Moriel Ministries - BLOG

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

To enter this site, please choose a branch of Moriel Ministries nearest you or select a page from the menu above.

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('cloak16cf045be2cd0e17e260ecc777824b27').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy16cf045be2cd0e17e260ecc777824b27 = 'morielcarol' + '@'; addy16cf045be2cd0e17e260ecc777824b27 = addy16cf045be2cd0e17e260ecc777824b27 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text16cf045be2cd0e17e260ecc777824b27 = 'here';document.getElementById('cloak16cf045be2cd0e17e260ecc777824b27').innerHTML += ''+addy_text16cf045be2cd0e17e260ecc777824b27+''; 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

But I have another question. I"m told by the Jehovah's Witnesses that there is no immaterial component of man as such. The Greek word "pneuma" and the Greek word "psuchei" are virtually synonymous, they simply mean "breath". Now I know what those words mean. "Psuchei"  means "consciousness" €“ from which we get the word "psychology", and "pneuma" does come from the word for "breath" or "breathes". But when you die you are asleep. The dead know nothing, there is no spiritual component of man as such; no spirit. There is none. That"s what I am told by my friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses, by my acquaintances who I've met over the years who were Jehovah's Witnesses, who"ve come to my door. That's what they"ve told me.

I have a question: In Genesis 1:26 we"re made in God's image and He breathed into them and put a spirit into them. When Jesus died on the cross He said, "Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit".(Lk. 23:46) In the book of Acts when Stephen was martyred he said, "Lord I commend my spirit". (Acts 7:59) Why would Jesus say, "I commend My spirit to You" if it"s only breath? If it is not some kind of eternal consciousness that goes beyond biological life, why commend it? How can you commend your breath? "God take my breath; I"m going to die." That does not exactly make too much sense. How can it only be breath? It must be consciousness. "Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit." If there is not a spiritual component of men and women made in God's image and likeness that go beyond this that is conscious, why did Jesus commend it? Why did Stephen commend it?

Moriel Canada Urgent Ministry News & Information Hi, welcome to Moriel Canada,

We are in the process of setting up the  Canadian  branch of the Ministry, so please be patient as this  develops. We have at present  an post office box, office  and bank account if you were wanting to write to us (or support us)  as we  grow in  our profile. Our email address is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak4123c02d30d01c11d36746469dc2f3e6').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy4123c02d30d01c11d36746469dc2f3e6 = 'canadamoriel' + '@'; addy4123c02d30d01c11d36746469dc2f3e6 = addy4123c02d30d01c11d36746469dc2f3e6 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text4123c02d30d01c11d36746469dc2f3e6 = 'canadamoriel' + '@' + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloak4123c02d30d01c11d36746469dc2f3e6').innerHTML += ''+addy_text4123c02d30d01c11d36746469dc2f3e6+'';

There is also a  temporary webpage where you can also  leave a message or  comments. Be sure to to "like" us if you have a Facebook profile  
https://www.facebook.com/MorielCanada
Moriel Canada  
4909 49 street
PO Box 1122
Athabasca  
Alberta  T9S 1A0
Canada

Tel  780 675 2333

Blessings in Yeshua

Steven Boot (Ztiv)
Administrator Moriel Canada  

 NEWS: Jacob Prasch is coming to Canada ! August 15th -17th Abbotsford, BC. Learn to Discern Conference. See  http://www.ltdmin.com/  or contact ourselves for details.

Aug 18th - Riverside Calvary Chapel at Langley Meadows Community School (2244 Willoughby Way) Langley, BC

Moriel Canada Newsletter Sept 2013 Steve and Inger"s Biography

Was born in Portsmouth England, but having a Naval Father meant being raised across the U.K. and the world in various ports and bases including Singapore. The Lord ,  saved ,  me at age 16 by the witness of Jewish believers whilst working in a restaurant (The first time on hearing the gospel). Then through  God's supernatural intervention I ended up going to seminary at London Bible College, earning a degree in Theology where I co-led the campus Prayer for Israel group with Jacob Prasch. Ministered then in a number of short term projects, including Iceland and various other Scandinavian countries.

Met Inger, my  wife, at a missions base in Norway 1992. Two weeks after our marriage we were pastoring amongst the Inuit (Eskimo) people"s in the  Canadian Arctic. I Spent the next nine years at various mission posting across the Northwest Territories, ending up in the high  Arctic close to the Alaskan Border near the North Pole. Then after a spell in the Canadian military post 9/11, returned to the pastoral ministry. I left the Anglican ministry due to a series of serious doctrinal and moral differences on a range of issues from not accepting infant baptism to my objecting to homosexual ordination. Inger, my  wife, was raised in a Christian Home in Kristiansand, Norway. She follows in her father"s footsteps of ministering through music and Christian song. Prayer Requests Repeated Debate ChallengeJacob Prasch wishes to repeat his challenge to publicly debate Anglican Stephen Sizer on Sizer's contentions that Zionism is apartheid and that the modern state of Israel does not fulfill biblical prophecy.   As an Anglican in a church ordaining homosexual clergy and with a Druid Arch Bishop of Canterbury now calling for Britain to integrate elements of Islamic Sharia, anti Zionists like Sizer in a church with a pro Islamic hierarchical agenda must be challenged.

We are compelled by the evidence to regard Sizer as hypocritical and biblically ignorant and would relish the opportunity to demonstrate this in public debate before a video camera in a properly moderated format.      

It is also difficult for us not to additionally suspect Sizer of being a pseudo-academic fraud, but he at least deserves the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise in a public forum.

In view of the widespread persecution of Arab, Persian, Asian, and African Christians throughout the Moslem world it is nothing short of ludicrous that Sizer continually targets Israel as the perpetrator of injustice when Israel is the solitary country in The Middle East assuring the rights and security of its Christian population.

Our expectation is that Sizer will continue to run as usual. This however simply  serves to underscore the indefensible implausibility of his pseudo-scholarly and pseudo-biblical antics.

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.

How can you blaspheme an "it"? How can He only be an angel when the angels are called to worship Him and we"re told both in Psalm 45 and in Hebrews 1 He is God and there"s only one God. Please tell me how. How can I be expected to follow people who in the name of Jehovah predict things that have not happened when Jehovah commanded me and you to get away from them, and when your own organization says we shouldn"t follow people that do that? These questions are sincere and they are fair.

If what you believe is right, if your organization is really Jehovah"s organization, if it"s really the truth, I want to know it and I want to be part of it. But it"s false, do you want to be part of it? If what you say is right, I want to be part of it. If it"s false, do you want to be part of it anyway?

I know that if anyone left your organization that they"d be losing their family, their marriage, even their children, but Jesus said, "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me". (Mt. 10:37) Believe me, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, many people who"ve come to believe in Jesus have had to deal with that.

Now I'm convinced that Jesus was God who became a man, that He went to the cross in my place and paid for my sins on that cross, and that He  literally rose from the dead to give me eternal life. I"m convinced that"s true. And I"m convinced what He did for me He wants to do for you, but if I"m wrong I want to be proven wrong. I'll be happy to answer your questions, just write me or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak4b384acfa3ae80cfb40ca5e370c96547').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy4b384acfa3ae80cfb40ca5e370c96547 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy4b384acfa3ae80cfb40ca5e370c96547 = addy4b384acfa3ae80cfb40ca5e370c96547 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text4b384acfa3ae80cfb40ca5e370c96547 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak4b384acfa3ae80cfb40ca5e370c96547').innerHTML += ''+addy_text4b384acfa3ae80cfb40ca5e370c96547+''; , I'll answer your questions or write us here in Britain:

Moriel P.O. Box   201 Maidenhead SL69FB

I"m only asking one thing: Please answer mine. I've given you five sincere, honest questions. I'll be happy to talk to you, so will the person who directed you here. We"ll be happy to talk to you, just answer the questions.

Thank you, dear friends. We hope to hear from you.

The following resources were especially developed by Jacob as a result of his own spiritual search and personal research. Nothing here is intended to be mocking or derisive, but provided as legitimate questions needing to be answered by those who embrace these particular faiths. Anyone may contact Moriel directly for further information by sending an email to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak7febd9820adf79bcd3f860b7fae4dac6').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy7febd9820adf79bcd3f860b7fae4dac6 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy7febd9820adf79bcd3f860b7fae4dac6 = addy7febd9820adf79bcd3f860b7fae4dac6 + 'Yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text7febd9820adf79bcd3f860b7fae4dac6 = 'MorielCarol' + '@' + 'Yahoo' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloak7febd9820adf79bcd3f860b7fae4dac6').innerHTML += ''+addy_text7febd9820adf79bcd3f860b7fae4dac6+''; .


Jew

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. Jehovah's Witness

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. Catholic

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. Mormon

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. Read more €¦ Read more €¦ Read more €¦ Read more €¦ Muslim
"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. Hindu
"What I believe now is that Hindus and Christians are the same, we believe in the same god. Hindus are in actual fact Christians and Christians are Hindus €¦" Buddhist There are many things which dead me can"t do. One very important thing a dead man can"t do is to save a person"s soul. Read more €¦ Read more €¦ Read more €¦ Buddhist in Thai Unless otherwise noted, all materials are copyright © 2013 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('cloak9438b437a7052c3f5e345b978a7d90c4').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy9438b437a7052c3f5e345b978a7d90c4 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy9438b437a7052c3f5e345b978a7d90c4 = addy9438b437a7052c3f5e345b978a7d90c4 + 'Yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text9438b437a7052c3f5e345b978a7d90c4 = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloak9438b437a7052c3f5e345b978a7d90c4').innerHTML += ''+addy_text9438b437a7052c3f5e345b978a7d90c4+'';

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I would like to ask a third question of my Catholic friends.

Without doubt Mary " her real name was "Miryam" " Mary the mother of Jesus was the greatest woman who ever lived. The angel Gabriel. the archangel "Gabriy"el", "the mighty one of God" appeared to her and told her that God Himself would become incarnate inside of her, she would be the mother of the Messiah, the Savior, who would save His people from their sin. This is the greatest woman who ever lived. And the greatest woman who ever lived, who has ever lived, was told she"s going to be the mother of the Savior who would save His people from their sin in the Magnificat in St. Luke"s Gospel. (Lk. 1:46-55) The only thing that the greatest woman who ever lived could say when she was told she was the greatest woman who ever lived " "Blessed are you among women" (Lk. 1:42) " and she was told she"s going to be the mother of the Savior who would save His people from their sin is, "My spirit rejoices in God my Savior". (Lk. 1:47)

If the greatest woman who ever lived tells me that she needs to be saved from sin, that she needs a Savior when she's told she's going to be the mother of the Savior who would save people from sin, who am I to argue with the greatest woman who ever lived? Who am I to argue with St. Luke? When God says, "All have sinned, all fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23), "None is righteous, no not one", (Rom. 3:10) Well who am I to argue with God? I believe Mary, but we have Ineffablilis Deus, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

If all have sinned and all full short of the glory of God, and if Mary said she needs to be saved from sin, who do I believe: Mary or the Vatican? Personally, I believe Mary. I'm convinced Mary was right; I'm convinced that Mary told the truth; I'm convinced all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God.

The Roman church speculated and then deduced that if that was the case, Jesus would have been born from a sinful vessel. But if Mary had no sin, by the same token that would have to mean that Mary's mother had no sin, and that Mary's grandmother had no sin, and that Mary"s great-grandmother had no sin all the way back to Eve. But we know Eve had sin and we know Mary had sin.

Again, this doctrine was not proclaimed until modern times, until the 20th Century. Do you believe Mary was wrong?

We are told in the New Testament there is one intercessor between God and man, Jesus the righteous. (1 Tim. 2:5) One intercessor, onlyone, Jesus. Man can"t reach God so God had to reach man by becoming one of us. If there is one intercessor, how can I be expected to believe that Mary "co-redeemed" us, "co-saved" us, and she is the "co-mediatrix" if there"s only one Savior? The Hebrew prophets said all along, "Yahweh " God is our Savior; there is no Savior but Me". (Is. 43:11; Hos. 13:4) Only one Savior, only one intercessor.

Either we believe Mary or we believe the Vatican. I believe Mary. My question to you, my dear Catholic friends, is who do you believe?

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('cloak8078e86c32e44e878eca8a8a13411137').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy8078e86c32e44e878eca8a8a13411137 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy8078e86c32e44e878eca8a8a13411137 = addy8078e86c32e44e878eca8a8a13411137 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text8078e86c32e44e878eca8a8a13411137 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak8078e86c32e44e878eca8a8a13411137').innerHTML += ''+addy_text8078e86c32e44e878eca8a8a13411137+''; 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.

But I"d like to ask you yet another question. All over the world we are seeing scandals: Australia, New Zealand. Latin America. the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Europe. One month ago the largest Roman Catholic seminary in Austria, a Catholic country, was closed down. The largest collection of child pornography, most of it of a homosexual nature, ever uncovered anywhere in the history of the world was uncovered in the Roman Catholic seminary near Vienna. 40,000 photos of priests and so forth having sex with little boys and little girls. 40,000, plus the videos of older priests having sex with younger seminarians.

The largest collection of Internet child pornography: St. Joseph's Parish in Newcastle, England. 8,000 hours of child pornography placed on the Internet by Roman Catholic priests, presently in prison.

The cardinal of Sydney, Australia, the cardinal of Boston, Massachusetts, the cardinal of Los Angeles, the cardinal of London, England, and the cardinal of Ireland " to name but a few " and now the cardinal in Austria, all implicated in conspiracy to obstruct justice and protect pedophile priests and nuns at the expense of not protecting the children whose lives they destroy.

Over 4,000 cases in America. In Cincinnati, Ohio the archbishop pleads guilty " nolo contendere; diocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico bankrupt; archdiocese of Portland, Oregon bankrupt; in Texas and Houston, $120 million paid out to altar boys who"d been violated by priests.

What's happened in Ireland is unbelievable; it gets worse and worse.

Thirteen Roman Catholic nuns in Massachusetts raping deaf little girls with foreign objects. Where does it end? How can it be?

There are those who would have liked us to believe, and you to believe, that this is not purely a Roman Catholic phenomena. It is largely a Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic phenomena, the Anglo-Catholics being similar to the Roman Catholics ritually and so forth. There is far less of this among Protestants, far less among Jews, far less among Eastern Greek Orthodox, and in the Eastern rite of the Roman church, your own church " the "Latin rite" is the West, the "Greek rite" is the East " far less in your own Eastern rite.

Now why does the Latin rite have so much of this but your Eastern rite has so little? Why does the Eastern rite of the Roman church have no more than the Protestants or the Jews? Well the Latin rite has more than everybody, much more than all the rest put together. And why, with the disclosure of the Criminale Solicitacciones document from the Vatican archives going back to John XXIII, reiterated by Cardinal Ratzinger on behalf of John Paul II? Two years ago they were instructing bishops to protect these criminals, even transferring them internationally so they couldn"t be prosecuted, on the Vatican"s instruction. It"s remarkable.

You"ve perhaps heard of the "rat route", how the Roman Catholic Church protected Nazi war criminals like Eichmann and helped them escape to South America. One was arrested in France only a few years ago; he was hidden for more than 40 years. They used to help Nazis escape justice, now they help priests escape justice.

Now again, I"m only stating a fact. Why is there so much of this in the Roman church and so less in other churches? Why is there so much of it in the Latin rite but so little in your Eastern rite? I'm reading from the epistle of St. Paul to Timothy. In 1 Timothy 4:1…

But the Spirit…
…that is, the Holy Ghost…

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons…

…doctrines of devils.

by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage…

Why? In the New Testament, why if St. Paul, specifically instructed by the Holy Spirit, say requiring celibacy is a doctrine of devils, does your church practice it? When you outlaw what is natural, people will do things which are unnatural. When God created sex He said it was good in the book of Genesis. That is why even in your own church you find it only in the Latin rite, not in the Greek. That is why you don't find it among rabbis or Protestant ministers in anything like the same proportion. It"s a doctrine of devils.

St. Peter was married, his wife"s name was Deborah. Most of the apostles were married. To forbid it would be a doctrine of devils. What can be more demonic, more Satanic, more evil, than having sex with little children and doing so in the name of Jesus Christ? How can something be so Satanic? Because it comes from a doctrine of demons. How can you as a Roman Catholic believe in a religion that practices what is plainly and clearly called a doctrine of devils, and you see the fruit of it in the newspapers every single day of the year? How can you defend it? How can you defend a doctrine of devils and the devastation it causes to little children?

Jesus said, "Suffer the children unto Me for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". (Mt. 19:14; Mk. 10:14) He said it would be better if a millstone were tied around your neck and cast into the sea than hurt one of these little ones. (Mt. 18:6; Mk. 9:42; Lk. 17:2) He didn't say rape them as your clergy does. Not all of your clergy, no, but your hierarchy protects and covers up for it, and other clergy have admitted on the witness stand they knew what was going on for years and kept their mouth shut to protect their colleagues who did it, instead of the children who suffered it, It is a doctrine of devils.

Why do you believe in something so wicked, something so antagonistic to the nostrils of Christ, something that"s unthinkable in the dimension of evil and occupies? Why do you believe in a church that teaches a doctrine of devils? That's my question: Do you really believe such people are the guardians of your soul?

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

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

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

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

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

The epistle to the Hebrews 9:12…

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

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

Chapter 10 of Hebrews, verse 12…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please contact us. My name is James Jacob Prasch. Please This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak918791354218e934d76d589e8a3ef56a').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy918791354218e934d76d589e8a3ef56a = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy918791354218e934d76d589e8a3ef56a = addy918791354218e934d76d589e8a3ef56a + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text918791354218e934d76d589e8a3ef56a = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak918791354218e934d76d589e8a3ef56a').innerHTML += ''+addy_text918791354218e934d76d589e8a3ef56a+''; , e-mail us, with your questions. We have people who will be more than happy to talk to you. If you"re a priest or a nun we"d be happy to engage with you. Please contact us. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak9a2feb79da8b30e3e8b983e549eded31').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy9a2feb79da8b30e3e8b983e549eded31 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy9a2feb79da8b30e3e8b983e549eded31 = addy9a2feb79da8b30e3e8b983e549eded31 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text9a2feb79da8b30e3e8b983e549eded31 = 'E-mail us';document.getElementById('cloak9a2feb79da8b30e3e8b983e549eded31').innerHTML += ''+addy_text9a2feb79da8b30e3e8b983e549eded31+''; or write us here in Britain:

Moriel P.O. Box 201 Maidenhead SL69FB

God bless you and thank you for listening.

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.

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?

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?

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"?

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('cloakef67a75153cb8454927b7e7c084181e9').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyef67a75153cb8454927b7e7c084181e9 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyef67a75153cb8454927b7e7c084181e9 = addyef67a75153cb8454927b7e7c084181e9 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textef67a75153cb8454927b7e7c084181e9 = 'e-mail us';document.getElementById('cloakef67a75153cb8454927b7e7c084181e9').innerHTML += ''+addy_textef67a75153cb8454927b7e7c084181e9+''; 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.

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('cloaka9e26357ee7afc503c82ef31a2112a36').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addya9e26357ee7afc503c82ef31a2112a36 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addya9e26357ee7afc503c82ef31a2112a36 = addya9e26357ee7afc503c82ef31a2112a36 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_texta9e26357ee7afc503c82ef31a2112a36 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloaka9e26357ee7afc503c82ef31a2112a36').innerHTML += ''+addy_texta9e26357ee7afc503c82ef31a2112a36+''; . 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.

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('cloake8625b2a947d23f784e70d0304e0712b').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addye8625b2a947d23f784e70d0304e0712b = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addye8625b2a947d23f784e70d0304e0712b = addye8625b2a947d23f784e70d0304e0712b + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_texte8625b2a947d23f784e70d0304e0712b = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloake8625b2a947d23f784e70d0304e0712b').innerHTML += ''+addy_texte8625b2a947d23f784e70d0304e0712b+''; ; 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 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.

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('cloak0c300619b1a917837ef8d4fd41d4c2ca').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy0c300619b1a917837ef8d4fd41d4c2ca = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy0c300619b1a917837ef8d4fd41d4c2ca = addy0c300619b1a917837ef8d4fd41d4c2ca + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text0c300619b1a917837ef8d4fd41d4c2ca = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak0c300619b1a917837ef8d4fd41d4c2ca').innerHTML += ''+addy_text0c300619b1a917837ef8d4fd41d4c2ca+''; 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.

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?

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('cloakd0f6ac1c3b05c15a68b8be136306d41f').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyd0f6ac1c3b05c15a68b8be136306d41f = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyd0f6ac1c3b05c15a68b8be136306d41f = addyd0f6ac1c3b05c15a68b8be136306d41f + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textd0f6ac1c3b05c15a68b8be136306d41f = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloakd0f6ac1c3b05c15a68b8be136306d41f').innerHTML += ''+addy_textd0f6ac1c3b05c15a68b8be136306d41f+'';

"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.

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.

by James Jacob Prasch

What Ever Happened To Matthew 24?

On Your Walls O Jerusalem I Have Appointed Watchmen; All Day And All Night they Will Never Keep Silent. You Who Remind the Lord Take No Rest For Yourselves (Isaiah 62:8).
The prophetic watchman of Jerusalem and Judah, then and nowIt was Isaiah who first prophesied God would raise up watchman concerning the forthcoming events in the history of the Hebrews generally, and their country Judah specifically, with special reference to their capital Jerusalem, where the Temple and Holy Ark were located - God's presence with them. As the events prophetically predicted by Isaiah unfolded we indeed see God calling the Prophet Ezekiel as the definitive watchman in the scriptural usage of the word (Ezekiel 3:17, 33:7), and it is Ezekiel that biblically most demonstrates what a watchman is and what he does.

But first we must note that it is not a term found in the New Testament, it firstly was an office for the ancient Hebrews. Therefore, although there are without doubt those functioning as 'watchmen' in the church, in order to grasp their raison d'etre we must first grasp their Old Testament nature exemplified in Ezekiel (the only individual specifically called a 'watchman'). We need to understand some of the differences between Old and New Testament prophets (which despite the license that cessationists effectively issue themselves to pronounce passages of scripture not to their liking null and void, still do exist in the church - eg. 1 Corinthians 12:29 & 14:32).

One difference is not that Old Testament prophets had to be always right (Deuteronomy 18: 20-22), but since 'we prophesy in part', New Testament prophets could be part right and part wrong. Such perversions of 1 Corinthians 13 out of all reasonable context is the justification people in the Vineyard Movement invented to justify proven false prophets such as Mike Bickel, Paul Cain, Gerald Coates, and Rick Joyner to still be considered prophets after they made God's people trust in a lie (Jeremiah 28:15-17). There is nothing in the grammatical construction of the Greek text warranting such a wild concept and nothing in the context even in an English translation. Like their cessationist opposites, these too pervert the text.

A prime difference between Old and New Testament prophets is that to have a prophetic ministry today even to Israel (or to any nation) one must be a saved believer whether Jew or Gentile, there were no saved believers in the New Testament sense before the Messiah. Additionally, Corinthians tells us prophetic ministry can also be to the church, which did not exist as such in the Old Testament. New Testament prophecy moreover may be purely for exhortation, edification and consolation (1 Corinthians 14:3), and may but need not necessarily contain a 'watchman' element in the Old Testament sense. Israel's prophets warned and called the people back to the Torah in repentance as well as encouraging etc.

The most essential difference however is that Old Testament prophets wrote the canon of Old Covenant scripture as the Apostles wrote the New Testament. Even the Hebrew prophets warned and called the people back to the Law, and predicted on the basis of things written in the Hebrew canon before them (Daniel 9:2); but the entirety of the bible had not yet been written, so there was further doctrinal revelation. Now that the canon is complete there is no new doctrinal revelation (Revelation 22:18-19), only a clearer understanding in the Last Days of what is already in there (Daniel 12:4). As we read in the prologue of the Epistle To the Hebrews 1:1 'God in times long past spoke to the patriarchs in prophets in many ways, but in the Last Days He has spoken to us through His Son'. Thus any predictive prophetic ministry in the form of warning as in a 'watchman's' function will need not only be in character with the prophetic watchman of ancient Israel such as Ezekiel, but be in accord with what is already revealed in both the New Testament and in the Old Testament as the Old Covenant is interpreted and fulfilled in the New Testament revelation in and of Christ.

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 out of character with the biblical model. Again, in the bible as we saw with Ezekiel, the watchman ministry often had particular although not exclusive reference to Jerusalem and Judah. It is therefore no coincidence that the first major example of New Testament prophetic ministry was by Agabus specifically concerning the plight of the believers in Jerusalem and Judah (Acts11:27-30). As we note, when God commissioned the watchman, he was also to be an assayer of the people. Ezekiel called the people to repentance and denounced the lunacy and deceivers who misled the nation. Thus understood biblically any watchman in Jerusalem today will be in that character - calling the Jewish nation to repent and accept Yeshua as Messiah and warn against the lunatics and deceivers for which Jerusalem is a virtual magnet. Today however there are unscriptural organizations sucking large sums of mission support from Jewish and Arab evangelism and the local Israeli congregations refusing to preach Jesus in Jerusalem to His own people. These include 'Bridges For Peace' (when biblically there can be no peace without 'the Prince of Peace') and the so-called International Christian Embassy with its notorious history of infighting and heresy and in one case violence perpetrated against an Israeli Messianic Jew while he was preaching the gospel by the embassy's Jim Schutz and threats by embassy personal on another occasion, that included hostility towards believing Jewish children during their 'Feast of Tabernacles'. God's Word of course teaches the only Christian ambassadors in Jerusalem are those who preach Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20) and no other.

A major Christian magazine, itself known for its endorsement of hyper charismatic extremism, exposed Ruth Hefflin's group on the Mount of Olives who displayed footage of women with "miraculous gold dust in their hair". A metallurgical analysis however revealed it was plastic based stationery glitter. Hefflin's miracle gold was exposed as bogus. Yet her followers seem to claim a prophetic calling in Jerusalem! Perhaps the saddest excuse for a watchman in Jerusalem has become Lance Lambert who teamed up with the most extreme example of Toronto style 'charismania' ever captured on video in the person of Mahesh Chavada. The antics of shirtless people yodelling and swinging swords in church yelling 'Prepare For War' in a manifest sons style ritual was the most bizarre demonstration of charismatic chaos imaginable. Chavada has in the past been associated with the Christian Embassy ( who have imported a variety of heretics into Israel including Morris Cerullo), but despite the protestations of many of his friends, Mr. Lambert joined his colleague Chavada in the Cranbourne fiasco. Biblical watchmen in Jerusalem, as assayers of the people, tried to protect God's people from lunacy and deception. While Mr. Lambert is misrepresented as a watchman in Jerusalem, far from protecting God's people from deception and lunacy he in fact joins forces with it. Whatever Lance Lambert may be, he is certainly no watchman.

Israel and Jewish ministry are breeding grounds for every assortment of 'kooks' imaginable, including false watchmen. Genuine messianic bible teachers explaining the original Jewish context of the scriptures like Arnold Fruchtenbaum and Dwight Pryor must contend with the competition from proven heretics like Joseph B. Goode and Peter Michas (who deny the Tri-unity of the God Head as One God in Three Persons). They are heretics who are ignorant of Hebraics and Rabbinics, yet represent themselves as Messianic Bible Teachers teaching Hebrew Roots, and are likewise seen by their followers as watchmen, but aren't. Perhaps the most notorious false watchman of this category has been Michael Brown of the Brownsville Assembly of God clone of the Toronto deception in Pensacola. At a Jerusalem messianic conference several years ago Brown interpreted the national disaster of forest fires destroying nearly a quarter of Israel's reforested land as emblematic of 'God pouring out His Spirit'. Brown then had people up half the night awaiting a second Pentecost in Jerusalem! Nothing of course happened, and not surprisingly Brown wound up a 'watchman' in Pensacola.

Finally, watchman were most of all as Isaiah stipulated, 'to remind the Lord' of His covenant promises to Israel and give themselves no rest in the process. The Covenant promise of course is the New covenant promised to Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31). The emphasis of a real watchman in Jerusalem will always be prayer and intercession reminding the Lord of His promise to save Israel (Romans 11:25). Some of the counterfeit watchmen today are influenced by the 'identity movement' deceptions related to the myth of British Israelism, such as are propagated in Northern Ireland by Elim's Jim McConnell at Whitewell in Belfast. Such nonsense of course is void of any serious biblical or anthropological merit and in certain cases its proponents are clearly anti Semitic. As such, these 'would be' watchmen are given to the doctrinal errors of supercessionism or replacement theology and the hideous notions of such teachers of error as the late Charles Alexander (other more moderate reformed preachers like Charles Spurgeon affirmed the prophetic purposes of God for Israel and the Jews as did the Puritans). Therefore such people must automatically divorce 'watchman ministry' from its biblical context, which is first of all largely Judaic. This is simply not scriptural. Even when we apply the watchman ministry to the church, the same principles seen for example in Ezekiel must still apply or they cannot be legitimate watchmen.The preachers who cried 'wolf!'Another contemporary category of watchmen who are not watchmen is more painful to describe. These are not all necessarily wilful deceivers, false prophets, hyper charismatic lunatics, religious con artists, anti Semites, or heretics. On the contrary, most are sincere believers, genuine in their motives, and often people otherwise gifted for a valid ministry - which they should stick to instead of trying to play a role God has plainly not called them to fulfill. In the aftermath of the Y2K foolishness, we speak of course of 'The Preachers Who Cried Wolf'. These are true brethren who are na ¯ve, lacking in discernment, and in certain areas deficient in spiritual wisdom and Christian maturity. Above all they proved themselves as not having the depth of doctrinal and theological grasp of scripture they imagined they did. I am not prepared to judge them or their motives. If their open folly was a matter of pride, ignorance, or just plain gullibility or some combination of these things I am not prepared to say. Yet, as we read in 1 Thessalonians, such crazy things created problems in the apostolic church at the close of the First century. This precise kind of foolishness continued throughout the church age from the Montanists at the close of the Second Century to Pope Sylvester's hollow parousia at the close of the 10th century when the second Julian millennium began, to the Munster Anabaptists at the close of the 16th century, to the Shakers at the close of the 18th Century, to the Millerites at the close of the 19th Century. Is it any surprise it has occurred again at the close of the 20th century? As Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones said; "If we fail to learn the lessons of church history we are doomed to repeat the errors". Thanks to the watchmen who are not watchmen, we have.

It is no coincidence that many of these 'self proclaimed instead of God ordained' watchmen, such as Morris Cerullo advocate Grant Jeffrey, similarly went with the Bible Codes absurdity, and other such groundless fads. The real problem however is not as much with the watchmen who are not watchmen, but with those who continue following these fads. Sadly, this fad-to-fad pattern exactly mimics the behavior of the people who still follow false prophets with failed prophetic predictions of Revival from Kansas City to Toronto to Pensacola (the latest is Wykoff, New Jersey and some little town in Missouri) even though they know they were wrong the last time (Jeremiah 5:30-31). Concerning things like Y2K, there is in the secular world a certain unstable and insecure personality type identified even by secular psychiatric medicine with an almost paranoid predisposition to conspiracy theories. They piece together odd bits of vaguely related data and conjecture a grand conspiracy theory which they become convinced is fact and it becomes their obsession to alert everyone. I do not hold much belief in secular psychology, but this is indeed a compulsive disorder. This is not to belittle the kind of deception that exists in the world of global politics. Many very knowledgeable people never doubted the American government for instance conspired to cover up essential facts about the Kennedy assassination involving dubious activity by the intelligence community. This however was born out of forensic investigation and investigative journalism, not wild speculation.

The problem for the church comes when these kinds of people become Christians and retain their paranoid concoctions, repackaging them under the eschatological guise of end times biblical prophecy, and call it a 'watchman ministry' of some description. The Internet is literally loaded with such irresponsible rubbish. It is the devotees of such silly rambling that swallowed the Y2K foolishness.

I do not doubt that Freemasonry is demonic, influenced by Felix Weisshaupt's illuminism and is something no saved Christian should ever be a member of. Many of the most pivotal figures in the sphere of international finance, law and politics are Freemasons. But to argue vociferously as some do that a Masonic conspiracy exists to seat the anti Christ in control of the global economy is unwarranted. There are clearly plans of Satan afoot today with de facto conspiracies to reunite Christendom under the anti Christ institution of the Roman Catholic papacy. But this view is not based on conjecture, but rather published and substantiated fact. So too are plans to ramrod Great Britain into a federal Europe at the expense of sovereignty and some would say political liberty without what many people would consider democratic process. Events in Europe and the Middle East today are of tremendous prophetic significance and there is much going on of a conspiratorial nature. But investigating such things requires both a sound biblical position, and sanctified journalistic skills.

There are those such as Christian journalist David Dolan or University journalism lecturer Bill Alnor whom God has called to review current events with a biblical eye. But God has rather called Chuck Missler to biblical exposition and Barry Smith to evangelism. For me it has been a personal tragedy to see, among others, two such outstanding brothers make public fools of themselves, discredit their ministry, and eclipse much of the good they have otherwise achieved with a preposterous level of unfounded, badly researched, and unbiblical alarmism that only a low grade tabloid would publish. Their videos have gone out, and now the world is laughing at us, and Moriel is being deluged with complaints of people who feel misled by ministries we endorsed. In fact, Moriel promoted Dave Hunt's book on Y2K calling it 'mass hysteria'. While I felt no need to do so personally, I do not fault those who picked up a few cases of long shelf life food and extra batteries as a precaution. But Jesus said not to be anxious about what we eat etc., yet in open defiance of His command there were those preachers going around to churches delivering seminars promoting anxiety.

A watchman on Zion's walls would blow a clear series of notes with his trumpet that sounded a proper alarm (Joel 2:1,Jeremiah 4:5, Hosea 8:1, Amos 3:16). A cacophony of mixed notes tells no one anything but only generates further confusion (1 Corinthians 14:8). People look to leaders for clear, unmixed signals. Instead today they are getting mixed signals only compounding the confusion. When David Pawson's followers looked to him for a clear biblical direction on the last days deception of the Toronto Experience he wrote a book entitled: 'Is the Blessing Biblical?'. It gave just such a mixed signal, saying that the light was neither red nor green, but yellow - and concluded telling people to proceed into Toronto with caution. The light in fact was red. The Fruit of the Holy Spirit is self control (ekreitei), not the lack of it, and as true watchmen predicted no revival came from Toronto. The fact it was a mixture of good and bad indicated it was an impurity (akatharsis) proving it was not of God (Greek text of 1 Thessalonians 2:3), and the fact that it mixed true doctrine with error (parasouxousin) proved it was a deception (Greek text of 2 Peter 2:2). David Pawson himself watched the videos of Rodney Howard Browne and Kenneth Copeland yet, as Isaiah predicted leaders one day would, he tottered when rendering judgment while they reeled with wine (Isaiah 28:7). In these Last Days we don't need those who totter and send mixed signals, but watchmen who sound a clear alarm. Neither do we need watchmen who are not watchmen sounding false alarms. Several years ago Barry Smith issued a public statement distancing himself from my stated opposition to the Toronto Experience, as he himself had been preaching in churches that were into this deception, (although he himself was not). My argument was that Jesus never told us to make converts but disciples, and placing converts into Toronto churches such as Richmond Assembly of God in Melbourne, Australia was not biblical discipleship. Indeed, Jesus told the Pharisees that they went to the ends of the earth for one convert and made him twice the son of hell as themselves. Under Brian Houston and his predecessor Andrew Evans the Australia Assemblies of God has become a whirlwind of everything from the hype artistry of Hill Song to the heresy of Benny Hinn. It has gone almost as far away from the bible as Elim in the UK.

I say it not to criticize Brother Barry, yet I myself turned down TV programs offered to me in both America and Britain because I would not associate with heresy. Each day I ask the Lord not to allow the work of the Lord, as important as it is, to become more important to me than the Lord of the work, lest the ministry itself becomes an idol. The day I compromise biblical truth to get a platform is the day there is no further point in me even having a platform as far as God is concerned. Brother Barry stated in his published announcement about me that 'God called him not to criticize but to preach the gospel and to prepare the church for the last days'. When a gospel preacher places people saved under his ministry into zoos instead of bible-based churches, there is a serious deviation from God's bible stated standards. In the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24&25, Luke 21), Jesus warned of Middle East events surrounding Jerusalem: wars, rumors of wars, pestilence, and increased famines and earthquakes once each. However Jesus warned of deception perpetrated against the elect and false prophets four times. He did not warn of computer failures causing widespread chaos even once. If someone is called to prepare the church for the last days, why do they not concentrate on alerting the church to the rife deception as Jesus said, in the very churches they preach in - instead of compromising what Jesus said for the sake of keeping a platform in order to concentrate on alerting the church about things Jesus never even mentioned as signs of the end such as Y2K, and making themselves look utterly ridiculous in the process?

Predictably, the most extreme proponents of Y2K mania were not Pentecostals, but hyper-calvinists such as Reconstructionist Gary North, D. James Kennedy and R.C. Sproul as well as the more moderately Calvinistic Jerry Falwell. The Post millennialism of Calvinism is one pillar of Dominion ('Kingdom Now') theology, while charismania and extreme Pentecostalism the other pillar. So too, Calvinistic determinism was a pillar of American slavery and South African Apartheid and it is one pillar of prosperity theology, while Charismania and hyper-Pentecostalism, represented by sensationalists like Jeffrey, are the other. It is therefore not surprising that both extreme Pentecostals and extreme charismatics were but one faction caught up in the Y2K frenzy, while hyper-Calvinists were the other. Worst of all was the virtual scare mongering of Michael Hyatt propagated with the assistance of James Dobson's 'Focus On the Family'. I have never had any regard whatsoever for the so called ministries of an anti Israel theonomist like Gary North, much less an out and out son of Judas like Jerry Falwell who among other outrages commended Korean anti Christ Sun Yung Moon (who claims to be 'Lord of the Second Advent'; eg. 'The returned Christ') as "an unsung hero". As was noted by Hank Hanegraaff, Grant Jeffrey has a track record that had already established him as a crackpot. But I personally however have always appreciated the ministries of both Chuck Missler and Barry Smith, as I have to a lesser degree appreciated R.C. Sproul, (at least for his anti ecumenical stance), and for their sakes as well I am very sorry to see the Y2K rubbish leaving them looking like a public spectacle. May the Lord provide the grace to prevent me from going off into the futility of some ludicrous speculation. When a gifted minister of the Word deviates away from the Word into a focus of his own design, he winds up reducing himself to the level of a crackpot. Here lies the unfortunate result, because both Barry and Chuck are not crackpots. Yet that is precisely what their Y2K antics have been left appearing to be.

Some of the Y2K crowd, for all of their outlandish folly and the damage they have done to the church and to themselves, are still our brothers in Christ (such as Barry Smith and Chuck Missler). They are not those impostors of the Last Days who are deceiving and being deceived mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:13 - so why did they behave like them?

The real problem however is not that their predictions of nuclear cataclysm, mass power failures, social and political calamity, huge air crash disasters, and a global economic meltdown did not happen (Italy spent only 1.5 million pounds on Y2K preparation compared to Britain's nearly half billion and nothing happened in Italy). The real problem is that when events that are truly of some crucial prophetic importance take place and the real watchman sound the alarm, the world and indeed much of the church will now think it is just another false alarm. I hate to say anything good about the devil, but he certainly knows his business. If he can use misguided Christians to engineer deception and mislead the church, what better pawns can he have? The Last Days are too serious a time and biblical prophecy too serious a subject for those clearly not called to it to pretend that they are and hurt the church. We must have real watchmen. Let us pray that the watchman who are not watchmen will display the integrity to apologize to the body and ask God to repair the damage done to the church's credibility and to their own.The false Maccabees, Ruckmanites, Constance Cumby, and the Cyber-cultIn Daniel 11: 33-35 we read what some theologians term a 'double prophecy'. Daniel makes a prediction of what Matthias the Maccabee and his sons John, Eleazar, Jonathan, and Yehudah would do in the face of the deception of Antiochus IV (known as Epiphanus) who slaughtered a swine in the temple, outlawed Jewish observance of the Torah, hellenised and paganised the popular culture, and set up an image of Zeus in the temple with his own features. He was of course a major type of the anti Christ and up to verse 36 of the chapter there was a historic fulfillment by this mad Selucid King. The anti Christ will replay the saga of Antiochus Epiphanus and recapitulate his deeds, then after verse 36 go even further. Like Antiochus he will achieve much of this by intrigue and deceit (we explain this on the Daniel & Maccabees tapes and video series). As at that time there were the Maccabees who gave understanding to the many, so too in the last days 'those who know their God will take action' when the covenant is violated.

I have no doubt that the Ecumenical movement is a prelude to the rebirth of Babylon the Great in Revelation and that deceptions like Pensacola are preludes to the Great apostasy of Thessalonians. With the current drive for a false peace with Islam in Israel and the reconfederation of the Roman Empire via a pseudo-democratic federal Europe, the juxtaposition of these trends and the constellation of events that result indeed are setting the stage for the Man of Sin which Antiochus, among others, typifies and foreshadows (explained in greater depth on 'The Judeo-Christian Understanding of the Antichrist' tape and video series). There will be those who know their God, will take action, and give insight to the many. But as in the days of Antiochus, there will likewise be those who join with them in hypocrisy and betray them (two of the original Maccabees were killed as a result of internal betrayal). However, we already see the embryo of this in existence. There are those pretending to be watchmen, alerting the church, allies in the cause of truth calling themselves 'Discernment Ministries'; but who are largely a collection of charlatans, frauds, and deceivers with their own agenda who already betray the cause.

These people have much in common and tend to imitate each other, akin to the conspiracy theorists operating along the same kind of line. They postulate things on the basis of conjecture, and those not agreeing with them are branded as false or even New Agers in disguise.

Constance Cumby, who herself has published statements supportive of Roman Catholicism, has attacked Dave Hunt. Kevin Burgess (a real 'cyberworld fruit cake' if there ever was one) has attacked Mike Oppenheimer, a Jewish brother who directs the Hawaii based TV and radio discernment ministry 'Come Let Us Reason'. Tex Marrs has attacked a host of good people including Dave Hunt. Two things seem to characterize these false watchman. The first is that they are 'would be' Christian academics who merely have theological veneers with no real background in any scholarly sense in the matters in which they profess expertise. One need not be an intellectual to be a minister or have discernment, but one must have the qualifications to know what one is talking about. Peter, in his epistle, left scholarly matters to Paul, and some scholarly matters Paul appears to have left to Apollos. People of this ilk such as Gail Riplinger, Barbara Aho, Victoria Dillen, Wendy Howard and Richard Engstrom would be laughed out of any academic forum, but sincere believers not trained in academic theology can be sucked in by their endless production of nonsense, often bordering on pure idiocy. The second thing that defines the false watchmen of this category is their ceaseless propensity to defame and slander true watchmen.

The foundational strata of these false Maccabees are undoubtedly the Ruckmanites, named after their patriarch Peter Ruckman, who is on his third marriage after yet another divorce. Ruckman holds the view that the King James Version of the bible is the only one authorized by God to the point of virtual heresy, claiming that even the additions of the 1611 edition not found in ancient manuscripts are further revelation. Not all of Ruckmanites agree with all of Ruckman's extremes, but they are all influenced by him. The worst of these is Gail Riplinger, who was debunked as a charlatan and a fraud when Christian Research Institute revealed that she can not even read Greek and that her academic credentials are not in theology or in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscript analysis (basic skills as essential in bible translation as anatomy and physiology are in medicine, or mathematics is in engineering) but absurdity of absurdities, rather in home economics! Unfortunately, instead a writing a thesis on cost effective detergents which she may be qualified to do, she published an outlandish book on 'New Age Bible Versions', doing more harm to the cause of protecting textual orthodoxy from paraphrases, Roman Catholic annotated bibles, and the censored and politically correct 'inclusive version' (dealt with on our tape 'Bible Versions').

Let me state that Moriel and I have no problem with the KJV, I read it devotionally myself. And I respect how God in times past has used it. More to the point, who cannot value the noble heritage of Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Coverdale from whose labors it arises? I am additionally perfectly open to considering serious scholarly arguments from academically qualified Christian sources concerning their theories of Textus Receptus etc. (again, we refer our readers to our own audio on the subject). But these people will have no association with Ruckman or Gail Riplinger. The Trinitarian Bible Society as one example made it clear in print that they do not wish to be identified with her or her book. There have been excellent books on the reliability of New Testament manuscripts authored by reliable scholars such as F.F. Bruce and Dr. Craig Blohmberg. Ruckman, Engstrom, Aho, Dillen, Marrs and Riplinger however are not scholars. Neither are they watchmen. They are mere fakers who only wish they were and pretend to be.

Again the pseudo-academic pretense of these people is at times laughable. When Engstrom was confronted with my response to his nonsensical insistence that the New Testament did not use Midrash citing two known scholars (R.N. Longenecker and John Lightfoot), he reacted by saying only two scholars ever agreed with me (after implying at first there were none). Had Engstrom read Longenecker's bibliography before replying to me on Internet, he would have seen that there are at least 58, and not made a public joke of himself! Another case was Paul Fahy who objected to our critique of the Reformers as not having gone far enough and took exception to our views on the Judaic background of the New Testament. Among other things he insisted that Paul used Greco-Roman concepts such as a Roman legionnaire's armor, not knowing that Paul's usage was simply a recontextualisation of the Hebrew armor straight out of Isaiah 59:17 & Isaiah 52:7. He also asserted that he knew of no scholar who ever attributed Gnostic influences to Augustine, while every first year seminary student knows that Augustine had been a member of the Gnostic Manichean sect. While no scholarly source would attribute any credibility to such people, the average well meaning Christian unfortunately just may.

Along a similar line is hyper-Calvinist Peter Glover, who ignorantly equated Midrash with gnosticism, only to have it pointed out in the public arena that it was a renowned Puritan hyper-Calvinist theologian who first documented Midrash in the New Testament and wrote the first Midrashic commentary on the New Testament. Like Cumby who assails other discernment ministries while she herself is party to serious doctrinal error and ecumenical deception, Glover, likewise attacking other valid discernment ministries such as Michael Penfold professes to be an anti charismatic/anti Pentecostal. Yet he himself teamed up with Patrick Dixon in an AIDS charity. Dixon is the most extreme and experiential of charismatics who is a virtual mystic and who teaches New Age experiences such as 'Altered States of Consciousness' as manifestations of the Holy Spirit and grounds for irrational behavior.

We again point out that while generally having the beliefs of Ruckman and Riplinger about the King James Version etc. and being clearly influenced by them, not all follow them to the same degree. Yet, Cyber cultists like Aho, Dillen, Thomas Lamb, and Engstrom with their Ruckmanite and identity movement leanings can be operationally compared to small time gangsters. They do not have the organization, crooked lawyers, money-laundering accountants, or power of a professional criminal. This is like what happens when the cyber cultists get access to the Internet. Most cyber cultists have no church membership, do no evangelism, discipleship or anything else biblically ordained as a normal aspect of Christian discipleship. Theirs is mainly a cyber church where like their paranoid conspiracy theorist counterparts of the secular world they carry on the latest conjecture and attack anyone not getting on board, once more only revealing their ignorance each step of the way.

One recent example of this was their aversions to 'The Star of David'. This aversion is partially shaped by the anti Semitism of the identity movement with which the cyber cult is favored. The identity movement in turn is influenced not only by British Israelism but by the misogenic Manifest Sons/Latter Day Rain heretic William Branham who held to serpent seed beliefs and cursed the Trinity. It is no coincidence for example that Engstrom's partner in the "US1" email network circulates email statements supportive of Branham.

In fact in Judaism, what non-Jews wrongly call the Star of David is actually known as 'The Shield of David' or Magen David and is not seen as a star. Its rabbinic interpretation is the configuration of the 12 tribes around the holy Ark sojourning through the wilderness. It was indeed a pre Christian pagan symbol in Babylon, Phoenicia, and Egypt. But only as the cross was a pre Christian pagan symbol in Celtic Britain and Ireland. The menorah, not the Star of David was the actual ancient symbol of the Jews (and is still the symbol of the State of Israel and the official seal on Israeli government legal documents). So too, the fish, not the cross was the original Christian symbol. The fish also had been a pagan symbol of worship of the fish god dagon (as in the Old Testament). It is a five star pentagram that is a satanic emblem, not a six pointed Star of David. Both these Christian and Jewish symbols had pagan equivalents. The Hebrew Temple had architectural parallels in pagan Egypt and the Flood Narrative in Genesis has a literary parody in the Myth of Gilgemesh and the Masonic Jahbalon is a trinity. Do surface parallelisms dismiss something as evil?

It is rather what the symbol means in a given historical setting and cultural context that determines if it is evil or not. The American manned space program carried project names like Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, but no one identified these project names with pagan deities or astrology or labeled them inherently demonic. Cyber cultist however, driven by a combination of theological ignorance and paranoia can do no other. Again, we are dealing with charlatanism. There are very good Christian researchers like Dr. John Weldon, Dr. Ron Rhodes, and Dr. Tal Brooks who are bona fide experts on cultic influence. There are superb Christian experts on the occult such as Dr. Curt Koch. We have an anthropological and archaeological masterpiece 'The Two Babylons' by Alexander Hislop documenting the influx of pagan symbolism into Christendom. The Ahos, Dillens, Howards, and Engstroms of the cyber cult however are not anthropologists, archaeologists, psychologists or theologians. They are basically an unbalanced fringe element who are but false Maccabees posing as the watchmen they are not.

You have read about the watchmen who are not, now here are some who are. One thing the Body of Christ needs in these Last Days are true watchmen. We need people who are bible based, and who operate valid discernment ministries to alert the church and give understanding to the many, as Daniel predicted by the Holy Spirit would rise up. These legitimately help prepare the church for the End Times in the correct biblical sense. Among others (as of February 2000), Jacob Prasch & Moriel are pleased to endorse the following Watchmen ministries as true ones. We may not agree with every aspect of their ministry, nor they with every aspect of ours, but we stand by them as comrades in Christ's cause and we sanction them as honest and credible voices for truth and righteousness in an age of deception and compromise who are worthy of the prayers and support of concerned believers.

The Berean Call (Dave Hunt & Tom McMahon)
Belfast Berean (Mark McAlister)
Media Spotlight (Al Dagger)
Apostasy Alert (Jackie Alnor)
CWM (Philip Powell)
Eddy Cheong Ministries (Dr. Eddy Cheong)
St. Matthew Publishing (Philip Foster)
PWM (Clifford Hill & David Noakes)
Spirit of 88 (Michael De Semlyn)
Living Word (Gary Hall)
Bread Upon the Water (Bill Brehm)
Christian Voice (Stephen Green)
Light For the Last Days (Tony Pearce)
Take Heed Ministries (Cecil Andrews)
Come Let Us Reason (Mike Oppenheimer)
Personal Freedom Outreach (Dick Fisher)
Utah Lighthouse Ministry (Sandra Tanner)
Reach Out Trust (Doug Harris)
Discernment in the Church (Sandy Simpson)
Discernment Ministries (Jewel van der Merwe)
Kings Divinity School (Calvin Smith)

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.

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?

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.

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.

BILLEDET HEROVER ER INSPIRERET AF AT BIBELEN BRUGER KORN/S †D, SOM ET BILLEDE P … GUDS ORD

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('cloakda6e563ca479b0fe87c0b11e508b5d38').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyda6e563ca479b0fe87c0b11e508b5d38 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyda6e563ca479b0fe87c0b11e508b5d38 = addyda6e563ca479b0fe87c0b11e508b5d38 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textda6e563ca479b0fe87c0b11e508b5d38 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloakda6e563ca479b0fe87c0b11e508b5d38').innerHTML += ''+addy_textda6e563ca479b0fe87c0b11e508b5d38+''; 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.

- para los testigos de Jehov ¡
- para los Mormones
- para los Hind ºes

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('cloakf9301f4aee45578d78d6bd8bfe658f9b').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyf9301f4aee45578d78d6bd8bfe658f9b = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyf9301f4aee45578d78d6bd8bfe658f9b = addyf9301f4aee45578d78d6bd8bfe658f9b + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textf9301f4aee45578d78d6bd8bfe658f9b = 'e-mail us';document.getElementById('cloakf9301f4aee45578d78d6bd8bfe658f9b').innerHTML += ''+addy_textf9301f4aee45578d78d6bd8bfe658f9b+''; . 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?

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

"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.

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('cloak42fb547b52e321791fff0e6923f85184').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy42fb547b52e321791fff0e6923f85184 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy42fb547b52e321791fff0e6923f85184 = addy42fb547b52e321791fff0e6923f85184 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text42fb547b52e321791fff0e6923f85184 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak42fb547b52e321791fff0e6923f85184').innerHTML += ''+addy_text42fb547b52e321791fff0e6923f85184+''; . 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.

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('cloak8c72e9717d20823f111ddf761f60f0d7').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy8c72e9717d20823f111ddf761f60f0d7 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy8c72e9717d20823f111ddf761f60f0d7 = addy8c72e9717d20823f111ddf761f60f0d7 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text8c72e9717d20823f111ddf761f60f0d7 = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloak8c72e9717d20823f111ddf761f60f0d7').innerHTML += ''+addy_text8c72e9717d20823f111ddf761f60f0d7+'';

But I would like to ask a third question of my Catholic friends.

Without doubt Mary – her real name was "Miryam" – Mary the mother of Jesus was the greatest woman who ever lived. The angel Gabriel. the archangel "Gabriy"el", "the mighty one of God" appeared to her and told her that God Himself would become incarnate inside of her, she would be the mother of the Messiah, the Savior, who would save His people from their sin. This is the greatest woman who ever lived. And the greatest woman who ever lived, who has ever lived, was told she"s going to be the mother of the Savior who would save His people from their sin in the Magnificat in St. Luke"s Gospel. (Lk. 1:46-55) The only thing that the greatest woman who ever lived could say when she was told she was the greatest woman who ever lived – "Blessed are you among women" (Lk. 1:42) – and she was told she"s going to be the mother of the Savior who would save His people from their sin is, "My spirit rejoices in God my Savior". (Lk. 1:47)

If the greatest woman who ever lived tells me that she needs to be saved from sin, that she needs a Savior when she's told she's going to be the mother of the Savior who would save people from sin, who am I to argue with the greatest woman who ever lived? Who am I to argue with St. Luke? When God says, "All have sinned, all fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23), "None is righteous, no not one", (Rom. 3:10) Well who am I to argue with God? I believe Mary, but we have Ineffablilis Deus, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

If all have sinned and all full short of the glory of God, and if Mary said she needs to be saved from sin, who do I believe: Mary or the Vatican? Personally, I believe Mary. I'm convinced Mary was right; I'm convinced that Mary told the truth; I'm convinced all have sinned and all fall short of the glory of God.

The Roman church speculated and then deduced that if that was the case, Jesus would have been born from a sinful vessel. But if Mary had no sin, by the same token that would have to mean that Mary's mother had no sin, and that Mary's grandmother had no sin, and that Mary"s great-grandmother had no sin all the way back to Eve. But we know Eve had sin and we know Mary had sin.

Again, this doctrine was not proclaimed until modern times, until the 20th Century. Do you believe Mary was wrong?

We are told in the New Testament there is one intercessor between God and man, Jesus the righteous. (1 Tim. 2:5) One intercessor, onlyone, Jesus. Man can"t reach God so God had to reach man by becoming one of us. If there is one intercessor, how can I be expected to believe that Mary "co-redeemed" us, "co-saved" us, and she is the "co-mediatrix" if there"s only one Savior? The Hebrew prophets said all along, "Yahweh – God is our Savior; there is no Savior but Me". (Is. 43:11; Hos. 13:4) Only one Savior, only one intercessor.

Either we believe Mary or we believe the Vatican. I believe Mary. My question to you, my dear Catholic friends, is who do you believe?

Title Scripture Description A Chink in the Armor 2 Chronicles 18-19 What happens when good leaders become involved with bad ones? 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. Sons of Zadok, The 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. 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('cloak00a32434385157f0317049c5f3505b08').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy00a32434385157f0317049c5f3505b08 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy00a32434385157f0317049c5f3505b08 = addy00a32434385157f0317049c5f3505b08 + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text00a32434385157f0317049c5f3505b08 = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloak00a32434385157f0317049c5f3505b08').innerHTML += ''+addy_text00a32434385157f0317049c5f3505b08+'';

When it comes to books devoted to eschatology in general and the Rapture specifically, they often either read like a formal academic argument written solely for the benefit of scholars or employ the use of fiction to avoid directly handling the underlying biblical text. As with Jacob's previous books and exhaustive list of sermons covering nearly every area of theology,  Harpazo  presents the doctrine of the Rapture and Resurrection in the strictest biblical sense possible, leveraging the handling of Scripture in the same manner as passed along to us by Christ through the Apostles and Early Church of the 1st century.

Often the typical format of such books is to spend more time explaining and refuting all the positions the author  does not  subscribe to rather than focus exclusively on what they believe and have derived from Scripture.  Harpazo  may be unique in the complete absence of charts and seemingly endless trips to sidebars to constantly compare alternate interpretations the author does not subscribe to in the first place. Jacob was asked to continue to employ in an expanded book format the same exegesis of Scripture which is present in all of his teachings regardless of whether or not they are eschatological. After all, "The Apocalypse" means "unveiling", and that "lifting of the curtain", so to speak, as we approach the ever nearer Return of Christ is the Holy Spirit's revelation of Scripture as already given,  not  a new opinion by man..

The Gospels are clear that immediately in the wake of His Resurrection, Christ not only imparted the Holy Spirit to His disciples, but directly instructed them in how He was the fulfillment of the whole of Scripture. (Lk. 24:27, 44-45) In other words, the interpretation of  all  of God's Word, every Book of the Old Testament included, was re-cast as Christological, having not just a literal, primary meaning for the times any Scripture was originally given, but an added meaning for either Christ's First Coming, Second Coming, or both. Like every doctrine and theology, the Rapture and Resurrection are illustrated through many scriptural people, places and events throughout the whole of God's Word and not simply limited to a single biblical reference.

Using the Early Church hermeneutics of typology to  illustrate  and  illuminate  doctrine, Jacob shows how there are  many  raptures and rescues in Scripture which combine to teach what is going to ultimately take place in the  Parousia—the Second Coming of Christ. Likewise, there is a wealth of similar events and patterns throughout Scripture which teach us what to expect from related issues such as the Two Witnesses, the role of the 144,000 and Israel yet to come, the pattern of judgments in Revelation and how they actually replay Old Testament and historical parallels, and a wealth of other such End Times teachings already established in the canon of Scripture.

Jesus Himself established this hermeneutic by categorically teaching that the Last Days would be realized in the character of the days of Noah as well as Lot. The Apostles in their writings not only confirmed these specific examples but built upon them. The question for believers in the Last Days is not whether or not some kind of "new" revelation or word from God has been revealed, but how what has already been given is, in these final hours, being unveiled to believers by the Holy Spirit. What Daniel was told to seal until the end, John was told would be ultimately unsealed.

Some of the chapter titles in  Harpazo  will sound familiar to those already acquainted with Jacob's teachings, but he has never tied everything together overall to this degree before. This book is not about creating another End Times chart, but making a good faith effort to draw together in one place what the whole counsel of God's Word is teaching not just for a single event or prophetic fulfillment, but the overall doctrinal basis by which believers are supposed to act and behave as they are putting His Word into practice. Whereas many limit their teaching on the Rapture to just the drama of the physical event itself, one of the remarkable differences presented in  Harpazo  is the believer's place in the Rapture and Resurrection and their active role in preparation for it. Recognition of the nearness of His Return invokes a responsibility to live accordingly.

Those expecting an academic treatment of eschatology or hoping for a formal rebuttal of alternative positions will not find such in  Harpazo. But those placing a priority on what God's Word is saying more than the word and opinions of man will derive tangible benefits from the book regardless of which "ism" or eschatology currently held. Jacob presents us with a thorough  proactive  exegesis of Scripture by concentrating on what Scripture affirms rather than a  reactive  rebuttal of the beliefs of man, which all too often actually fall outside biblical boundaries.

Reiew

Electronic version is now available as anEbookand is available at Amazon for $9.99.

Australia's books are still in printing but you can pre-order by calling Marg at Tel: 61 (03) 5633 2300

HARPAZO: The Intra-Seal Rapture of the Church
When it comes to books devoted to eschatology in general and the Rapture specifically, they often either read like a formal academic argument written solely for the benefit of scholars or employ the use of fiction to avoid directly handling the underlying biblical text. As with Jacob's previous books and exhaustive list of sermons covering nearly every area of theology,  Harpazo  presents the doctrine of the Rapture and Resurrection in the strictest biblical sense possible, leveraging the handling of Scripture in the same manner as passed along to us by Christ through the Apostles and Early Church of the 1st century.

Often the typical format of such books is to spend more time explaining and refuting all the positions the author  does not  subscribe to rather than focus exclusively on what they believe and have derived from Scripture.  Harpazo  may be unique in the complete absence of charts and seemingly endless trips to sidebars to constantly compare alternate interpretations the author does not subscribe to in the first place. Jacob was asked to continue to employ in an expanded book format the same exegesis of Scripture which is present in all of his teachings regardless of whether or not they are eschatological. After all, "The Apocalypse" means "unveiling", and that "lifting of the curtain", so to speak, as we approach the ever nearer Return of Christ is the Holy Spirit's revelation of Scripture as already given,  not  a new opinion by man..

The Gospels are clear that immediately in the wake of His Resurrection, Christ not only imparted the Holy Spirit to His disciples, but directly instructed them in how He was the fulfillment of the whole of Scripture. (Lk. 24:27, 44-45) In other words, the interpretation of  all  of God's Word, every Book of the Old Testament included, was re-cast as Christological, having not just a literal, primary meaning for the times any Scripture was originally given, but an added meaning for either Christ's First Coming, Second Coming, or both. Like every doctrine and theology, the Rapture and Resurrection are illustrated through many scriptural people, places and events throughout the whole of God's Word and not simply limited to a single biblical reference.

Using the Early Church hermeneutics of typology to  illustrate  and  illuminate  doctrine, Jacob shows how there are  many  raptures and rescues in Scripture which combine to teach what is going to ultimately take place in the  Parousia—the Second Coming of Christ. Likewise, there is a wealth of similar events and patterns throughout Scripture which teach us what to expect from related issues such as the Two Witnesses, the role of the 144,000 and Israel yet to come, the pattern of judgments in Revelation and how they actually replay Old Testament and historical parallels, and a wealth of other such End Times teachings already established in the canon of Scripture.

Jesus Himself established this hermeneutic by categorically teaching that the Last Days would be realized in the character of the days of Noah as well as Lot. The Apostles in their writings not only confirmed these specific examples but built upon them. The question for believers in the Last Days is not whether or not some kind of "new" revelation or word from God has been revealed, but how what has already been given is, in these final hours, being unveiled to believers by the Holy Spirit. What Daniel was told to seal until the end, John was told would be ultimately unsealed.

Some of the chapter titles in  Harpazo  will sound familiar to those already acquainted with Jacob's teachings, but he has never tied everything together overall to this degree before. This book is not about creating another End Times chart, but making a good faith effort to draw together in one place what the whole counsel of God's Word is teaching not just for a single event or prophetic fulfillment, but the overall doctrinal basis by which believers are supposed to act and behave as they are putting His Word into practice. Whereas many limit their teaching on the Rapture to just the drama of the physical event itself, one of the remarkable differences presented in  Harpazo  is the believer's place in the Rapture and Resurrection and their active role in preparation for it. Recognition of the nearness of His Return invokes a responsibility to live accordingly.

Those expecting an academic treatment of eschatology or hoping for a formal rebuttal of alternative positions will not find such in  Harpazo. But those placing a priority on what God's Word is saying more than the word and opinions of man will derive tangible benefits from the book regardless of which "ism" or eschatology currently held. Jacob presents us with a thorough  proactive  exegesis of Scripture by concentrating on what Scripture affirms rather than a  reactive  rebuttal of the beliefs of man, which all too often actually fall outside biblical boundaries.
\
Reiew

Electronic version is now available as anEbookand is available at Amazon for $9.99.

Australia's books are still in printing but you can pre-order by calling Marg at Tel: 61 (03) 5633 2300

HARPAZO: The Intra-Seal Rapture of the Church

When it comes to books devoted to eschatology in general and the Rapture specifically, they often either read like a formal academic argument written solely for the benefit of scholars or employ the use of fiction to avoid directly handling the underlying biblical text. As with Jacob's previous books and exhaustive list of sermons covering nearly every area of theology,  Harpazo  presents the doctrine of the Rapture and Resurrection in the strictest biblical sense possible, leveraging the handling of Scripture in the same manner as passed along to us by Christ through the Apostles and Early Church of the 1st century.

Often the typical format of such books is to spend more time explaining and refuting all the positions the author  does not  subscribe to rather than focus exclusively on what they believe and have derived from Scripture.  Harpazo  may be unique in the complete absence of charts and seemingly endless trips to sidebars to constantly compare alternate interpretations the author does not subscribe to in the first place. Jacob was asked to continue to employ in an expanded book format the same exegesis of Scripture which is present in all of his teachings regardless of whether or not they are eschatological. After all, "The Apocalypse" means "unveiling", and that "lifting of the curtain", so to speak, as we approach the ever nearer Return of Christ is the Holy Spirit's revelation of Scripture as already given,  not  a new opinion by man..

The Gospels are clear that immediately in the wake of His Resurrection, Christ not only imparted the Holy Spirit to His disciples, but directly instructed them in how He was the fulfillment of the whole of Scripture. (Lk. 24:27, 44-45) In other words, the interpretation of  all  of God's Word, every Book of the Old Testament included, was re-cast as Christological, having not just a literal, primary meaning for the times any Scripture was originally given, but an added meaning for either Christ's First Coming, Second Coming, or both. Like every doctrine and theology, the Rapture and Resurrection are illustrated through many scriptural people, places and events throughout the whole of God's Word and not simply limited to a single biblical reference.

Using the Early Church hermeneutics of typology to  illustrate  and  illuminate  doctrine, Jacob shows how there are  many  raptures and rescues in Scripture which combine to teach what is going to ultimately take place in the  Parousia—the Second Coming of Christ. Likewise, there is a wealth of similar events and patterns throughout Scripture which teach us what to expect from related issues such as the Two Witnesses, the role of the 144,000 and Israel yet to come, the pattern of judgments in Revelation and how they actually replay Old Testament and historical parallels, and a wealth of other such End Times teachings already established in the canon of Scripture.

Jesus Himself established this hermeneutic by categorically teaching that the Last Days would be realized in the character of the days of Noah as well as Lot. The Apostles in their writings not only confirmed these specific examples but built upon them. The question for believers in the Last Days is not whether or not some kind of "new" revelation or word from God has been revealed, but how what has already been given is, in these final hours, being unveiled to believers by the Holy Spirit. What Daniel was told to seal until the end, John was told would be ultimately unsealed.

Some of the chapter titles in  Harpazo  will sound familiar to those already acquainted with Jacob's teachings, but he has never tied everything together overall to this degree before. This book is not about creating another End Times chart, but making a good faith effort to draw together in one place what the whole counsel of God's Word is teaching not just for a single event or prophetic fulfillment, but the overall doctrinal basis by which believers are supposed to act and behave as they are putting His Word into practice. Whereas many limit their teaching on the Rapture to just the drama of the physical event itself, one of the remarkable differences presented in  Harpazo  is the believer's place in the Rapture and Resurrection and their active role in preparation for it. Recognition of the nearness of His Return invokes a responsibility to live accordingly.

Those expecting an academic treatment of eschatology or hoping for a formal rebuttal of alternative positions will not find such in  Harpazo. But those placing a priority on what God's Word is saying more than the word and opinions of man will derive tangible benefits from the book regardless of which "ism" or eschatology currently held. Jacob presents us with a thorough  proactive  exegesis of Scripture by concentrating on what Scripture affirms rather than a  reactive  rebuttal of the beliefs of man, which all too often actually fall outside biblical boundaries.

Reiew

Electronic version is now available as anEbookand is available at Amazon for $9.99.

Poyle Road
Tongham GU10 1DU
www.yeshuaspeople.com Bible Seminars for 2015 Date and Time Speaker Venue February 2015
Saturday 7th Feb - 10.30 to 4.30
Sunday 8th Feb - 10.30 to 12.30 James Jacob Prasch
Moriel Ministries Tongham Christian Fellowship
Fellowship Hall
Poyle Road
Tongham, Surrey
GU10 1DU March 2015
Sunday 8th March - 10.30 to 4.30 David Royle Tongham Christian Fellowship
Fellowship Hall
Poyle Road
Tongham, Surrey
GU10 1DU April 2015
Saturday 11th April - 10.30 to 4.30
Sunday 12th April - 10.30 to 12.30 Ronnie Mc Cracken Tongham Christian Fellowship
Fellowship Hall
Poyle Road
Tongham, Surrey
GU10 1DU June 2015
Saturday 6th June - 10.30 to 4.30 Tony Pearce
Saturday Only Tongham Christian Fellowship
Fellowship Hall
Poyle Road
Tongham, Surrey
GU10 1DU July 2015
Saturday 18th July- 10.30 to 4.30
Sunday 19 July - 10.30 to 12.30 Bill Randles Tongham Christian Fellowship
Fellowship Hall
Poyle Road
Tongham, Surrey
GU10 1DU October 2015
Saturday 10th Oct - 10.30 to 4.30
Sunday 11th Oct - 10.30 to 12.30 Colin LeNoury Tongham Christian Fellowship
Fellowship Hall
Poyle Road
Tongham, Surrey
GU10 1DU November 2015
Saturday 28th Nov - 10.30 to 4.30
Sunday 29th Nov - 10.30 to 4.30 Bible Seminars Tongham Christian Fellowship
Fellowship Hall
Poyle Road
Tongham, Surrey
GU10 1DU Tea and coffee and biscuits will be served between sessions. Please bring packed lunch for Saturday. And bring lunch on Sunday for Arnold Fruchtenbams meeting. Everyone is welcome. Why not bring a friend?

Please visit the web site www.yeshuaspeople.com for details, maps & if there is a cancellation or ring John & Trish Baker 01483 831007

When it comes to books devoted to eschatology in general and the Rapture specifically, they often either read like a formal academic argument written solely for the benefit of scholars or employ the use of fiction to avoid directly handling the underlying biblical text. As with Jacob's previous books and exhaustive list of sermons covering nearly every area of theology,  Harpazo  presents the doctrine of the Rapture and Resurrection in the strictest biblical sense possible, leveraging the handling of Scripture in the same manner as passed along to us by Christ through the Apostles and Early Church of the 1st century.

Often the typical format of such books is to spend more time explaining and refuting all the positions the author  does not  subscribe to rather than focus exclusively on what they believe and have derived from Scripture.  Harpazo  may be unique in the complete absence of charts and seemingly endless trips to sidebars to constantly compare alternate interpretations the author does not subscribe to in the first place. Jacob was asked to continue to employ in an expanded book format the same exegesis of Scripture which is present in all of his teachings regardless of whether or not they are eschatological. After all, "The Apocalypse" means "unveiling", and that "lifting of the curtain", so to speak, as we approach the ever nearer Return of Christ is the Holy Spirit's revelation of Scripture as already given,  not  a new opinion by man..

The Gospels are clear that immediately in the wake of His Resurrection, Christ not only imparted the Holy Spirit to His disciples, but directly instructed them in how He was the fulfillment of the whole of Scripture. (Lk. 24:27, 44-45) In other words, the interpretation of  all  of God's Word, every Book of the Old Testament included, was re-cast as Christological, having not just a literal, primary meaning for the times any Scripture was originally given, but an added meaning for either Christ's First Coming, Second Coming, or both. Like every doctrine and theology, the Rapture and Resurrection are illustrated through many scriptural people, places and events throughout the whole of God's Word and not simply limited to a single biblical reference.

Using the Early Church hermeneutics of typology to  illustrate  and  illuminate  doctrine, Jacob shows how there are  many  raptures and rescues in Scripture which combine to teach what is going to ultimately take place in the  Parousia—the Second Coming of Christ. Likewise, there is a wealth of similar events and patterns throughout Scripture which teach us what to expect from related issues such as the Two Witnesses, the role of the 144,000 and Israel yet to come, the pattern of judgments in Revelation and how they actually replay Old Testament and historical parallels, and a wealth of other such End Times teachings already established in the canon of Scripture.

Jesus Himself established this hermeneutic by categorically teaching that the Last Days would be realized in the character of the days of Noah as well as Lot. The Apostles in their writings not only confirmed these specific examples but built upon them. The question for believers in the Last Days is not whether or not some kind of "new" revelation or word from God has been revealed, but how what has already been given is, in these final hours, being unveiled to believers by the Holy Spirit. What Daniel was told to seal until the end, John was told would be ultimately unsealed.

Some of the chapter titles in  Harpazo  will sound familiar to those already acquainted with Jacob's teachings, but he has never tied everything together overall to this degree before. This book is not about creating another End Times chart, but making a good faith effort to draw together in one place what the whole counsel of God's Word is teaching not just for a single event or prophetic fulfillment, but the overall doctrinal basis by which believers are supposed to act and behave as they are putting His Word into practice. Whereas many limit their teaching on the Rapture to just the drama of the physical event itself, one of the remarkable differences presented in  Harpazo  is the believer's place in the Rapture and Resurrection and their active role in preparation for it. Recognition of the nearness of His Return invokes a responsibility to live accordingly.

Those expecting an academic treatment of eschatology or hoping for a formal rebuttal of alternative positions will not find such in  Harpazo. But those placing a priority on what God's Word is saying more than the word and opinions of man will derive tangible benefits from the book regardless of which "ism" or eschatology currently held. Jacob presents us with a thorough  proactive  exegesis of Scripture by concentrating on what Scripture affirms rather than a  reactive  rebuttal of the beliefs of man, which all too often actually fall outside biblical boundaries.

Electronic version is now available as anEbookand is available at Amazon for $9.99.

HARPAZO: The Intra-Seal Rapture of the Church
When it comes to books devoted to eschatology in general and the Rapture specifically, they often either read like a formal academic argument written solely for the benefit of scholars or employ the use of fiction to avoid directly handling the underlying biblical text. As with Jacob's previous books and exhaustive list of sermons covering nearly every area of theology,  Harpazo  presents the doctrine of the Rapture and Resurrection in the strictest biblical sense possible, leveraging the handling of Scripture in the same manner as passed along to us by Christ through the Apostles and Early Church of the 1st century.

Often the typical format of such books is to spend more time explaining and refuting all the positions the author  does not  subscribe to rather than focus exclusively on what they believe and have derived from Scripture.  Harpazo  may be unique in the complete absence of charts and seemingly endless trips to sidebars to constantly compare alternate interpretations the author does not subscribe to in the first place. Jacob was asked to continue to employ in an expanded book format the same exegesis of Scripture which is present in all of his teachings regardless of whether or not they are eschatological. After all, "The Apocalypse" means "unveiling", and that "lifting of the curtain", so to speak, as we approach the ever nearer Return of Christ is the Holy Spirit's revelation of Scripture as already given,  not  a new opinion by man..

The Gospels are clear that immediately in the wake of His Resurrection, Christ not only imparted the Holy Spirit to His disciples, but directly instructed them in how He was the fulfillment of the whole of Scripture. (Lk. 24:27, 44-45) In other words, the interpretation of  all  of God's Word, every Book of the Old Testament included, was re-cast as Christological, having not just a literal, primary meaning for the times any Scripture was originally given, but an added meaning for either Christ's First Coming, Second Coming, or both. Like every doctrine and theology, the Rapture and Resurrection are illustrated through many scriptural people, places and events throughout the whole of God's Word and not simply limited to a single biblical reference.

Using the Early Church hermeneutics of typology to  illustrate  and  illuminate  doctrine, Jacob shows how there are  many  raptures and rescues in Scripture which combine to teach what is going to ultimately take place in the  Parousia—the Second Coming of Christ. Likewise, there is a wealth of similar events and patterns throughout Scripture which teach us what to expect from related issues such as the Two Witnesses, the role of the 144,000 and Israel yet to come, the pattern of judgments in Revelation and how they actually replay Old Testament and historical parallels, and a wealth of other such End Times teachings already established in the canon of Scripture.

Jesus Himself established this hermeneutic by categorically teaching that the Last Days would be realized in the character of the days of Noah as well as Lot. The Apostles in their writings not only confirmed these specific examples but built upon them. The question for believers in the Last Days is not whether or not some kind of "new" revelation or word from God has been revealed, but how what has already been given is, in these final hours, being unveiled to believers by the Holy Spirit. What Daniel was told to seal until the end, John was told would be ultimately unsealed.

Some of the chapter titles in  Harpazo  will sound familiar to those already acquainted with Jacob's teachings, but he has never tied everything together overall to this degree before. This book is not about creating another End Times chart, but making a good faith effort to draw together in one place what the whole counsel of God's Word is teaching not just for a single event or prophetic fulfillment, but the overall doctrinal basis by which believers are supposed to act and behave as they are putting His Word into practice. Whereas many limit their teaching on the Rapture to just the drama of the physical event itself, one of the remarkable differences presented in  Harpazo  is the believer's place in the Rapture and Resurrection and their active role in preparation for it. Recognition of the nearness of His Return invokes a responsibility to live accordingly.

Those expecting an academic treatment of eschatology or hoping for a formal rebuttal of alternative positions will not find such in  Harpazo. But those placing a priority on what God's Word is saying more than the word and opinions of man will derive tangible benefits from the book regardless of which "ism" or eschatology currently held. Jacob presents us with a thorough  proactive  exegesis of Scripture by concentrating on what Scripture affirms rather than a  reactive  rebuttal of the beliefs of man, which all too often actually fall outside biblical boundaries.

Please click here to order Harpazo: Th Intra-Seal Rapture of the Church.

Electronic version is now available as anEbookand is available at Amazon for $9.99.

To enter this site, please choose a branch of Moriel Ministries nearest you or select a page from the menu above.

Title Scripture Description Cinco Preguntas a los Catolicos Una Grieta en la Armadura 1 Chronicles 18-19 What happens when good leaders become involved with bad ones? La Jornada de Abraham 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. El Libro de Jonas 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. Ester Esther Dealing with the typology of the book of Esther as an application for God's preparation for ministry in the Christian life.

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 Crucified Body Luke 9:23 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. 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.

In Christianity, the Word of God comes from only one source - the Holy Bible. The Word of God has a strict code of morals and basic life for humans to follow, just as the Hindu Gods in the Hindu scriptures do. However, the Hindus rely on many written sources for their faith: the Vedas, the Puranas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavad-Gita, and the Manu Smirti.  Issue of LifeAnother area of difference between the two religions is the treatment of animals. Hinduism frowns upon the killing or abusing of animals, while Christianity sees such treatment as appropriate, at times. In Hinduism on the other hand, an animal could be the soul of one of your deceased family members of friends. The biblical God allows animal sacrifices, or at least, never seems to condemn it. For example, there is the story of the prophet Elijah and his servant Elisha: €œHe returned from following him, took the yoke of oxen, and slaughtered them; using the equipment from the oxen, he boiled their flesh, and gave it to the people, and they ate." (I Kings 19:21).

Several extremely popular gods, such as Ganesha and Hanuman, have animal features and gods such as Shiva and Vishnu are regularly portrayed in the company of their animal companions." As well, they believe that all pre-human beings, such as animals, will eventually become humans themselves, as we are all reborn, according to Hindus. Yet it must be said that when there have been recent conflicts in India, the Hindu"s have not hesitated to kill Muslims, Sikhs and Christians when it pleased them!!  

Israel is in the midst of a battle for public opinion €“ waged primarily via the media. To ensure Israel is represented fairly and accurately "HonestReporting" monitors the media, exposes cases of bias, promotes balance, and effects change through education and action. Read more. The Apologetics Coordination Team (ACT) provides churches and organizations with an easy way to book apologists and discernment speakers online. ACT does the footwork for your church or event in finding biblically sound speakers in your area. Please click here to learn more. Please click here to watch Jacob Prasch & Friends on Webcast Internet TV. Is the Drum Beat of Rock Music Demonic?

A Scriptural, musical, and historical response to the assertions of Larry De Bruyen by James Jacob Prasch

Is the Drum Beat of Rock Music Demonic? Part 1
Is the Drum Beat of Rock Music Demonic? Part 2
Is the Drum Beat of Rock Music Demonic? Part 3
Is the Drum Beat of Rock Music Demonic? Part 4
Is the Drum Beat of Rock Music Demonic? Part 5
Is the Drum Beat of Rock Music Demonic? Part 6 Azimuth Radio is a free and  non profit making internet based radio station which exists to bring contemporary Christian music and Bible teaching to as wide an audience as possible.

Jacob is broadcast daily at 10 PM UK Time "In The Days" is a web resource dedicated to publishing news events in the light of biblical prophecy. Readmore. The Barnabas Fund exists to assist persecuted Christian minorities by prayer and practical support. Read more. Resources for Evangelism

Please click herefor Gospel tracts in several languages.

Issue of ToleranceAnother difference between Hinduism and Christianity is the tolerance towards the views of other religions.  A Protestant would only be a good Protestant by following the tenants of the denomination he belonged to. Any deviation would be seen as sinful and apostate. So, if I, as a Christian wanted to include some Hindu practices into my religion, I would be functioning outside of God's declared order for me. On the other hand, if I were a Hindu, my Hindu religion would gladly allow me to be a Catholic or Protestant as well. However, despite such differences, there are some similarities. Both religions think that we should take the focus off the self, and on to something higher.  Issue of God in Everything (Good and Evil)If God is in everything, then God is in both good and evil. But then there is no absolute morality, no divine law, no divine will discriminating good and evil. In Hinduism, morality is practical; its end is to purify the soul from desires so that it can attain mystical consciousness. Again, the Jews are unique in identifying the source of morality with the object of religion. Everyone has two innate senses: the religious sense to worship, and the moral sense of conscience; but only the Jewish God is the focus of both. Only the God of the Bible is absolutely righteous. A distinctive belief in Hinduism is that they believe that everything possesses a part of God, therefore God persists in both good and evil. Christians believe that God did not create evil, but instead, He created mankind free to choose, and that freedom includes the possibility of doing wrong.

The following resources were especially developed by Jacob as a result of his own spiritual search and personal research. Nothing here is intended to be mocking or derisive, but provided as legitimate questions needing to be answered by those who embrace these particular faiths. Anyone may contact Moriel directly for further information by sending an email to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloake39be0787799cd9ab0ac5b19c7921eb0').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addye39be0787799cd9ab0ac5b19c7921eb0 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addye39be0787799cd9ab0ac5b19c7921eb0 = addye39be0787799cd9ab0ac5b19c7921eb0 + 'Yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_texte39be0787799cd9ab0ac5b19c7921eb0 = 'MorielCarol' + '@' + 'Yahoo' + '.' + 'com';document.getElementById('cloake39be0787799cd9ab0ac5b19c7921eb0').innerHTML += ''+addy_texte39be0787799cd9ab0ac5b19c7921eb0+''; .


Jew

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. Jehovah's Witness

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. Catholic

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. Mormon

Hello, friends, my name is Jacob Prasch and I have met a number of Mormons. I have attended the €œMiracle of Mormonism" pageant in Manti, Utah where I met mainstream Mormons and I met fundamentalism Mormons. Read more €¦ Read more €¦ Read more €¦ Read more €¦ Muslim
€œMarhaba. 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. Hindu
€œWhat I believe now is that Hindus and Christians are the same, we believe in the same god. Hindus are in actual fact Christians and Christians are Hindus €¦" Buddhist There are many things which a dead man can"t do. One very important thing a dead man can"t do is to save a person"s soul. Read more €¦ Read more €¦ Read more €¦ Buddhist in Thai 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('cloak0068d0a63ec2f586818336f23be8c4ee').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy0068d0a63ec2f586818336f23be8c4ee = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy0068d0a63ec2f586818336f23be8c4ee = addy0068d0a63ec2f586818336f23be8c4ee + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text0068d0a63ec2f586818336f23be8c4ee = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloak0068d0a63ec2f586818336f23be8c4ee').innerHTML += ''+addy_text0068d0a63ec2f586818336f23be8c4ee+'';

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I"d like to ask you yet another question. All over the world we are seeing scandals: Australia, New Zealand. Latin America. the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Europe. One month ago the largest Roman Catholic seminary in Austria, a Catholic country, was closed down. The largest collection of child pornography, most of it of a homosexual nature, ever uncovered anywhere in the history of the world was uncovered in the Roman Catholic seminary near Vienna. 40,000 photos of priests and so forth having sex with little boys and little girls. 40,000, plus the videos of older priests having sex with younger seminarians.

The largest collection of Internet child pornography: St. Joseph's Parish in Newcastle, England. 8,000 hours of child pornography placed on the Internet by Roman Catholic priests, presently in prison.

The cardinal of Sydney, Australia, the cardinal of Boston, Massachusetts, the cardinal of Los Angeles, the cardinal of London, England, and the cardinal of Ireland – to name but a few – and now the cardinal in Austria, all implicated in conspiracy to obstruct justice and protect pedophile priests and nuns at the expense of not protecting the children whose lives they destroy.

Over 4,000 cases in America. In Cincinnati, Ohio the archbishop pleads guilty – nolo contendere; diocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico bankrupt; archdiocese of Portland, Oregon bankrupt; in Texas and Houston, $120 million paid out to altar boys who"d been violated by priests.

What's happened in Ireland is unbelievable; it gets worse and worse.

Thirteen Roman Catholic nuns in Massachusetts raping deaf little girls with foreign objects. Where does it end? How can it be?

There are those who would have liked us to believe, and you to believe, that this is not purely a Roman Catholic phenomena. It is largely a Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic phenomena, the Anglo-Catholics being similar to the Roman Catholics ritually and so forth. There is far less of this among Protestants, far less among Jews, far less among Eastern Greek Orthodox, and in the Eastern rite of the Roman church, your own church – the “Latin rite" is the West, the “Greek rite" is the East – far less in your own Eastern rite.

Now why does the Latin rite have so much of this but your Eastern rite has so little? Why does the Eastern rite of the Roman church have no more than the Protestants or the Jews? Well the Latin rite has more than everybody, much more than all the rest put together. And why, with the disclosure of the Criminale Solicitacciones document from the Vatican archives going back to John XXIII, reiterated by Cardinal Ratzinger on behalf of John Paul II? Two years ago they were instructing bishops to protect these criminals, even transferring them internationally so they couldn"t be prosecuted, on the Vatican"s instruction. It"s remarkable.

You"ve perhaps heard of the “rat route", how the Roman Catholic Church protected Nazi war criminals like Eichmann and helped them escape to South America. One was arrested in France only a few years ago; he was hidden for more than 40 years. They used to help Nazis escape justice, now they help priests escape justice.

Now again, I"m only stating a fact. Why is there so much of this in the Roman church and so less in other churches? Why is there so much of it in the Latin rite but so little in your Eastern rite? I'm reading from the epistle of St. Paul to Timothy. In 1 Timothy 4:1…

But the Spirit…
…that is, the Holy Ghost…

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons…

…doctrines of devils.

by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage…

Why? In the New Testament, why if St. Paul, specifically instructed by the Holy Spirit, say requiring celibacy is a doctrine of devils, does your church practice it? When you outlaw what is natural, people will do things which are unnatural. When God created sex He said it was good in the book of Genesis. That is why even in your own church you find it only in the Latin rite, not in the Greek. That is why you don't find it among rabbis or Protestant ministers in anything like the same proportion. It"s a doctrine of devils.

St. Peter was married, his wife"s name was Deborah. Most of the apostles were married. To forbid it would be a doctrine of devils. What can be more demonic, more Satanic, more evil, than having sex with little children and doing so in the name of Jesus Christ? How can something be so Satanic? Because it comes from a doctrine of demons. How can you as a Roman Catholic believe in a religion that practices what is plainly and clearly called a doctrine of devils, and you see the fruit of it in the newspapers every single day of the year? How can you defend it? How can you defend a doctrine of devils and the devastation it causes to little children?

Jesus said, “Suffer the children unto Me for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". (Mt. 19:14; Mk. 10:14) He said it would be better if a millstone were tied around your neck and cast into the sea than hurt one of these little ones. (Mt. 18:6; Mk. 9:42; Lk. 17:2) He didn't say rape them as your clergy does. Not all of your clergy, no, but your hierarchy protects and covers up for it, and other clergy have admitted on the witness stand they knew what was going on for years and kept their mouth shut to protect their colleagues who did it, instead of the children who suffered it, It is a doctrine of devils.

Why do you believe in something so wicked, something so antagonistic to the nostrils of Christ, something that"s unthinkable in the dimension of evil and occupies? Why do you believe in a church that teaches a doctrine of devils? That's my question: Do you really believe such people are the guardians of your soul?

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

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

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

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

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

The epistle to the Hebrews 9:12…

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

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

Chapter 10 of Hebrews, verse 12…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please contact us. My name is James Jacob Prasch. Please This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak69b9063e47dab766d47408be8ba58b15').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy69b9063e47dab766d47408be8ba58b15 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy69b9063e47dab766d47408be8ba58b15 = addy69b9063e47dab766d47408be8ba58b15 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text69b9063e47dab766d47408be8ba58b15 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak69b9063e47dab766d47408be8ba58b15').innerHTML += ''+addy_text69b9063e47dab766d47408be8ba58b15+''; , e-mail us, with your questions. We have people who will be more than happy to talk to you. If you"re a priest or a nun we"d be happy to engage with you. Please contact us. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloakf49ac68ba9e19005573b9e3ef835ea85').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyf49ac68ba9e19005573b9e3ef835ea85 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyf49ac68ba9e19005573b9e3ef835ea85 = addyf49ac68ba9e19005573b9e3ef835ea85 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textf49ac68ba9e19005573b9e3ef835ea85 = 'E-mail us';document.getElementById('cloakf49ac68ba9e19005573b9e3ef835ea85').innerHTML += ''+addy_textf49ac68ba9e19005573b9e3ef835ea85+''; or write us here in Britain:

Moriel P.O. Box 201 Maidenhead SL69FB

God bless you and thank you for listening.

The Character of God  (Actual Hindu quote by an Indian student studying in the USA):  


€œWhat I believe now is that Hindus and Christians are the same, we believe in the same god. Hindus are in actual fact Christians and Christians are Hindus...as our god is one. I know Christians are not ready to believe that, but it's true that Jesus, Lord Shiva (Hindu God), Lord Krishna (Christ Na)(Hindu God) are re-incarnation of the same god (a.k.a. Vishnu, Mahesh and Brahama (Abraham) - the trinity in Hinduism)."  

The first difference between the two religions is in the nature of what is considered divine, and therefore worthy of worship. Christianity has a belief in one God, although that God is seen as a Trinity: the father (God), the son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the Deut 6:4 principal. Hinduism on the other hand, is and claims to be polytheistic. Their Gods are Brahma (Creator), Vishnu, a friendly form of Krishna (a preserver God, too), and Shiva, an evil God (a destructor.) While Christianity would never claim God or any part of the trinity to be tyrannical and evil, he (the Christian god) will punish evil.  All Paths Lead to God  The first difference between Hinduism and Christianity is that Hinduism embraces Christianity as a valid religion whereas the Bible does not. Hinduism is a religion that advocates tolerance. It teaches that all religions are different paths leading to one goal; all religions are a different means to one end. Hinduism is not exclusive and accepts all religions as valid. Christianity, however, teaches that Christ is the only way to God. John 14:6 says, "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" Philosophically, it is impossible for religions with mutually-exclusive doctrines to be equally valid. Where we find contradiction, we must find error. Either Christ was wrong or He was right when He claimed to be the only path to God. It is simple arithmetic, not spiritual elitism.

A comparison between Christianity and Hinduism reveals ancient practices which appear similar. In all ancient religions, Hinduism included, we find reparation for sins being done through sacrifices to an enraged God. In Hinduism and Judaism, this sacrifice is an animal sacrifice. Both theologies preach a divine commandment of righteousness, and failure to comply requires a penalty. This ancient instinct to make reparation for wrong doings suggests that Romans 2:14-15 is true: "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law. . .they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."

The culmination of these sacrifices for sin is found in Christianity. We have all done things we know are wrong. Both Hinduism and Christianity preach a divine commandment of perfect righteousness and that we are held accountable for our actions. The difference is that Christianity preaches the penalty for our sin has already been paid by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. To become a Christian is to accept the ultimate sacrifice to avoid the ultimate penalty.

But I have another question. I"m told by the Jehovah's Witnesses that there is no immaterial component of man as such. The Greek word €œpneuma" and the Greek word €œpsuchei" are virtually synonymous, they simply mean €œbreath". Now I know what those words mean. €œPsuchei"  means €œconsciousness" €“ from which we get the word €œpsychology", and €œpneuma" does come from the word for €œbreath" or €œbreathes". But when you die you are asleep. The dead know nothing, there is no spiritual component of man as such; no spirit. There is none. That"s what I am told by my friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses, by my acquaintances who I've met over the years who were Jehovah's Witnesses, who"ve come to my door. That's what they"ve told me.

I have a question: In Genesis 1:26 we"re made in God's image and He breathed into them and put a spirit into them. When Jesus died on the cross He said, €œFather, into Your hands I commend my spirit".(Lk. 23:46) In the book of Acts when Stephen was martyred he said, €œLord I commend my spirit". (Acts 7:59) Why would Jesus say, €œI commend My spirit to You" if it"s only breath? If it is not some kind of eternal consciousness that goes beyond biological life, why commend it? How can you commend your breath? €œGod take my breath; I"m going to die." That does not exactly make too much sense. How can it only be breath? It must be consciousness. €œFather, into Your hands I commend My spirit." If there is not a spiritual component of men and women made in God's image and likeness that go beyond this that is conscious, why did Jesus commend it? Why did Stephen commend it?

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

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

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

How can you blaspheme an €œit"? How can He only be an angel when the angels are called to worship Him and we"re told both in Psalm 45 and in Hebrews 1 He is God and there"s only one God. Please tell me how. How can I be expected to follow people who in the name of Jehovah predict things that have not happened when Jehovah commanded me and you to get away from them, and when your own organization says we shouldn"t follow people that do that? These questions are sincere and they are fair.

If what you believe is right, if your organization is really Jehovah"s organization, if it"s really the truth, I want to know it and I want to be part of it. But it"s false, do you want to be part of it? If what you say is right, I want to be part of it. If it"s false, do you want to be part of it anyway?

I know that if anyone left your organization that they"d be losing their family, their marriage, even their children, but Jesus said, €œHe who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me". (Mt. 10:37) Believe me, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, many people who"ve come to believe in Jesus have had to deal with that.

Now I'm convinced that Jesus was God who became a man, that He went to the cross in my place and paid for my sins on that cross, and that He  literally rose from the dead to give me eternal life. I"m convinced that"s true. And I"m convinced what He did for me He wants to do for you, but if I"m wrong I want to be proven wrong. I'll be happy to answer your questions, just write me or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. document.getElementById('cloak7040673b70cf9f16dfff5839dd467427').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy7040673b70cf9f16dfff5839dd467427 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy7040673b70cf9f16dfff5839dd467427 = addy7040673b70cf9f16dfff5839dd467427 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text7040673b70cf9f16dfff5839dd467427 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak7040673b70cf9f16dfff5839dd467427').innerHTML += ''+addy_text7040673b70cf9f16dfff5839dd467427+''; , I'll answer your questions or write us here in Britain:

Moriel P.O. Box   201 Maidenhead SL69FB

I"m only asking one thing: Please answer mine. I've given you five sincere, honest questions. I'll be happy to talk to you, so will the person who directed you here. We"ll be happy to talk to you, just answer the questions.

Thank you, dear friends. We hope to hear from you.

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. €œReligions are like soups", he said. €œSome, like consomme, are thin and clear (Unitarianism, Confucianism, modern Judaism); others, like minestrone, are thick and dark (paganism, €œmystery religions"). Only Hinduism and Christianity are both €œthin" (philosophical) and €œthick" (sacramental and mysterious). But Hinduism is really two religions: €œthick" for the masses, €œthin" 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 €œone way" or single objective truth.  

There is, however, a universal subjective truth about human nature: It has €œfour 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('cloak1ee03b949f08a4acfdfaaa3853d344c3').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy1ee03b949f08a4acfdfaaa3853d344c3 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy1ee03b949f08a4acfdfaaa3853d344c3 = addy1ee03b949f08a4acfdfaaa3853d344c3 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text1ee03b949f08a4acfdfaaa3853d344c3 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak1ee03b949f08a4acfdfaaa3853d344c3').innerHTML += ''+addy_text1ee03b949f08a4acfdfaaa3853d344c3+''; 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.

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"?

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.

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

The nations will resort to the root of Jesse €¦

€¦the €œsores Yisay"..

€¦the peoples €¦

€¦the €œammim".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But 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('cloak5ef3b823790ce44e37feea0b21d8622e').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy5ef3b823790ce44e37feea0b21d8622e = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy5ef3b823790ce44e37feea0b21d8622e = addy5ef3b823790ce44e37feea0b21d8622e + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text5ef3b823790ce44e37feea0b21d8622e = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak5ef3b823790ce44e37feea0b21d8622e').innerHTML += ''+addy_text5ef3b823790ce44e37feea0b21d8622e+''; ; 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('cloak70cf7a8d26571745fe92abc0fc9cbe8b').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy70cf7a8d26571745fe92abc0fc9cbe8b = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy70cf7a8d26571745fe92abc0fc9cbe8b = addy70cf7a8d26571745fe92abc0fc9cbe8b + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text70cf7a8d26571745fe92abc0fc9cbe8b = 'e-mail us';document.getElementById('cloak70cf7a8d26571745fe92abc0fc9cbe8b').innerHTML += ''+addy_text70cf7a8d26571745fe92abc0fc9cbe8b+''; 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.

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('cloak21b192c3dbae209578c2a1d126ca4325').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy21b192c3dbae209578c2a1d126ca4325 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy21b192c3dbae209578c2a1d126ca4325 = addy21b192c3dbae209578c2a1d126ca4325 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text21b192c3dbae209578c2a1d126ca4325 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak21b192c3dbae209578c2a1d126ca4325').innerHTML += ''+addy_text21b192c3dbae209578c2a1d126ca4325+''; . 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.

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.

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 €œbreath", how could Jesus have risen? His breath rose? Now I'm confused. How could €œbreath" 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 €œsoma" €“ His bodywould rise.

Let"s look at John 21:12. I"d like to read it to you.

Jesus said to them, €œCome and have breakfast." None of the disciples ventured to question Him, €œWho are You?" knowing that it was the Lord.

€œCome eat breakfast". When Jesus raised a little girl from the dead He said, €œTalitah  t"kumi", and His first instruction was, €œGive 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. €œCome 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, €œStop 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 €œbreath" and that I"m told His €œbreath" rose? His body had to rise €“ €œStop 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 €œsoma", He didn't use the word €œpsuchei", the text does not use the word €œpnuma" €“ but €œsoma", €œbody". He says His body would raise from the dead. If the tomb was empty, He said €œStop 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?

“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.

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.

€œAllah" is a generic term in Arabic for €œgod", 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 €œGod"? It is an Arabic word for €œgod" €“ that is without dispute, but there is another word called €œEl" 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 €œAllah", His name is called €œYahweh". Yes, the Hebrew €œElohim" €“ €œGod" can be translated into €œAllah", but €œYahweh" cannot be translated into €œAllah".

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 €œthird 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.

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.

My second question is: Mohammed was the greatest prophet €“  greater than Jesus, greater than Moses €“ al-asam so teaches: €œThere 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 €“ €œangels" 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 €“ €œIsa", €œYeshua", 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?

€œFe"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, €œIs 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 €œslavery" and they don"t call it €œslavery" 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, €œWhat"s wrong with it? Our prophet did it." These are Wahabbist Saudi Arabians. €œWahab" €“ 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, €œBecause Mohammed did it." That's what they said on television.

That is my second question: €œHow 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.

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?

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. €œWho 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.

€œWho 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. €œI know your insolence!" King David says it was just a question. €œNo, 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, €œGood 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, €œOh, these people can be saved without Christ."

€œYou 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.

But I have another question. The question is on €œJihad" €“ €œholy war". Western Muslims like to say, €œJihad 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, €œAllah 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, €œJihad 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 €œJihad"  one way or the other is not the issue. The Quran says, €œAllah 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 €œJihad".

One Arab leader, one Muslim leader after another €“ both Sunni and Shi"a €“ have called the struggle €œJihad". 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.

€œI 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 €œMizmorim" 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.

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('cloak2fa6ae0dff4d579e2d03ef07cd09c107').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy2fa6ae0dff4d579e2d03ef07cd09c107 = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy2fa6ae0dff4d579e2d03ef07cd09c107 = addy2fa6ae0dff4d579e2d03ef07cd09c107 + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text2fa6ae0dff4d579e2d03ef07cd09c107 = 'e-mail me';document.getElementById('cloak2fa6ae0dff4d579e2d03ef07cd09c107').innerHTML += ''+addy_text2fa6ae0dff4d579e2d03ef07cd09c107+''; 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.

“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.

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('cloakb06a66ab38aba02ab0617f35c9f2505a').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addyb06a66ab38aba02ab0617f35c9f2505a = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addyb06a66ab38aba02ab0617f35c9f2505a = addyb06a66ab38aba02ab0617f35c9f2505a + 'yahoo' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_textb06a66ab38aba02ab0617f35c9f2505a = 'e-mail us';document.getElementById('cloakb06a66ab38aba02ab0617f35c9f2505a').innerHTML += ''+addy_textb06a66ab38aba02ab0617f35c9f2505a+''; . 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?

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.

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. €œThe 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 €œGospel", what the Gospel in the Last Days means

The word €œGospel" in Hebrew is €œbisorah". It simply means, it could be translated as, €œglad tidings", but basically is €œgood news". €œHow lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings bisorah". (Isa 52:7) In Hebrew, €œto evangelize" €“ €œLevasar be"sorah". The infinitive of the verb comes from the noun. Greek, €œevangelion". It"s where we get the word €œevangelical". €œGood 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 €œpeace" is €œshalom", yes? And I"ve explained we have shalom because He came to leshalem. The Hebrew word €œshalom" €“ €œpeace", does not mean the absence of conflict; that's the Greek idea. €œIrene", like the girl"s name is the Greek idea €œabsence of conflict" or as Samuel Johnson defined it, €œa period of separation and deception between two wars." Shalom is not that. Shalom comes from the Hebrew word €œsillum", €œTo pay" €“ €œlashalem" €“ €œto pay", €œto fill", €œto 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 €œshalom". Jesus said, €œMy 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 €œpeace"? No. Does she have €œshalom"? Yes. There"s a brother in my church back there; he"s battling cancer, having major surgery. Does he have €œpeace"? No to €œpeace" but does he have €œshalom"? 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 €“ €œto pay", €œto fill", €œto 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 €œgospel 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.

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, €œDavid 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.

€œHow 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 €œwhat", the question has never been €œwhat". €œHere" is €œwhat". Find the soft spot, find the stone, learn how to shoot, and pick up his own sword. €œWhat" to do is not the question €“ we know what to do. The Word of God tells us want to do. €œWhat to do" is not the question, the question, my dear brethren in Jesus, is not €œwhat", the question is €œwho".

God bless.

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

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('cloak2d49099991f29aee46ac9c5951a45b2a').innerHTML = ''; var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy2d49099991f29aee46ac9c5951a45b2a = 'MorielCarol' + '@'; addy2d49099991f29aee46ac9c5951a45b2a = addy2d49099991f29aee46ac9c5951a45b2a + 'gmail' + '.' + 'com'; var addy_text2d49099991f29aee46ac9c5951a45b2a = 'Carol';document.getElementById('cloak2d49099991f29aee46ac9c5951a45b2a').innerHTML += ''+addy_text2d49099991f29aee46ac9c5951a45b2a+'';