 1NR UK These are conferences held in the UK which are designed for young people to engage with the issues of truth, discernment and relationships as the Bible teaches.
Graham & Suzie Gee
01929 472484
Rob & Rose Brighton
01271 890162

Any questions or comments can be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak15888520f60508cc415d66307c8cdc6f').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy15888520f60508cc415d66307c8cdc6f = 'morielcarol' + '@'; addy15888520f60508cc415d66307c8cdc6f = addy15888520f60508cc415d66307c8cdc6f + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text15888520f60508cc415d66307c8cdc6f = 'morielcarol' + '@' + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloak15888520f60508cc415d66307c8cdc6f').innerHTML += ''+addy_text15888520f60508cc415d66307c8cdc6f+''; . We do not give out Jacob's email address but you can reach Jacob by emailing Carol.


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('cloakbea02fce8ede6777dfe228f5276bb9db').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addybea02fce8ede6777dfe228f5276bb9db = 'moriel' + '@'; addybea02fce8ede6777dfe228f5276bb9db = addybea02fce8ede6777dfe228f5276bb9db + 'vic' + '.' + 'australis' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au'; var addy_textbea02fce8ede6777dfe228f5276bb9db = 'moriel' + '@' + 'vic' + '.' + 'australis' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au';document.getElementById('cloakbea02fce8ede6777dfe228f5276bb9db').innerHTML += ''+addy_textbea02fce8ede6777dfe228f5276bb9db+''; Moriel Australia
P O Box 112
Trafalgar, Vic 3824
Australia Canada Steven Boot, Representative
Tel: 780 675 2333
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak707c73dddff41711a7961344a2f382f1').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy707c73dddff41711a7961344a2f382f1 = 'canadamoriel' + '@'; addy707c73dddff41711a7961344a2f382f1 = addy707c73dddff41711a7961344a2f382f1 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text707c73dddff41711a7961344a2f382f1 = 'canadamoriel' + '@' + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloak707c73dddff41711a7961344a2f382f1').innerHTML += ''+addy_text707c73dddff41711a7961344a2f382f1+''; Moriel Canada
Box 1122
Athabasca, Alberta T9S 2A9
Canada Israel Elon Moreh, Representative
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak1352c02d70f2ef4108680b3d8540af25').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy1352c02d70f2ef4108680b3d8540af25 = 'moriel.israel' + '@'; addy1352c02d70f2ef4108680b3d8540af25 = addy1352c02d70f2ef4108680b3d8540af25 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text1352c02d70f2ef4108680b3d8540af25 = 'moriel.israel' + '@' + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloak1352c02d70f2ef4108680b3d8540af25').innerHTML += ''+addy_text1352c02d70f2ef4108680b3d8540af25+''; Moriel israel
PO Box 249
Nahariya, Israel 22102 Japan Geoff Toole
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakf54cf9b45dc28331cfdde7c4e301faed').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyf54cf9b45dc28331cfdde7c4e301faed = 'morieljapan' + '@'; addyf54cf9b45dc28331cfdde7c4e301faed = addyf54cf9b45dc28331cfdde7c4e301faed + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'co' + '.' + 'jp'; var addy_textf54cf9b45dc28331cfdde7c4e301faed = 'MorielJapan' + '@' + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'co' + '.' + 'jp';document.getElementById('cloakf54cf9b45dc28331cfdde7c4e301faed').innerHTML += ''+addy_textf54cf9b45dc28331cfdde7c4e301faed+''; 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('cloakf5957f27fb9ae268a417509f833f1a43').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyf5957f27fb9ae268a417509f833f1a43 = 'moriel' + '@'; addyf5957f27fb9ae268a417509f833f1a43 = addyf5957f27fb9ae268a417509f833f1a43 + 'vic' + '.' + 'australis' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au'; var addy_textf5957f27fb9ae268a417509f833f1a43 = 'moriel' + '@' + 'vic' + '.' + 'australis' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au';document.getElementById('cloakf5957f27fb9ae268a417509f833f1a43').innerHTML += ''+addy_textf5957f27fb9ae268a417509f833f1a43+''; 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('cloak4505885e43e4febedeaf05dc62a5add5').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy4505885e43e4febedeaf05dc62a5add5 = 'moriel' + '@'; addy4505885e43e4febedeaf05dc62a5add5 = addy4505885e43e4febedeaf05dc62a5add5 + 'vic' + '.' + 'australia' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au'; var addy_text4505885e43e4febedeaf05dc62a5add5 = 'moriel' + '@' + 'vic' + '.' + 'australia' + '.' + 'com' + '.' + 'au';document.getElementById('cloak4505885e43e4febedeaf05dc62a5add5').innerHTML += ''+addy_text4505885e43e4febedeaf05dc62a5add5+''; Moriel Australia
p O Box 112
Trafalgar, Vic 3824
Australia South Africa Dave Royle, Administrator
Tel: +27 (0) 28 423 3785
Cell: 0823739297
Voip Phone: 27 (0) 87 808 0506
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakc3992adb6f5d60edf9b11205598d8751').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyc3992adb6f5d60edf9b11205598d8751 = 'moriel.david' + '@'; addyc3992adb6f5d60edf9b11205598d8751 = addyc3992adb6f5d60edf9b11205598d8751 + 'gail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textc3992adb6f5d60edf9b11205598d8751 = 'moriel.david' + '@' + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloakc3992adb6f5d60edf9b11205598d8751').innerHTML += ''+addy_textc3992adb6f5d60edf9b11205598d8751+''; Moriel South Africa
P O Box 210
Napier 7270
Western Cape
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('cloak796667e808b12653c5c679a0b9a9a000').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy796667e808b12653c5c679a0b9a9a000 = 'allison' + '@'; addy796667e808b12653c5c679a0b9a9a000 = addy796667e808b12653c5c679a0b9a9a000 + 'moriel' + '.' + 'org' + '.' + 'uk'; var addy_text796667e808b12653c5c679a0b9a9a000 = 'allison' + '@' + 'moriel' + '.' + 'org' + '.' + 'uk';document.getElementById('cloak796667e808b12653c5c679a0b9a9a000').innerHTML += ''+addy_text796667e808b12653c5c679a0b9a9a000+''; 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('cloakb46007d86639a425f3d7a29cfacf03bf').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyb46007d86639a425f3d7a29cfacf03bf = 'morieldavid' + '@'; addyb46007d86639a425f3d7a29cfacf03bf = addyb46007d86639a425f3d7a29cfacf03bf + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textb46007d86639a425f3d7a29cfacf03bf = 'morieldavid' + '@' + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloakb46007d86639a425f3d7a29cfacf03bf').innerHTML += ''+addy_textb46007d86639a425f3d7a29cfacf03bf+''; Moriel USA
P O Box 100223
Pittsburgh, PA 15233
USA

BILLEDET HEROVER ER INSPIRERET AF AT BIBELEN BRUGER KORN/S †D, SOM ET BILLEDE P … GUDS ORD

- para los testigos de Jehov ¡
- para los Mormones
- para los Hind ºes