Korábbi bejegyzésekben Jézus istensége miatt szóba kerültek Jehova Tanúi. Velük kapcsolatban ajánlanám egy ex-tanú, nevezetesen Kevin R. Quick honlapját angolul, és két könyvét, mely magyarul is elérhető. Számomra mindkettő elég fontos volt akkoriban, amikor ‘elkülönültem’ a ’szervezettől’. Jó szívvel ajánlom minkettőt azoknak, akik hitvédelmi szempontból érdeklődnek az Őrtorony Társulat iránt.

Az Őrtorony-zarándoklat Quick életrajzi írása. Ebben elmeséli, hogy hogyan lett Jehova Tanúja, bemutatja, milyen az élet a ’szervezeten’ belül, ill. azt is, hogyan jött el közülük. Azért hasznos a könyvet elolvasni, mert belőle jól megismerhető a Tanúk gondolkodása, valamint az is, hogy mi mindenen mennek keresztül azok, akik eljönnek tőlük. Mindezt elég röviden sikerült összefoglalnia, ezért kellemes olvasmány lehet azoknak is, akik a túl vastag könyveket nem szeretik. A könyv érdekessége még, hogy a magyar fordítást szintén egy ex-tanú készítette, a néhai Bana Zoli. Az ő honlapján további érdekességek is vannak a tanúkról.

A másik könyv pedig az Érveljünk Jehova Tanúinak, amely egy szentírási tanulmány a Társulat teológiájáról. 28 témát ölel fel, amelyek sarkalatos pontok a Tanúk bibliaértelmezésében (pl. háromság-tan, üdvössőg módja, halál utáni dolgok stb.). Nem tartalmaz hosszas magyarázatokat, csak egyszerűen megfogalmazott kérdéseket, melyekre a választ az utánuk — különböző bibliafordításokból — idézett írásszövegekből lehet meglátni. Hasznos lehet azoknak, akik rövid idő alatt szeretnének megalapozott válaszokat adni a Zűrtorony nézeteire. A magyar változatot jómagam készítettem néhány éve, az angol eredeti a szerző honlapjáról letölthető.

Muchos comentarios han surgido en internet sobre el reciente documento denominado “La Declaración de Manhattan.” Este documento surgió como una respuesta cristiana a los recientes ataques a los que se ha enfrentado la iglesia en los Estados Unidos. Chuck Colson, una de las mentes que produjo la declaración dice,

También es un claro mensaje a las autoridades civiles que no nos quedaremos quietos, bajo ninguna circunstancia, mientras nuestra libertad religiosa es atacada.”

Es claro que, por lo menos en el país norteamericano, las autoridades han atacado las creencias bíblicas a las cuales se adhieren millones de personas. Iglesias están siendo obligadas a prestar sus instalaciones para la realización de bodas entre homosexuales; pastores siendo demandados por predicar acerca del pecado y en contra del homosexualismo, etc. El odio a las verdades bíblicas y al Dios verdadero es tan evidente en muchos de los que representan el poder en los Estados Unidos, que se han dedicado a atacar a cualquiera que represente el cristianismo.

Han habido voces a favor de la declaración, como Albert Mohler, quien firmó el documento (ver otros), otras voces en contra como John MacArthur (ver otros aquí) y hasta otros que parecen ser neutrales. Y a pesar de que no es un documento en el que deba participar un latino, considero que muchos de los líderes de nuestros países están siguiendo los pasos de los liberales norteamericanos, y están queriendo atacar el matrimonio, promover el homosexualismo, etc.

He leído varias respuestas con respecto a la declaración, y me gustaría dar un breve comentario de lo que creo es un problema real. Me estoy refiriendo, como muchos lo han expresado en sus propios blogs, sobre el ecumenismo tan notorio en la declaración. Quiéranlo o no, acéptenlo o no, el documento es una declaración que fue formulada con la idea de ser una respuesta cristiana. Para los que lo conocen, Chuck Colson es un hombre que apoya abiertamente el movimiento ecuménico entre protestantes y católicos romanos. Él mismo escribe lo siguiente, “es uno de los más importantes documentos producidos por la Iglesia Americana.“

Nadie puede negar que la Declaración de Manhattan es un documento ecuménico. Noten nada más uno de los párrafos del escrito,

Nosotros, como Ortodoxos, Católicos, y Cristianos Evangélicos, nos hemos reunido, iniciando en Nueva York el 28 de Setiembre del 2009, para hacer la siguiente declaración, que firmamos como individuos, no en representación de nuestras organizaciones, sino hablando hacia y desde nuestras comunidades. Actuamos juntos en obediencia al único Dios verdadero, el Dios trino de santidad y amor, quien ha tomado total posesión de nuestras vidas y por ese reclamo nos llama con los creyentes de todas las eras y todas las naciones para buscar y defender el bien de todos los que llevan Su imágen. Creamos esta declaración a la luz de la verdad que está basada en las Sagradas Escrituras, en el razonamiento humano, y en la misma naturaleza de la persona humana. Llamamos a toda la gente de bien, creyentes y no creyentes por igual, para que consideren y reflexionen criticamente en los temas que aquí tratamos pues nosotros, como San Pablo, hacemos este llamado a la conciencia de todos a la vista de Dios…Nosotros somos cristianos que nos hemos unido a pesar de las diferencias históricas en la línea eclesiástica para afirmar nuestro derecho-y más importante, abrazar nuestra obligación-de hablar y actuar en defensa de estas verdades.”

Si me pidieran firmar el documento-y no lo van a hacer-considero que no sería lo correcto por la razón que brindaré a continuación. La Declaración dice, “Nosotros, como Ortodoxos, Católicos, y Cristianos Evangélicos, nos hemos reunido…Nosotros somos cristianos que nos hemos unido a pesar de las diferencias históricas en la línea eclesiástica.” Mi pregunta, para iniciar mi respuesta, es la siguiente: Qué es lo que hace a una persona un cristiano? Lo hace el reconocer que el Dios de la Biblia es el único Dios verdadero? Lo hace el reconocer que Dios es trino? Por supuesto estas son doctrinas esenciales para ser salvos. Pero, no hacen lo mismo los demonios? Es decir, suponen ustedes que los demonios no creen que Dios sea uno, o que la Trinidad es una realidad? Los demonios saben perfectamente que no existe otro Dios, que el Padre es Dios, que el Hijo es Dios, y que el Espíritu Santo es Dios.Y sabemos que ese conocimiento no hace a los demonios cristianos.

Lo que lo hace a uno cristiano es el evangelio de Cristo. Es en el evangelio en donde podemos reconocer la Santidad, Justicia, Bondad, MIsericordia y Amor de Dios; es en el evangelio en donde podemos reconocer la maldad de nuestro propio corazón, rebelde, obstinado y orgulloso, siempre buscando la manera de quitarle la gloria a Dios. Es en el evangelio en donde podemos reconocer que nosotros estamos totalmente desprovistos de la justicia que exige Dios y es en el evangelio en donde vemos la sabiduría de Dios para castigar el pecado de un pueblo, propiciar Su ira a causa de ese pecado, sin tener que castigar a algún individuo de Su pueblo. El evangelio nos muestra a Cristo como nuestro sustituto, y de quien obtenemos el perdón de pecados, y la justificación por medio de la fe. Esto es lo que caracteriza al cristiano.

Pero, podrá considerarse cristiano a aquel que cree que la salvación es por obras? Podrá serlo aquel que cree que la en el bautismo se infunde la justicia de Dios para que luego la persona obre cada día buscando justificarse a sí mismo? O aquel que cree que hay otros mediadores entre el hombre y Dios? Si la respuesta es no, entonces que hacen creyentes firmando un documento que afirma que tales personas son cristianas? Yo creo firmemente en la libertad religiosa de las personas, sin embargo cuando se crea un documento que afirma que personas que han pisoteado el evangelio de Cristo pueden ser contadas como cristianos, me deja atónito, pues esto hace pensar a los incrédulos que pueden encontrar la salvación en las falsas iglesias como las católico romanas.

El ecumenismo ha sido un gran problema en años recientes. Muchos creyentes han abrazado la mentira que el catolicismo romano contiene el verdadero evangelio, cuando la verdad es que lo que predica Roma es un falso evangelio, que ha condenado a más personas que cualquier otra herejía que haya sido propuesta. En mi humilde opinión, considero el documento un “obscurecimiento del evangelio” de Cristo, para utilizar las palabras de James White.

Sólo el verdadero evangelio puede transformar el pensamiento de los hombres. Pero si éste ha sido afectado al aceptar a los que predican una mentira como si fueran verdaderos cristianos, se quita el único poder que existe para la salvación de las almas. No estoy diciendo que un incrédulo no pueda ver la maldad del aborto o lo incorrecto del matrimonio homosexual, sino que como cristianos debemos preocuparnos prioritariamente porque el evangelio sea mostrado a toda criatura. De ahí debe partir nuestro deseo de transformar al mundo. Espero que lo que hayan leído la Declaración brinden sus opiniones aquí.

sujetosalaroca.org
Suscribete para recibir actualizaciones de entradas como esta.
Suscribete por email.
Suscribete al podcast por iTunes.
Únete al grupo en Facebook aquí.
Apoya este sitio visitando los patrocinadores aquí.

A háromság-tan helyes megértésének szempontjából fontos vers a Jn 10:30, ahol ez áll: “Én és az Atya egy vagyunk” (MBT). A vers egyrészt a hamis háromság-modellekkel szemben véd, másrészt azokkal szemben, akik tagadják Jézus Isten voltát.

Meg kell jegyezni, hogy a versben található egy szó a görög hen (ἕν), ami semleges nemű. Ha hímnemű lenne, akkor a vers a modalizmust támasztaná alá, mely szerint Jahve (az Istenség) egyetlen személy, akinek három megjelenési formája van. Olyan ez, mint egy ember különböző szerepei, annak függvényében, hogy éppen milyen interakcióban van benne (pl. apa, férj, munkavállaló stb.). Ha ugyanis hímnemű lenne az egy, akkor a személy egységére utalna, vagyis arra, hogy Jézus és az Atya valójában egy és ugyanaz a személy. Ez ellen természetesen a görög nyelvtanon kívül számos egyéb bibliai érv is szól (pl. Mt 3:16-17, 26:39 stb.).

Mivel semleges nemű, ezért nem a személy egységét, hanem a természet, a jelleg egységét fejezi ki a szó. Vagyis Jézus ugyanannak az isteni természetnek a részese, mint az Atya. Ugyanazokkal az isteni tulajdonságokkal rendelkezik, azaz a szó bibliai értelmében Jézus Isten (Fil 2:6). Ebből pedig világosan látható, hogy azok, akik Jézust teremtett lénynek tekintik (pl. Jehova Tanúi, krisztadelfiánusok), tévednek.

“Az ‘egy’ szó (hen) semleges nemű, és a lényegre utal, nem pedig a személyre. (…) Az Atya és a Fiú egyetlen isteni lényeget alkot, de az istenségen belül két külön személy marad” (J.C. Laney).

Salute a te.

Ti faccio sapere la seguente cosa, che ritengo molto importante.

In un articolo dal titolo ‘I MIRACOLI DI REINHARD BONNKE’ a cura di Alexander Seibel, presente sul sito di Nicola Martella si legge: ‘Un’osservazione, di cui purtroppo si deve prendere continuamente atto in relazione a queste storie di miracoli, è questa: la mancanza di veracità’.

Sono d’accordo, esiste mancanza di veracità in relazione a tante storie di miracoli e guarigioni esistenti in mezzo al Movimento Pentecostale (non è questo però il caso della morte e della resurrezione di Daniel Ekechukwu, che per altro non è stato risuscitato da Bonnke, anche se purtroppo questo è quello che viene detto da molti): e come tu ben sai io confuto pubblicamente queste falsità diffuse, pur naturalmente credendo e predicando – a differenza di quanto fanno Nicola Martella e altri, per mancanza di conoscenza delle Sacre Scritture e della potenza di Dio – che lo Spirito ancora oggi distribuisce i doni di guarigioni e di potenza di operare miracoli tramite i quali vengono compiuti delle guarigioni e dei miracoli AUTENTICI.

Ora, ho fatto questa premessa per farti notare quanto segue: che la mancanza di veracità però c’è anche nella redazione di Puntoacroce, perchè oltre a mentire contro la verità dicendo che i doni dello Spirito Santo oggi non vengono più distribuiti come ai giorni degli apostoli, diffondono una menzogna sul conto del pastore Daniel Ekechukwu dicendo quanto segue : ‘Nota editoriale: Per un profilo di Maurizio Bua si veda la sua pagina. Per una sua coazione col «pastore Daniel» si veda il filmato della conferenza a Palermo dell’08-09-2006 (chiesa antitrinitaria fondata da Antonino Chinnici); in esso il «pastore Daniel» difende l’antitrinitarismo di Chinnici, definendolo il «vero evangelo» e dichiarando la dottrina della Trinità come «dottrina di Babilonia»!). È questo il risultato della sua sublime rivelazione celeste?’

Ora, che Maurizio Bua sia antitrinitariano è certamente vero, ma è falso che in quel filmato Daniel Ekechukwu difenda l’eresia antitrinitariana, in quanto il Daniel che predica in quella conferenza non è Daniel Ekechukwu che è risorto dai morti: SONO DUE PERSONE DIVERSE, QUANTUNQUE AMBEDUE NERE DI PELLE E PORTINO LO STESSO NOME. Io ho scaricato il video e l’ho guardato attentamente, e posso assicurare che il Daniel che predica in quella conferenza (comincia al minuto 8 ) non è il Daniel che è risorto dai morti e che parla in questo video che abbiamo messo sul nostro sito a questa pagina

Ti esorto a verificare la cosa tu personalmente.

Il Daniel (dal Ghana) del video della conferenza a Palermo

Daniel antitrinitario dal Ghana

Daniel Ekechukwu (dalla Nigeria)

Daniel Ekechukwu nigeriano

Ora, che comportamento è questo? Certamente è un comportamento scorretto, condannato dalla Scrittura. Paolo dice: “Bandita la menzogna, ognuno dica la verità al suo prossimo, perchè siamo membra gli uni degli altri” (Efesini 4:25). Prima di dire di qualcuno che è un antitrinitario, occorre fare delle verifiche, come le ho fatte io sul conto di Maurizio Bua, ma qui si è lanciata un’accusa senza aver verificato nulla. Perchè è palese come la luce del sole che quell’uomo Daniel che predica e difende l’eresia antitrinitariana nel filmato segnalato dal sito puntoacroce per cercare di confutare la resurrezione dai morti sperimentata dal fratello Daniel Ekechukwu, non è Daniel Ekechukwu.

Tu sei dunque avvertito. Potrei dire molte altre cose su questo comportamento, in quanto è sleale e ingiusto, ma mi fermo qui. Se sei una persona intelligente, bastano queste poche parole per farti capire tante cose sul conto di quegli ‘Evangelici’ che combattono i VERI MIRACOLI E LE VERE GUARIGIONI.

Dio ti benedica

Giacinto Butindaro

---

Appello alla fratellanza

Mi sono trovato costretto a scrivervi, fratelli nel Signore, questo appello poiché dopo la pubblicazione del mio articolo ‘Mancanza di veracità sul sito di Nicola Martella, a proposito di Daniel Ekechukwu’, il suddetto Nicola Martella ha agito furbescamente cercando con i suoi sofismi di ingannarvi in merito a quanto ho fatto chiaramente notare nel mio suddetto articolo.

Ma andiamo per ordine, e spieghiamo come sono andate le cose.

——————————-

In data 25 Dicembre 2008, il fratello Antonio Sammartino, dopo aver letto il mio articolo, scrive ad Nicola Martella questa lettera:

Egregio signor nicola martella se per lei queste due foto appartengono alla stessa persona, le consiglio un ricovero urgente in un reparto oculistico della citta’ devo lei risiede, (visto che lei non crede che Dio faccia ancora miracoli). E dopo la cura, la invito a scusarsi pubblicamente sul suo sito per aver ingannato tutti coloro che hanno visto cio’ che e’ stato scritto da lei nella nota redazionale. A non risentirla e la prego di non rispondermi perche’ non mi sento per niente onorato di ricevere posta da persone che si comportano come lei, e lei di questa menzogna rendera’ conto all’IDDIO di verita’ . Questo e’ quanto le dovevo, sperando in un suo prossimo ravvedimento.

In data 26 Dicembre Nicola Martella risponde ad Antonio Sammartino così:

Egregio signor Antonio, shalom. Ti saluto nel Nome dell’unico Salvatore e Signore, Gesù Cristo. Se non vuoi che ti rispondo (e questo manca di buona creanza e di stile), perché mai scrivermi? Così solo per ferire qualcuno? Purtroppo non ho capito chi sei, che cosa vuoi con questa tua missiva e a che cosa tu ti riferisca. Strano modo di finire l’anno, no? Che Dio faccia miracoli, non deve certo chiederlo a me e a te. A noi sta di verificare ciò che altri dicono e fanno (1 Cor 14,29-32). Dovrò rendere conto a Dio un giorno? Tutti lo dovremo fare, addirittura tu. Dovrei ravvedermi? Prima dovrei sapere da che cosa. Intanto comincia da te, visto che ti ritieni saggio e sicuro? Chi sta in piedi, guardi di non cadere. E poi, ammesso e non concesso, che io fossi caduto, sebbene non abbia capito in che cosa, è questo il modo di rialzare un fratello in Cristo (Gcm 5), ossia buttando la pietra e nascondendo la mano? Questo la dice lunga sullo stato del tuo proprio cuore.

Se hai bisogno d’aiuto, sono a tua disposizione, così come faccio ogni giorno con altri. Se vuoi spiegarti meglio, fallo, usando parole di grazia e buona creanza. Se vuoi argomentare, usa la “Parola di verità”, tagliandola rettamente e badando bene a non andare oltre.

Saluti e benedizioni… Nicola Martella

In data 26 Dicembre Antonio Sammartino risponde al Martella chiarendo le cose:

Egregio Signor Martella forse non sono stato chiaro nel mio parlare e per questo la prego di scusarmi ma io mi riferivo al contenuto che si trova nel sito di mio fratello (in Cristo) Butindaro Giacinto che si trova in questa pagina web. http://www.lanuovavia.org/confutazioni-nota-editoriale-puntoacroce.html

Nicola Martella va a leggere il mio articolo e il 27 Dicembre mi scrive quanto segue:

Caro Giacinto, shalom. Giorni fa ho ricevuto una e-mail molto sibillina di Antonio Sammartino, che mi lanciava accuse, di cui però non capivo il senso.

Gli ho risposto chiedendogli di spiegarmi e mi ha risposto, rimandandomi al tuo sito e a un tuo articolo. Ci sono stato e mi sono meravigliato per diversi motivi. Ogni tanto mi arrivano su di te cose positive e negative e, pur essendo stato sul tuo sito, mi sono astenuto dal muoverti critiche particolari su ciò che tu scrivi. In secondo luogo, quando scrivo su qualcuno, in genere avverto tale persona del fatto e mando spesso a lui il link in anteprima perché verifichi i fatti, da me scritti, e prenda posizione.

Perciò in ubbidienza alla parola di Gesù di Mt 18, visto che tu hai qualcosa contro di me, muovo io il primo passo e ti chiedo: perché non mi hai messo al corrente di tutto ciò? perché non hai chiarito con me le cose? perché tali giudizi così sommari sulla mia persona? Ammesso e non concesso che io abbia confuso le due persone con lo stesso nome e cognome (che certo non si chiamano “Mario Rossi” e non abitano ambedue a Milano), questo ti autorizza a formulare giudizi così perentori sulla mia persona? Pensi che Dio ne sarà insensibile?

Poco fa un fratello che ha visionato tale pagina mi ha scritto sul “tono usato da Butindaro”: “E mi dispiace perché mi piace il suo tono, a volte discorsivo, che ha in qualche scritto che ho letto. Il Signore sarà il giusto Giudice”. Quando altri leggeranno le tue parole, esse avranno un effetto a doppia lama, quando confrontando le cose, vedranno che la tua reazione è ingiusta e ingiustificata. E ciò mi dispiace. Una cosa è portare fatti riscontrabili, altra cosa è diffamare.

Certo il tuo modo di fare spinge l’altro ad analizzare il tuo sito per trovarvi cose, che sono attaccabili dal punto di vista esegetico e teologico, e di portarle alla luce. Queste però non sono le mie intenzioni, avendo ben altro da fare. Ti lascio con queste parole: “Non andrai qua e là facendo il diffamatore fra il tuo popolo, né ti presenterai ad attestare il falso a danno della vita del tuo prossimo. Io sono l’Eterno. Non odierai il tuo fratello in cuor tuo; riprendi pure il tuo prossimo, ma non ti caricare d’un peccato a motivo di lui. Non ti vendicherai, e non serberai rancore contro i figli del tuo popolo, ma amerai il prossimo tuo come te stesso” (Lv 19,16ss).

Aspettando un tuo riscontro, ti saluto in Gesù Messia… Nicola Martella

Lo stesso giorno io gli rispondo così:

Pace a te. Nicola, le cose mi paiono chiare come la luce del sole. Tu hai mosso pubblicamente un accusa ingiusta contro un pastore pentecostale, definendolo antitrinitariano (e quindi se c’è qualcuno che sta diffamando sei tu) e rimandando le persone dal tuo sito a visionare un video dove non è ASSOLUTAMENTE lui che parla contro la Trinità. E tutti coloro che fino ad ora hanno letto la tua nota redazionale, si sono fatti quell’idea, anche perchè il video ci vuole una buona ora per scaricarlo con l’adsl, e sono convinto che la stragrande maggioranza dei fratelli che l’hanno letta non siano andati a vedere il video essendosi fidati delle tue parole.

Quindi, tu devi fare una cosa molto semplice: riconoscere il tuo errore, e poi scusarti pubblicamente sul tuo sito e in una mail per questo tuo errore, che ancora non ho capito a cosa sia stato dovuto. Tu dici che bisogna verificare le fonti, le informazioni e così via: e fai bene. Ma questa volta o non hai visionato il video da te segnalato nella nota redazionale o lo hai visto e non hai visto la differenza tra le due persone, il che mi sembra incredibile, perchè fino ad ora tutti i fratelli che lo hanno visto non hanno potuto scambiare le persone per la stessa persona. Vuoi spiegarmi come mai hai messo il link a quel video del ‘pastore Daniel’ alla conferenza di Palermo identificandolo con il Daniel che è risuscitato dai morti?

Io ho portato fatti riscontrabili da tutti, tu invece hai diffamato un servo del Signore. Non ti è piaciuto il mio tono? Non mi piace neppure il tuo, se è per questo, e non solo il tono ma non mi piacciono neppure le tue parole insensate contro la manifestazione dello Spirito Santo, che mostrano che non conosci le Scritture e neppure la potenza di Dio.

Ho espresso un giudizio sulla tua persona basato su dei fatti riscontrabili e non sul sentito dire. Hai diffamato pubblicamente un pastore; cosa pensavi che potessi dire dinnanzi ad una simile cosa? E poi, tu non hai peccato contro di me, che dovevo venire da te privatamente e riprenderti; perchè qui hai commesso il peccato di diffamazione contro un credente, e per questo si deve essere ripresi pubblicamente, affinché gli altri fratelli sappiano che la tua è una falsa accusa. Tu dovevi avere una riprensione pubblica perchè tu ti rivolgi al pubblico con le tue parole.

E bada bene che qui non si tratta di difendere un pentecostale, ma la verità. Avrei scritto le medesime cose, se l’errore tu lo avessi fatto anche nei confronti di un pastore battista o metodista: sia chiaro questo. Anzi ti dirò di più; avrei fatto la stessa cosa, anche nel caso su un sito fossi stato tu ad essere accusato di essere antitrinitariano, perchè so che tu credi nella Trinità.

La mia reazione non è nè ingiusta e neppure ingiustificata; semmai è la tua azione ingiusta e ingiustificata, perchè hai messo in rete una notizia falsa, priva di ogni fondamento sul conto di un pastore pentecostale; e tutto questo perchè? Perchè non credi che Dio lo ha risuscitato dai morti; e questa tua incredulità ti ha travolto la mente, al punto di metterti a diffamare quel credente definendolo antitrinitariano; pensando in questa maniera di portare i credenti a non credere anche loro nella sua resurrezione, dato che è antitrinitariano (tu dici infatti: ‘È questo il risultato della sua sublime rivelazione celeste?’, certo che no, io rispondo, perchè il Daniel che è morto e risorto non è il Daniel che si vede nel video della conferenza a Palermo!!). E adesso quella notizia è nella testa di tanti credenti. Ravvediti, riconosci il tuo errore, e scusati pubblicamente; anche mandando una mail nella tua mailing list; perchè quello che hai fatto è grave, molto grave. Mi pare di intravedere in questa tua frase ‘Ammesso e non concesso che io abbia confuso le due persone’, la tipica reazione di chi non vuole riconoscere il suo errore, e quindi intravedo arroganza e superbia, spero di sbagliarmi. Nicola fai quello che la Parola di Dio ti chiama a fare. Pubblica una nota con le tue scuse, e che siano chiare come è stata chiara la falsa accusa da te lanciata contro il fratello Daniel della Nigeria.

Io spero che tu agisca da savio, come si conviene ai santi.

Dio ti benedica

Giacinto Butindaro

———————————–

Ora, dopo tutto ciò Nicola Martella fa le seguenti cose:

1) Modifica la prima parte della nota editoriale (che ora è la nota editoriale 1) all’intervento di Maurizio Bua, in cui diffamava Daniel Ekechukwu, e lo fa rendendola in questa maniera (le parti con scritta rossa e sfondo giallo sono quelle aggiunte):

Per un profilo di Maurizio Bua si veda la sua pagina. Per una sua coazione con un certo «pastore Daniel» (non è il nigeriano Daniel Ekechukwu) si veda il filmato della conferenza a Palermo dell’08-09-2006 nella chiesa antitrinitaria fondata da Antonino Chinnici. In esso, oltre a ciò che affermano Chinnici e Bua, è interessante vedere ciò che asserisce tale pastore africano che, essendo ospite, si sente in dovere di difende l’antitrinitarismo di Chinnici, definendolo il «vero evangelo» e dichiarando la dottrina della Trinità come «dottrina di Babilonia»! È questo il risultato delle sublimi rivelazioni celesti, di cui si vantano? Se si leggono le opere di carismaticisti o si vedono i loro video, si prende atto che, per accreditare le sue dottrine particolari, pressoché ognuno di loro si appella a rivelazioni sovrannaturali, oltre a enumerare tutti i suoi risultati ottenuti sul campo.

Su Maurizio Bua

La prima parte della precedente nota editoriale recitava così:

Per un profilo di Maurizio Bua si veda la sua pagina. Per una sua coazione col «pastore Daniel» si veda il filmato della conferenza a Palermo dell’08-09-2006 (chiesa antitrinitaria fondata da Antonino Chinnici); in esso il «pastore Daniel» difende l’antitrinitarismo di Chinnici, definendolo il «vero evangelo» e dichiarando la dottrina della Trinità come «dottrina di Babilonia»!). È questo il risultato della sua sublime rivelazione celeste?’

Su Maurizio Bua

2) Introduce un’altra nota editoriale (la 2) che dice quanto segue:

Per chi scrive continuamente, ricostruire qualcosa che dista otto mesi prima, è un’impresa molto ardua. Sebbene in tale nota io non abbia espresso chiaramente che il «pastore Daniel», con cui Maurizio Bua ha interagito nella detta conferenza, fosse Daniel Ekechukwu, a questa conclusione è arrivato Giacinto Butindaro ed essa si trova in alcune pagine dei siti in cui scrive, ed è stata ripresa anche da altri. Ne sono venuto a conoscenza in questi giorni, solo perché qualcuno mi ha scritto, dopo aver letto lo scritto di Butindaro, rinfacciandomi tale cosa, senza che io capissi perché, fino a quando poi mi ha mandato il link.

Non ricordo che cosa mi abbia mosso a mettere tale dettaglio in quella nota editoriale sull’antitrinitarismo di Maurizio Bua. Col senno del poi, mi dispiace di aver contribuito a fraintendimenti riguardo allo scambio di persone, usando poca accortezza e precisione in tale nota editoriale; forse avrei fatto bene a parlare direttamente di Maurizio Bua, senza mettere in campo tale «pastore Daniel». Ho modificato leggermente la nota precedente, sperando di togliere ombre e dubbi. Mi dispiace di essere stato incauto, alimentando l’eventualità che due credenti africani, di colore, di nome Daniel e ambedue pastori di chiese potessero essere confusi. In ogni modo, il primo a essere contento che Daniel Ekechukwu non sia tale «pastore Daniel» nel video di Maurizio Bua, sono io stesso; un antitrinitario di meno sulla terra.

Chi poteva però pensare che qualcuno si attaccasse a una pulce e la gonfiasse fino a farla diventare elefante? L’oggetto principale era l’articolo di Alexander Seibel e non tale nota editoriale su Maurizio Bua. È il classico caso di chi cerca l’ago nel pagliaio! Avevo parlato di tale «pastore Daniel», specialmente perché nel filmato egli esprimeva chiaramente le idee antitrinitarie di Chinnici e Bua, di cui tesseva pubblicamente le lodi dottrinali antitrinitarie; poteva essere anche qualcun altro di nome Calogero o Liborio.

La cosa saggia sarebbe stata che, prima di pubblicare ciò, Butindaro si fosse sincerato riguardo a che cosa io avessi voluto veramente dire; gli avrebbe conferito stile. E nel caso, in cui la sua tesi fosse stata vera, avrebbe potuto semplicemente convincermi che mi sbagliavo e io gliene sarei stato grato e avrei rimediato. È già successo che qualcuno mi abbia corretto su qualche dettaglio, e ho rimediato subito. Visto che a me interessa sempre la verità oggettiva, basata sulle prove, sono contento ogni qual volta qualcuno mi aiuta ad accertarla. Butindaro, invece, dopo avere tirato le sue somme, ha preferito «battere il sacco (pubblicare un intero articolo su un dettaglio in una mia nota editoriale su Bua) per colpire il gatto (ossia me per aver pubblicato l’articolo di Alexander Seibel)», così come recita il proverbio. E pensare che citavo lui come fonte per l’antitrinitarismo di Maurizio Bua! Visto che a quella conferenza quest’ultimo c’era e che ha ricevuto le mie risposte alle sue lettere, non doveva essere il primo a smentirmi nel caso in cui avessi scambiato i vari «Daniel»? Se lo avesse fatto e io fossi stato nel torto, avrei modificato subito tale nota. {27-12-2008}

Su Maurizio Bua

3) Toglie dalla risposta che lui aveva dato a Alfonso Marchetta la seguente frase: ‘In un video in rete tale «pastore Daniel» difende l’antitrinitarismo di Chinnici, definendolo il «vero evangelo» e dichiarando la dottrina della Trinità come «dottrina di Babilonia»! Credi tu questo? È questo il risultato della sua sublime rivelazione celeste?’ e aggiunge questa frase che prima non c’era: ‘riguardo alle cose asserite da Alexander Seibel?’

La risposta come era prima:

Possibile che tu debba reagire così? Fai così ogni volta che non sei d’accordo con qualcosa o con qualcuno? E che dovrei fare io, quando ricevo la pubblicità della tua agenzia di viaggi? Mi sembra un atteggiamento un po’ infantile.

Perché non leggi l’intero articolo e poi rispondi nel merito, se ne sei capace? In un video in rete tale «pastore Daniel» difende l’antitrinitarismo di Chinnici, definendolo il «vero evangelo» e dichiarando la dottrina della Trinità come «dottrina di Babilonia»! Credi tu questo? È questo il risultato della sua sublime rivelazione celeste?

Tolgo il tuo indirizzo. Che cosa dovrò fare io quando mi arriverà la tua pubblicità? Dovrò continuare a consigliare i tuoi viaggi in Israele?

Su Alfonso Marchetta

La risposta come appare adesso:

Possibile che tu debba reagire così? Fai così ogni volta che non sei d’accordo con qualcosa o con qualcuno? E che dovrei fare io, quando ricevo la pubblicità della tua agenzia di viaggi? Mi sembra un atteggiamento un po’ infantile.

Perché non leggi l’intero articolo e poi rispondi nel merito, se ne sei capace, riguardo alle cose asserite da Alexander Seibel?

Tolgo il tuo indirizzo. Che cosa dovrò fare io quando mi arriverà la tua pubblicità? Dovrò continuare a consigliare i tuoi viaggi in Israele?

Alfonso Marchetta

————————————

Mi aspettavo che Nicola Martella agisse da savio come auspicavo, e che quindi ammettese con chiarezza il suo errore ma così non è stato. Faccio queste affermazioni sulla base di questi fatti incontrovertibili che possono essere appurati da ogni lettore:

A) Nicola Martella avrebbe dovuto lasciare la nota editoriale così come era in precedenza (così che tutti potessero leggere quello che aveva detto a riguardo del pastore Daniel Ekechukwu e capire da loro stessi il suo errore e la ragione per cui chiedeva scusa), e scrivere una nota in cui riconosceva chiaramente il suo errore e chiedeva scusa. Tutto qua. Ma così non è stato.

B) Adesso chi legge la prima parte di questa nota si fa l’idea che egli voleva dire proprio questo con la prima parte di questa sua nota, ma così non è. Perché lui con la prima parte della nota precedente voleva confutare non solo Maurizio Bua ma anche il pastore Daniel Ekechukwu, e di conseguenza la sua resurrezione e le cose che aveva visto nell’aldilà. E dunque le sue parole erano anche rivolte contro il pastore Daniel Ekechukwu, il quale veniva dal Martella associato all’eresia sostenuta da Bua e Chinnici. E difatti dopo avere detto che il pastore Daniel difende l’antitrinitarismo, egli domanda: ‘È questo il risultato della sua sublime rivelazione celeste?’ Dunque il presunto antitrinitarismo di Daniel Ekechukwu veniva messo in relazione alla rivelazione divina che aveva avuto dopo morto. Come dire insomma: ‘Ecco l’ennesimo Pentecostale, che dice di avere avuto una rivelazione divina, e poi predica delle eresie; la rivelazione divina da lui avuta dunque non può essere da Dio!’. E’ vero che tutta la nota del Martella aveva il chiaro intento di confutare Maurizio Bua (che è antitrinitariano) perché difendeva Reinard Bonnke, ma è innegabile che in essa lui cercava di confutare anche la rivelazione di Daniel Ekechukwu, mentre adesso appare che Nicola Martella è contro le nefaste conseguenze delle ‘sublimi rivelazioni celesti’ di cui si vantano i Pentecostali (che lui chiama carismaticisti) e non contro quello che Daniel Ekechukwu ha visto e sentito tra la sua morte e la sua resurrezione. E poi adesso la prima parte della nota editoriale 1, così come è stata modificata, non ha nessun senso in quel contesto in cui si dibatteva l’autenticità della resurrezione di Daniel Ekechukwu. Perché la parte prima della nota aveva un senso quando c’era ‘il pastore Daniel’, ma non ce l’ha adesso, o meglio ne ha un altro adesso, che ha ‘un certo pastore Daniel’. Dunque modificando in questa maniera la prima parte della nota, il Martella ha mutato l’obbiettivo che si era proposto con essa. Non ha senso dire adesso nella nota ‘non è il nigeriano Daniel Ekechukwu’, perché il suo intento era quello di fare credere che quel pastore Daniel che a Palermo difendeva l’antitrinitarismo era appunto Daniel Ekechukwu. Ecco perché la cosa migliore da fare era quella di lasciare così come era questa nota, e crearne una nuova in cui spiegare il proprio errore.

C) Nicola Martella nella nota editoriale 2 mente e usa sofismi di vario genere.

Martella dice: ‘Per chi scrive continuamente, ricostruire qualcosa che dista otto mesi prima, è un’impresa molto ardua. Sebbene in tale nota io non abbia espresso chiaramente che il «pastore Daniel», con cui Maurizio Bua ha interagito nella detta conferenza, fosse Daniel Ekechukwu, a questa conclusione è arrivato Giacinto Butindaro ed essa si trova in alcune pagine dei siti in cui scrive, ed è stata ripresa anche da altri. Ne sono venuto a conoscenza in questi giorni, solo perché qualcuno mi ha scritto, dopo aver letto lo scritto di Butindaro, rinfacciandomi tale cosa, senza che io capissi perché, fino a quando poi mi ha mandato il link.’

Rispondo: Concordo che è impresa molto ardua ricostruire qualcosa che dista nel tempo 8 mesi indietro, ma non è impossibile. Con la grazia di Dio ce la si può fare, o meglio ce la si deve fare, soprattutto quando si tratta di riconoscere un proprio errore. E poi è falso che Martella non ha espresso chiaramente che il pastore Daniel con cui Maurizio Bua aveva interagito nella conferenza di Palermo era Daniel Ekechukwu. Come si fa a dire una simile cosa quando la discussione aveva come titolo: ‘FARE MISSIONE CON UN «MORTO» VIVENTE? PARLIAMONE’ ? Chi era il morto vivente in questione se non il pastore nigeriano Daniel Ekechukwu? Certamente il morto vivente non era il Daniel antitrinitariano che ha predicato a Palermo! Qualsiasi attento lettore giunge a questa conclusione nel leggere tutti gli interventi a quella discussione. E poi domando: ‘Se Martella avesse ragione nel dire che non ha espresso chiaramente che il pastore Daniel della conferenza di Palermo era Daniel Ekechukwu, cioè il morto vivente, come mai ha tolto dalla risposta data ad Alfonso Marchetta (l’intervento numero 10) la seguente frase: ‘In un video in rete tale «pastore Daniel» difende l’antitrinitarismo di Chinnici, definendolo il «vero evangelo» e dichiarando la dottrina della Trinità come «dottrina di Babilonia»! Credi tu questo? È questo il risultato della sua sublime rivelazione celeste?’ ? Evidentemente perché si è accorto che quel ‘tale pastore Daniel’ da lui detto nella risposta a Marchetta indica che egli stava riferendosi chiaramente al pastore Nigeriano Daniel Ekechukwu. Questa manomissione sta a dimostrare l’astuzia e la falsità con cui ha agito Nicola Martella in questa questione (per altro non ha fatto sapere di avere tolto questa parte dalla risposta data a Marchetta).

Martella dice: ‘Non ricordo che cosa mi abbia mosso a mettere tale dettaglio in quella nota editoriale sull’antitrinitarismo di Maurizio Bua. Col senno del poi, mi dispiace di aver contribuito a fraintendimenti riguardo allo scambio di persone, usando poca accortezza e precisione in tale nota editoriale; forse avrei fatto bene a parlare direttamente di Maurizio Bua, senza mettere in campo tale «pastore Daniel». Ho modificato leggermente la nota precedente, sperando di togliere ombre e dubbi. Mi dispiace di essere stato incauto, alimentando l’eventualità che due credenti africani, di colore, di nome Daniel e ambedue pastori di chiese potessero essere confusi. In ogni modo, il primo a essere contento che Daniel Ekechukwu non sia tale «pastore Daniel» nel video di Maurizio Bua, sono io stesso; un antitrinitario di meno sulla terra’.

Rispondo: Strano, veramente strano, che il Martella non si ricorda cosa lo abbia mosso a mettere quel dettaglio in quella nota editoriale sull’antitrinitarismo. Io ricordo, grazie a Dio, che cosa mi spinge a mettere dei dettagli nelle mie note dei miei libri, ma lui no. Eppure lui è uno scrittore che di dettagli ne scrive molti nelle sue note. Io penso che se facesse uno sforzo di memoria il Martella si ricorderebbe che cosa lo ha spinto a mettere quelle parole; la sua avversione verso tutto quello che di soprannaturale avviene in mezzo ai Pentecostali, e quindi la sua avversione verso i miracoli, le guarigioni, e le visioni che vengono concessi da Dio ancora oggi in mezzo al suo popolo. Quel dettaglio infatti aveva lo scopo di screditare la resurrezione del pastore nigeriano Daniel. Prendo atto del suo dispiacere, ma prendo atto anche che non c’è stato nessun fraintendimento delle sue parole né da parte mia né da parte di altri fratelli, perché le sue parole erano chiare come la luce del sole. Non era possibile capire una cosa per un’altra, perché si evinceva che il Martella stava riferendosi a Daniel Ekechukwu quando parlava del pastore Daniel del video della conferenza degli antitrinitari a Palermo. In altre parole, Martella voleva che chi leggeva la sua nota capisse che il pastore nigeriano risuscitato dai morti era antitrinitariano, e quando ha trovato in rete quel video della conferenza degli antitrinitariani a Palermo o qualcuno glielo ha segnalato, quando ha visto che a quella conferenza c’era anche un pastore che di nome faceva Daniel, ha pensato male di fare credere che era il Daniel risuscitato dai morti!! E qui vorrei dire qualcosa che ancora il Martella non ha chiarito: ma il video lo ha visto o no prima di scrivere quella nota editoriale? Ci sono tre possibilità: 1) Ha visto il video di Palermo e non ha visto il video della resurrezione di Daniel Ekechukwu come neppure nessuna foto che lo concerne (tutte cose che in Internet sono facilmente trovabili), per cui non sapendo che faccia abbia Daniel Ekechukwu, e siccome che il Daniel che predica nel video di Palermo non si capisce che cognome abbia (il Bua durante la predicazione dice il cognome ma non si capisce bene; potete sentirlo al 54 minuto e 12 secondi del video della conferenza), lui ha subito pensato che si trattasse del Daniel nigeriano risorto dai morti; 2) Ha visto il video della resurrezione di Daniel, ma non ha visto il video di Palermo; 3) Ha visto ambedue i video, e pur vedendo chiaramente che le due persone erano del tutto differenti, ha deciso ugualmente di scrivere quelle cose. E’ chiaro che la terza possibilità è la più grave e la più inquietante, perché ciò significherebbe che ha mentito sapendo di mentire. Quanto alle sue parole: ‘In ogni modo, il primo a essere contento che Daniel Ekechukwu non sia tale «pastore Daniel» nel video di Maurizio Bua, sono io stesso; un antitrinitario di meno sulla terra’, viene da domandarsi: ‘Ma se Martella dice che è contento che Daniel Ekechukwu non è il Daniel antitrinitariano del video di Maurizio Bua come mai scrisse quella nota editoriale citando proprio il Daniel del video del Maurizio Bua identificandolo con Daniel Ekechukwu? Parrebbe da questa sua affermazione che abbia preso atto che si tratta di due persone differenti solo ora che l’ho fatto notare io con quell’articolo; il che è a dir poco inquietante. Martella poi dice ‘Ho modificato leggermente la nota precedente, sperando di togliere ombre e dubbi’; al che io dico che Martella, con questo suo modo di agire, di ombre e dubbi ne ha gettati non pochi sulla sua persona.

Martella dice: ‘Chi poteva però pensare che qualcuno si attaccasse a una pulce e la gonfiasse fino a farla diventare elefante? L’oggetto principale era l’articolo di Alexander Seibel e non tale nota editoriale su Maurizio Bua. È il classico caso di chi cerca l’ago nel pagliaio! Avevo parlato di tale «pastore Daniel», specialmente perché nel filmato egli esprimeva chiaramente le idee antitrinitarie di Chinnici e Bua, di cui tesseva pubblicamente le lodi dottrinali antitrinitarie; poteva essere anche qualcun altro di nome Calogero o Liborio. La cosa saggia sarebbe stata che, prima di pubblicare ciò, Butindaro si fosse sincerato riguardo a che cosa io avessi voluto veramente dire; gli avrebbe conferito stile. E nel caso, in cui la sua tesi fosse stata vera, avrebbe potuto semplicemente convincermi che mi sbagliavo e io gliene sarei stato grato e avrei rimediato. È già successo che qualcuno mi abbia corretto su qualche dettaglio, e ho rimediato subito. Visto che a me interessa sempre la verità oggettiva, basata sulle prove, sono contento ogni qual volta qualcuno mi aiuta ad accertarla. Butindaro, invece, dopo avere tirato le sue somme, ha preferito «battere il sacco (pubblicare un intero articolo su un dettaglio in una mia nota editoriale su Bua) per colpire il gatto (ossia me per aver pubblicato l’articolo di Alexander Seibel)», così come recita il proverbio. E pensare che citavo lui come fonte per l’antitrinitarismo di Maurizio Bua! Visto che a quella conferenza quest’ultimo c’era e che ha ricevuto le mie risposte alle sue lettere, non doveva essere il primo a smentirmi nel caso in cui avessi scambiato i vari «Daniel»? Se lo avesse fatto e io fossi stato nel torto, avrei modificato subito tale nota. {27-12-2008}’

Rispondo: io non mi sono attaccato ad una pulce e non l’ho fatta diventare un elefante; non sono dedito a questo modo di fare. Semmai il Martella ha preso un elefante e lo ha sgonfiato e lo ha fatto diventare una pulce, cioè ha fatto la cosa opposta. Come si fa infatti a definire un simile comportamento, che è molto grave perché lede la reputazione di un credente, una pulce o un dettaglio? Mi domando che credibilità possa avere una simile persona che dice in sostanza che diffondere una notizia falsa su qualcuno è una pulce, perché la pulce a cui io mi sarei attaccato è la notizia falsa che Martella ha dato su Daniel Ekechukwu? Io al posto suo, avrei subito ammesso pubblicamente il mio errore con una nota chiara e molto visibile in cui chiedevo scusa. Se poi ho trovato un ago nel pagliaio non dovrei essere biasimato ma semmai ringraziato per questo, perché ho trovato qualcosa che anche in un pagliaio può fare male se uno lo tocca inavvertitamente: non vi pare? Martella poi dice: ‘Avevo parlato di tale «pastore Daniel», specialmente perché nel filmato egli esprimeva chiaramente le idee antitrinitarie di Chinnici e Bua, di cui tesseva pubblicamente le lodi dottrinali antitrinitarie; poteva essere anche qualcun altro di nome Calogero o Liborio.’ Ma io domando: ‘Perché citarlo come ‘il pastore Daniel’ di cui si dibatteva l’autenticità della resurrezione?’ E’ chiaro il motivo, per screditare Daniel Ekechukwu, cioè un altro Daniel, di cui il Martella doveva provare che non era risuscitato. E poi è falso che poteva essere qualcun altro di nome Calogero o Liborio, perché se in quel video quel predicatore africano si fosse chiamato Calogero o Liborio, il Martella non lo avrebbe per nulla citato, in quanto non avrebbe potuto collegare in nessuna maniera l’antitrinitarismo di Calogero o di Liborio al pastore Daniel Ekechukwu, mentre in questo caso lo ha potuto fare perché il predicatore antitrinitariano porta lo stesso nome del morto vivente, cioè Daniel!! Martella soggiunge poi: ‘La cosa saggia sarebbe stata che, prima di pubblicare ciò, Butindaro si fosse sincerato riguardo a che cosa io avessi voluto veramente dire; gli avrebbe conferito stile. E nel caso, in cui la sua tesi fosse stata vera, avrebbe potuto semplicemente convincermi che mi sbagliavo e io gliene sarei stato grato e avrei rimediato.’ Ma io dico: ‘E perché mai avrei dovuto chiedere al Martella cosa voleva veramente dire, se le sue parole erano così chiare?’ Non capisco proprio. E poi se la mia tesi è errata (notate infatti che lui non riconosce che quello che ho detto è vero), perché ha rimediato? Non avrebbe dovuto lasciare tutto come era prima, e semmai riprendermi pubblicamente per avere io capito fischi per fiaschi? Invece qui, se c’è qualcuno che ha capito fischi per fiaschi, e preso lucciole per lanterne, è proprio Martella, che dinnanzi alla mia osservazione (‘priva di stile’, a differenza delle sue osservazioni che invece di stile ne hanno!!!!) ha capito di avere sbagliato, anche se non lo ha riconosciuto perché tipo arrogante, e ha cercato di porre rimedio a questo suo errore, ma senza rendersi conto di avere peggiorato la sua situazione. Con quale faccia poi il Martella afferma: ‘A me interessa sempre la verità oggettiva, basata sulle prove’? E allora se gli interessa la verità oggettiva basata sulle prove, come mai mi rimprovera per avergli dato le prove del suo errore? Come mai non è contento della mia correzione? Strano modo di parlare questo di Martella, veramente strano. Io poi avrei colpito un dettaglio di una nota del Martella per colpirlo personalmente in quanto aveva pubblicato l’articolo di Alexander Seibel contro Bonnke. Questo è falso, in quanto la ragione per cui ho fatto notare questo errore del Martella sul pastore Daniel è l’amore per la verità e la giustizia, e non il fatto che lui ha pubblicato quell’articolo contro Reinard Bonnke. Avrei fatto notare la stessa cosa se a diffondere una simile notizia falsa fosse stato un Pentecostale Trinitariano. Non solo, avrei fatto la stessa cosa, se un Pentecostale Trinitariano avesse messo in rete la notizia falsa che Nicola Martella è un antitrinitariano! Dunque, io non ho battuto il sacco per colpire il gatto, ma ho colpito direttamente il gatto perché si è comportato male. Mi fa piacere che mi ha citato contro gli Antitrinitariani, ma quella citazione non mi ha accecato gli occhi, impedendomi di vedere la notizia falsa diffusa dal Martella sul conto di Daniel Ekechukwu. Per quanto riguarda poi l’affermazione del Martella ‘Visto che a quella conferenza quest’ultimo [Maurizio Bua] c’era e che ha ricevuto le mie risposte alle sue lettere, non doveva essere il primo a smentirmi nel caso in cui avessi scambiato i vari «Daniel»? Se lo avesse fatto e io fossi stato nel torto, avrei modificato subito tale nota’, dico quanto segue: ‘Se, come lascia intravedere Martella, il Bua sapeva da una corrispondenza avuta con Martella, che Martella aveva citato il pastore Daniel di Palermo identificandolo con il Daniel risorto, e ammettendo che il Bua conoscesse la differenza tra le due persone, io non so come mai non glielo abbia fatto notare. Ma tutto ciò non cambia niente: l’errore il Martella l’ha fatto, poi è relativo chi glielo abbia fatto notare. Io non ero presente a quella conferenza di Palermo, ma quando ho visto il video ho capito l’errore del Martella e quindi ho scritto il mio articolo per smascherare quell’errore, non facendo per altro niente di straordinario, ma solo quello che ogni cristiano deve fare quando un altro cristiano viene accusato ingiustamente o diffamato. Io avrei voluto vedere, se al posto di Daniel Ekechukwu ci fosse stato Nicola Martella ad essere diffamato in quella maniera in Internet, e io avessi scritto quell’articolo in sua difesa, se non avrebbe ringraziato Iddio? Invece, dato che il diffamato non era lui ma un altro, e lui era il diffamatore, allora ha reagito in questa maniera scomposta e stolta, che ritengo mostri in maniera chiara che tipo di persona egli sia.

Dinnanzi dunque a questo modo di agire di Nicola Martella, che è doppio e confusionario, falso e arrogante, vi esorto fratelli a stare in guardia da costui. So che già tanti fratelli hanno capito quale sia il modo di agire di Nicola Martella, ma spero che ancora più fratelli lo capiscano dopo quanto è accaduto in merito a questa questione.

La grazia del Signore Gesù Cristo sia con voi

Giacinto Butindaro

Leggi anche il commento sulla vicenda di Antonio Sammartino: “Clicca qui”

En este video Carson provee una buena explicación.

sujetosalaroca.org
Suscribete para recibir actualizaciones de entradas como esta.
Suscribete por email.
Suscribete al podcast por iTunes.
Únete al grupo en Facebook aquí.
Apoya este sitio visitando los patrocinadores aquí.

No Site Proibido você não verá:

• Pornografia
• Apologia a crimes

Estuve escuchando un sermón de un pastor de una iglesia en Costa Rica y siempre quedo sorprendido de la masacre que hacen muchos del texto bíblico. Digo masacre porque es fifícile entender como cuando leen una revista, un libro, o un periódico su hermanéutica es impecable, pero cuando van a la Biblia, no pueden dejar de hacer eiségesis.

Lo triste es que esto es lo que ocurre únicamente con la Biblia. Este libro sagrado es interpretado de cualquier manera. Muchos toman la Biblia, la leen e interpretan el texto para que se amolde a sus creencias. Esto es a lo que me refiero por eiségesis. No permiten que sea el texto el que les diga cual es la verdad que Dios nos ha revelado, y el que dicte y ordene nuestras creencias. En otras palabras no hacen exégesis.

En este sermón, el pastor con tal de defender la libertad del hombre de escoger o rechazar a Dios, va a Efesios 1: 4 y argumenta que la elección de Dios es única y exclusivamente para que los cristianos sean “santos y sin mancha.” Dios no elige a hombres para salvación, sino que sólo lo hace para su santidad. Es el hombre quien elige amar y obedecer a Dios, o rechazarle. A estos hombres que han elegido obedecer a Dios y creer en Cristo, Dios los elige para que sean santos.

Y el día de hoy no quiero entrar en muchos detalles con respecto al porque la teología arminiana es inconsistente y por ello no me voy a referir a sus inconsistencias en cuanto a la naturaleza del hombre natural y su capacidad para hacer algún bien espiritual. Sino que el día de hoy quiero demostrar que la manera en que abordan estas personas el texto bíblico es totalmente infiel y necio.

Es una verdad irrefutable que las palabras significan algo. Todas las palabras son utilizadas para expresar ideas y pensamientos. Cuando juntamos palabras formamos oraciones. Si juntamos oraciones formamos párrafos y si juntamos párrafos podemos expresar un sin fin de ideas con respecto a diversos temas.

Es el deber del lector o intérprete estudiar cual es el sentido que el autor le quiere dar a una palabra para poder conocer la idea que el autor quiere expresar. Es decir, si yo digo: “Iba caminando por el supermercado y recordé que tenía que comprar una lata de atún. Fui al pasillo de enlatados y escogí Atún Sardimar.” [Es mi atún favorito]

Que debe entender el oyente o lector con respecto a la palabra “escogí”? Primero, debe pensar que de mi voluntad hice una acción para escoger un tipo de atún específico. Segundo, que había por lo menos más de un tipo de atún, puesto que tuve que escoger. Tercero, que yo fui el sujeto que ejerció la acción de escoger, no fue el atún.

Entonces, cuando Pablo nos dice en Efesios 1: 4, “Asimismo, nos escogió en él desde antes de la fundación del mundo, para que fuésemos santos y sin mancha delante de él,” qué es lo que quiere decir?

Si alguien cree que la palabra elegir tiene un significado diferente en el griego que en el español, entonces vamos a analizar el texto griego para determinar si tienen razón. Porqué digo esto? Porque para los arminianos la palara elegir tiene un sentido diferente. No significa que Dios escogió a los hombres, sino que los hombres lo escogieron a Él. Dios sólo nos escoge para ser “santos y sin mancha.”

Sin embargo en esta pasaje Pablo dice que Dios hace algo. Qué es esta acción Pablo dice, según nuestras traducciones en castellano que Dios nos escogió en Él. Cómo puede pensar alguien que esta elección no es para salvación? Puede Dios escoger a un hombre para santificación sin que esto implique salvación? Dice la Biblia que Dios escoge para santificación tan sólo a aquellos que le han escogido a Él primero? La respuesta para ambas preguntas es no!

Primero, la palabra eligió en Efesios 1: 4 viene del griego εκλεγομαι (eklegomai) que es un verbo deponente. Ya había hablado algo de este tipo de verbos, pero sólo para refrescarles la memoria, estos verbos son aquellos que tiene una voz pasiva pero que son verbos activos. Es decir, cuando Dios es el sujeto, este verbo expresa lo que Dios hace, es decir, elegir activamente a ciertos hombres.

Segundo, en el Antiguo Testamento, una forma de este verbo es utilizada en el pasaje de 1 Samuel 17: 40 en la Septuaginta, que es la traducción griega del Antiguo Testamento, versión que fue utilizada por Jesús y los apóstoles. En este pasaje leemos lo siguiente, “Entonces tomó su cayado en su mano y escogió cinco piedras lisas del arroyo, y las puso en la bolsa pastoril, en el zurrón que llevaba. Y con su honda en su mano, se fue hacia el filisteo.” La palabra que utiliza el texto griego para escoger es εξελεξατο (exelexato). De nuevo este es un verbo activo para mostrar en este pasaje que David hizo la acción de escoger cinco piedras lisas del arroyo.

Y si quieren argumentar que el hebreo expresa otra cosa, les insto a estudiar el verbo בָּחַר (bā∙ḥǎr) en hebreo.

Primero, debemos pensar que sólo habían cinco piedras en el arroyo? Imagínense un arroyo. No creo que hubieran sólo ese número de piedras. Quizás eran incontables. Segundo, debemos pensar que fueron las piedras las que escogieron a David? Jamás! El sentido de la oración en castellano y en griego es que David ejerció una acción, la de escoger, para tomar tan sólo cinco piedras lisas.

Porqué, entonces, cuando leen 1 Samuel 17: 40 lo interpretan correctamente que elegir implica una acción del sujeto, mientras que cuando van a Efesios y otros pasajes paulinos lo interpretan diferente, como si Dios hiciera algo pasivamente? Porque en realidad lo que los arminianos hacen es argumentar que Dios elige a los hombres que le eligieron a Él primero. Dios no es la causa primera de la salvación de un hombre, sino que es la criatura. Dios no puede actuar hasta saber lo que la criatura va a hacer.

Pero, es lógico pensar que Dios elige a los hjombres tan sólo para que sean santos, pero no para salvación? Qué implica ser santos? Ser santos implica que una persona ha sido regenerada y que tiene en su corazón al Espíritu Santo. Sólo una persona que ha nacido de nuevo puede ser santa. Sólo una persona que ha nacido de nuevo puede caminar en santificación. Y si sólo este tipo de personas pueden hacer esto, no implica que si Dios los eligió para santificación, y sólo ciertos hombres son santos, no implica esto que Dios les escogió para esto también?

Es decir, si un hombre puede ser santo solamente por la fe en Jesucristo, a la luz de Efesios 2: 8, no implica que es Dios quien lo ha elegido para ser santo. Si Dios es quien le regala la fe a un hombre para salvación, no implica esto que le otorga esa fe con el fin de que sea santo? Por supuesto que sí.

La necedad de defender el libre albedrío del hombre es eso…necedad. Cuando la Biblia es tan clara con respecto a la naturaleza caída del hombre y sus capacidades para hacer algún bien espiritual, como buscar a Dios (Romanos 3: 9-12), es necedad seguir argumentando que un hombre es salvo porque eligió de su propia voluntad obedecer y amar a Dios.

La verdad bíblica es que si Dios no elige por gracia a ciertos hombres para salvación, toda la humanidad sería condenada. Gracias a Dios por Su soberana y misericordiosa elección.

Imagínense si estos hombres leyeran así un periódico. Las consecuencias serían fatales. Imagínense que cualquiera le diera el significado que desee a las palabras que otra persona escribe. Sería una locura. Entonces porque no leemos e interpretamos la Biblia con la misma hermenéutica con la que leemos otros libros?

sujetosalaroca.org
Suscribete para recibir actualizaciones de entradas como esta.
Suscribete por email.
Suscribete al podcast por iTunes.
Únete al grupo en Facebook aquí.
Apoya este sitio visitando los patrocinadores aquí.

No una amplitud grande para anticipar que la abreviacion puede afectar a la industria de la apologia, aunque no la anticipe ha conseguido ese malo todavia, apologia del coche es un area cultivada tan especializada de la industria del automovil de que no consigue generalmente de dolor por la economia.

durante los anos acepto un asunto abstruso sobre la restauracion del coche, y la absolutamente artlessly la actualidad que los seres humanos constantemente intentaran a la adquisicion una manera de hacer lo que aman, y la aniquilacion lo parara generalmente, abrevia de no aceptar ninguIn dinero para absorber en absoluto.

adulacion de la gente sus coches arquetipo, con la abreviacion matando las companias de coche americanas agrego a seres humanos esta buscando para fijar para arriba sus coches arquetipo admirados, y rinde el dinero para hacerlo, como la aniquilacion al exterior hace, solamente el generalmente tan big-ticket como asuntos un nuevo coche.

hasta finales de los seres humanos del tiempo quiere los coches arquetipo de la adulacion, y este se asegurara de que la apologia de ellos este constantemente alrededor, los coches arquetipo es diversion para la gente, acompanan detras memorias de los viejos dias, y son anatomia alterada que ahora aceptamos.

usted puede aceptar mucha diversion con su coche arquetipo algo el un conductor circadiano, o un coche del aspecto, usted carga del ll del `a crear encima de su apperception en que habitaciones usted el mejor, ellas puede ser proyectos abundantes de los antepasados, y del coche le acompana los antepasados y lo acompana junto.

el tiempo y la cantidad del dinero puede ser enorme, toda dependera del admeasurement que usted rinde su actividad de la apologia a, aniquilacion es posible, usted puede poner los ultimos sistemas de frenos, la tecnologia del motor, y sistemas electricos en el coche.

puede ser un coche absolutamente nuevo del coche en una envoltura arquetipo del coche, nosotros toda la adulacion la nueva tecnologia que se ofrece a estos el canicule en los nuevos coches, el accesible poner cualquiera de esa nueva tecnologia el a un coche arquetipo, y entonces el el ya mencionado como aceptar un nuevo coche del molde.

usted carga para anticipar de como todos los ajustes adentro a su cuenta afore usted consigue comenzado, la planea hacia fuera ansiosamente asi que usted puede conseguirla hecha la manera que usted la anticipa, usted capacidad como sano consiga absolutamente lo que usted desea a si hecho, y son mucha diversion.

las ocasiones es que usted ll del `nunca ve el coche arquetipo de la adicion que es congenito la manera ya mencionada que es el castigo, los asuntos es que su coche sera constantemente un diferente solamente en el mundo arquetipo del coche, asi que dejo el cuerpo un coche arquetipo, o los individuos del trueque, dejan para aceptar la diversion, y dejan para adorarla.

2010

de Camaro
;

;

apologia arquetipo del coche

Iglesia de Joel Osteen

No dudo que muchos de ustedes también hayan escuchado a creyentes confesar que asisten a tal o a tal iglesia porque en ella se congregan gran cantidad de personas. Lastimosamente muchos creyentes siguen la supuesta popularidad de una iglesia o de un pastor y entregan ingenuamente su confianza a estos hasta que se llevan una terrible sorpresa, son decepcionados, y luego o se desaparecen o vuelven en búsqueda de otra iglesia popular.

Así es como nacieron las mega-iglesias. No hace mucho, y con la introducción de la mundanalidad en la iglesia,  los líderes empezaron a buscar formas de hacer de la iglesia algo más apetecible para los hombres. De esta búsqueda surgieron las iglesias buscador-sensibles, que intentan complacer los deseos humanos más que glorificar a Dios. Estas iglesias fueron particularmente importantes en la creación de programas para el crecimiento eclesiástico. Es decir, el fin no era que los hombres se arrepintieran, sino el de llenar, a como diera lugar, las bancas vacías en los templos.

Y es que esto es lo que enseña el mundo. Ser populares es sinónimo de tener gran cantidad de seguidores. Muchos líderes se dejaron llevar por esta mentira mundana y al permitir que ese espíritu penetrara en la iglesia, confiaron más en los supuestos programas que en el evangelio de Dios. Estos hombres se dejaron llevar por la necesidad de tener mega-iglesias y desecharon el verdadero poder de Dios para la salvación de los hombres. Quisieron atraer a más personas a sus iglesias para que conocieran a Cristo, sin embargo lo que hicieron fue atraer a más impíos, proporcionarles un falso evangelio y engañarlos haciéndoles creer que eran verdaderos cristianos.

Lo interesante es que para estos hombres aquellos que tienen mega-iglesias son los que han sido bendecidos por Dios. Aquellos que asisten o dirigen iglesias pequeñas quizás deberían revisar sus vidas espirituales, pues de tener verdadera fe, Dios les bendeciría con grandes congregaciones. Les pregunto: No es esto lo que muchos profesan creer? Lastimosamente sí!

Así como se enseña que los creyentes que son ricos materialmente lo son porque tienen una gran fe, y que los creyentes que son pobres y que están llenos de deudas, son los que tienen una fe débil, de igual manera se enseña sobre el crecimiento de las iglesias. Si yo siguiera esta falsa enseñanza, y siendo miembro de una iglesia de quizás unas 60 personas, debería preguntarle a mi pastor sobre su estado espiritual, cuando existen en mi país pastores con iglesias que rondan los miles.

Lo que quiera hacer el día de hoy es verificar si esta enseñanza con respecto a la calidad de los pastores y el tamaño de sus iglesias es bíblico. Cómo? Quiero ver dos ejemplos hombres del Nuevo Testamento y sus seguidores.

1. Cristo:

Cuando abrimos y leemos los evangelios del Nuevo Testamento y analizamos el ministerio de Jesucristo vemos algo muy claro, Cristo es Dios encarnado que vino a la tierra proclamando arrepentimiento pues el reino de Dios se había acercado a los hombres. Los evangelistas nos muestran este ministerio de Jesús, en el cual al principio era, aparentemente, muy exitoso. Leemos, por ejemplo, en Mateo 5 sobre las multitudes que iban detrás de Jesús para escucharle predicar sus sermones.

Sabiendo quien era Cristo debemos tener muy claro que sus enseñanzas debieron ser las más maravillosas. Sus sermones, de los cuales no tenemos todos registrados, debieron ser lo sermones más brillantes que un hombre haya podido escuchar jamás. Pero, sin embargo, conforme avanzamos en los evangelios notamos que sus seguidores se vuelven cada vez menos. Pronto se queda con 12 hombres, e inclusive entre estos había uno que le abandonaría. De los miles de seguidores, sólo 11 quedaron hasta el final junto a Él.

2. Pedro:

Qué es lo que nos cuenta Lucas en el libro de los Hechos? En el capítulo 2 vemos el primer discurso de Pedro luego de la ascención de Cristo. En los versículos 14 al 47 podemos leer algo sobre este sermón. Es claro que es un sermón brillante. La manera en la que aplica el Antiguo Testamento es impecable, pero no podemos comparar el sermón de Pedro, un pecador, de los sermones de nuestro Señor. Y sin embargo en el versículo 41 leemos lo siguiente,

Así que, los que recibieron su palabra fueron bautizados; y se añadieron aquel día como tres mil personas.

Después de escuchar a Pedro predicar se añadieron a la iglesia tres mil personas. Impresionante! Y Lucas nos cuenta que de ahí en adelante los miembros de la iglesia iban creciendo en número. Qué contraste con el ministerio de Jesús! El Señor entre más predicaba más gente iba perdiendo, pero Pedro, en un sólo día predicó y tres mil personas fueron agregadas a la iglesia.

Al comparar estos dos ejemplos debemos tener claro un verdad explícita en el Nuevo Testamento: No son los predicadores, ni los líderes, ni los ancianos, ni la calidad de los miembros, ni el tamaño de los templos, ni los programas, los que hacen crecer a la iglesia, sino que esto es una obra exclusiva de Dios. Es decir, es sólo Dios el que agrega miembros a una iglesia local. Pablo en su primera epístola a los corintios, hablándoles con respecto a los pleitos que habían, pues uno preferían a Pablo y otros a Apolos, les dice,

⁴ Porque diciendo el uno: Yo ciertamente soy de Pablo; y el otro: Yo soy de Apolos, ¿no sois carnales? ⁵ ¿Qué, pues, es Pablo, y qué es Apolos? Servidores por medio de los cuales habéis creído; y eso según lo que a cada uno concedió el Señor. ⁶ Yo planté, Apolos regó; pero el crecimiento lo ha dado Dios. ⁷ Así que ni el que planta es algo, ni el que riega, sino Dios, que da el crecimiento.” 1 Corintios 3

Lo que debemos tener claro es que Dios es quien hace crecer a la iglesia, no es ni el pastor ni los programas. Y Dios hace esto mediante la proclamación del evangelio de Cristo. Porqué? Porque esto es el único poder de Dios para la salvación de los hombres (1 Corintios 1: 18). Qué conclusiones podríamos sacar de estos ejemplos de acuerdo a la enseñanza de la actualidad?

1. Cristo era un mal predicador
2. Pedro era más santo que Jesús
3. Pedro tenía más fe que Jesús
4. Pedro era mejor orador
5. etc

Iglesia Metodista en Brasil

Y cuando llegamos a estas conclusiones lo único que podríamos decir es que esto es una blasfemia, pero aún así esto es lo que quieren afirmar los hombres que enseñan que las iglesias populares o con membresías gigantescas, son más santos que otros con pequeñas iglesias. Cristo no fue popular, ni adaptó su mensaje para agradar a los hombres, ni creó programas para que sus oyentes pudieran adaptarse mejor a lo que predicaba. Y aún así como Dios encarnado es infinitamente santo, sabio, justo. El ministerio de Cristo es ante los ojos de muchos falsos maestros un ministerio deficiente.

Pero sabiendo que es Dios quien provee, en Su soberanía, los miembros que cada iglesia local tiene, debemos estar confiados únicamente en Sus medios para hacer crecer Su iglesia. Y el principal medio es la proclamación del evangelio verdadero de Cristo. Cuál es el evangelio verdadero? El que proclama la Biblia! Los líderes de las iglesias deben ser como los apóstoles, que nunca intentaron complacer a los hombres perversos, sino que temiendo a Dios, proclamaron Su verdad sin adulterarla. No quisieron satisfacer la comezón de oír de muchos, ni se enfocaron en la necesidad de tener miles de miembros en sus iglesias. No! Sino que por el contrario, confiando en la soberanía de Dios, predicaron con poder y sin temor alguno, pues Dios es quien provee el crecimiento.

No debemos, entonces, caer en la trampa de creer que una iglesia grande es más fiel a Dios que una iglesia pequeña. Debemos ver en que iglesia se predica la verdadera Palabra de Dios. Sólo en estas últimas estará el poder de Dios requerido para la salvación de almas. Lastimosamente muchas de estas mega-iglesias demuestran poder, pero un poder que no viene de Dios sino de Satanás. Busquemos un lugar donde podamos encontrar el poder de Dios y dejemos ya las creencias de niños y maduremos espiritualmente buscando una verdadera iglesia de Cristo.

Qué el Señor saque de estos lugares a sus ovejas y las lleve a Su redil! Qué Dios tenga misericordia de nosotros!

sujetosalaroca.org
Suscribete para recibir actualizaciones de entradas como esta.
Suscribete por email.
Suscribete al podcast por iTunes.
Únete al grupo en Facebook aquí.
Apoya este sitio visitando los patrocinadores aquí.

La sexta entrega de esta saga de películas de violencia ha sido censurada en España por el gobierno. Le han dado calificación X, que no quiere decir que tiene contenido sexual explícito si no que ha sido censurada por apología a la violencia. Según he estado mirando en la web del ministerio, es la única película X sin contenido sexual censurada en España.

Después de 5 películas han decidido censurarla. No es muy normal eso, ya que he visto la película y no es tan diferente a la demás. ‘Saw VI’ hace apología de la violencia, pero ‘Saw’, ‘Saw II’, ‘Saw III’, ‘Saw IV’ y ‘Saw V’  no, por eso recibieron otra calificación. ¿Dónde está la lógica? ¿Acaso esta nueva entrega lanza eficaces mensajes al público sobre lo estupendo que resulta para el cutis descuartizar seres humanos?

Solo nos queda comprender que ha sido un estratagema del gobierno para promocionar películas españolas. Así consiguen eliminar a la competencia, pero, de ser así, cuesta creer que la gente vaya al cine a ver esas películas únicamente porque una película de violencia muy taquillera no está. La gente a la que han privado de ver la película no creo que decida así de repente ir a ver por ejemplo “Agora” porque  Saw VI no esté.

Más que evitar que la gente vea una película violenta o que la gente vaya a ver más cine español, lo que van a conseguir es que nos la descarguemos. Sí, sí, eso contra lo que tanto lucha el gobierno, la piratería. La gente al no poder verla en el cine lo más lógico es que la descargue y quien dice que “ya que me descargo ésta, pues también esta otra, ya puestos” y así incrementar la piratería.

Ver noticia completa en prensa: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Cultura/pone/X/Saw/VI/condena/salas/porno/elpepucul/20091021elpepucul_8/Tes

Para aquellos que no saben, Ramadán es una celebración musulmana supuestamente debido a que fue en esa fecha cuando Mohammad recibió el Corán de Dios. Es triste ver la ignorancia de muchos que diciendo ser creyentes aceptan y hasta apoyan a aquellos que quieren ayunar junto a sus amigos musulmanes en estas fechas. Cuál es la idea? Solidarizarse con los musulmanes en su adoración a Dios. Y más triste aún es que una revista que dice adherirse a los principios ortodoxos-que creo que los abandonó ya hace mucho tiempo-como Christianity Today, haga la pregunta como si fuera algo muy normal. Tan sólo tiene que leer las respuestas de varios líderes de iglesias para saber la razón de la ignorancia de la iglesia en nuestros tiempos. Es a causa de líderes como estos por lo cual lobos como Brian McLAren han entrado a engañar a tantas almas para que sigan a un dios falso. Lo único bueno del artículo fue la respuesta de Douglas Wilson, quien dijo,

No es apropiado ayunar al lado de los musulmanes. Yo no haría un punto, si estuviera en un estado grandemente musulmán en donde todos estuvieran ayunando durante el día, o comiendo un hot dog y caminando afuera y comerlo…pero observar Ramadán con sus vecinos musulmanes, o dejarles saber que usted está observando Ramadán como un acto de solidaridad espiritual o religiosa, es simplemente un compromiso fundamental. Ellos están observando Ramadán en servicio a un falso dios y un falso evangelio, y no deberíamos tratar de expresar solidaridad con esto.”

Es tan fácil ver que tan cercanos con Roma están algunos “cristianos” en respuestas como los que publicó la revista. Verdaderamente triste.

sujetosalaroca.org
Suscribete para recibir actualizaciones de entradas como esta.
Suscribete por email.
Suscribete al podcast por iTunes.
Únete al grupo en Facebook aquí.
Apoya este sitio visitando los patrocinadores aquí.

Que vergonha!!!!!!!

We have a series of questions from Lag:

Hello, interesting and credible site.

I would like to see debunks/answers to these videos.

Brief Bible Blunders Episode #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2EmxXdZ6Zc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXrIO8xpNn8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7cBWm5mh5U&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdrVvcvvY34&feature=related
…

There are more parts to these types of videos corresponding by part number.

There is also this video:

Questions for Biblical Inerrantists & Literalists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPKZVqEr6V8

Thank you in advance.
Lag

Dear Lag, thank you for your encouragement and for sharing these videos with us. As you may have noticed while reading our site, we don’t rely on our own human wisdom to find the answer for any question, but we only accept and share with others the clear answers that the Bible itself gives. In other terms, we only rely on God’s Wisdom as revealed in His inerrant and infallible Word, the Bible.

Now, these are videos that contain many points that need some detailed explanations, as many are misled concerning them. Those who do not care about the truth are satisfied when you give them an incomplete presentation of what the Bible says, and therefore they are very easily deceived by ignorant professors like this youtuber called “ProfMTH”. As you may have already noticed, this guy tries to fill his videos with as many misleading points as possible (usually with those “Fun ‘facts’” of his…) so that Christians will not have the possibility to answer each point in details. It seems he thinks that it’s only when we answer in details that he will be exposed and his lies will be evident, as the whole of his “strength” is in keeping his readers in darkness and ignorance concerning the real details related to each point, as we will see in this article. If we would answer in details, we would have to write whole volumes about each point; which is not very practical, especially as an answer to your present question. But what this youtuber does not know is that the Bible is so clear about each of those points, that it is enough if we present to the readers the simple facts of the Bible, and thus his lies and deceptions will be exposed. Therefore this article is a brief Bible answer to that misinformed youtuber. Actually, all what this ProfMTH does is to reveal to us how much he is ignorant (and glad to be ignorant!) about the real facts of the Bible, although he says and wants to convince us that he’s a professor who knows. In this point (just as in many others) he proves the Word of God right when it says:

“professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).

This guy has no respect toward his Creator and His Word, and that’s a characteristic of those who have refused the knowledge of God. A person who refuses to be accountable before the Holy Creator would do anything to mock the truth and to avoid submitting to God. With this method he’s trying to justify his sinfulness… And yet, no human can escape the clear evidence that God has given about Himself, and only an ignorant like this ProfMTH will continue to ignore all the evidence of science and logic about the Creator God. In fact, atheists are anti-science and anti-logic. To read about that evidence of God you can consult our article What is the evidence for God’s existence?

What ProfMTH aimed to do was to prove the Bible errant, but all what he did was to show how much he himself is errant (as Jesus said in Matthew 22:29) and how much he lacks attention and honesty while reading his Creator’s Word, as he reads it carelessly and with the only purpose of finding errors. God is perfect, and He may never do any error, so His Word is inerrant. The simple answers that we will give in this article will show you this fact. Actually, God clearly told us that His Word is inerrant:

“The words of Jehovah are pure words, silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times.” (Psalm 12:6)

“Thy word is exceeding pure, and thy servant loveth it.” (Psalm 119:140)

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” (Proverbs 30:5)

“Sanctify them by the truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)

And ProfMTH wants us to believe that God didn’t really literally mean what He said in the Bible. This is a very deceitful way to lead people to accept any human interpretation of any passage, as thus they will give the words of the Bible any meaning they would like to give. But the Lord Jesus was very clear and precise concerning the importance of accepting the Bible literally as it is:

“For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass.” (Matthew 5:18)

Even the smallest letter of God’s Word is important for Jesus! The Lord Jesus not only defended the literal acceptance of the Bible, but He also referred to the very miracles which critics reject as historical and literal events. He cited the creation (cf. Luke 11:51, Mark 10:6, Mark 13:19), Adam and Eve (cf. Matthew 19:4-5), Noah and the Flood (cf. Matthew 24:37-39), Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Luke 10:12), and Jonah and the great fish (cf. Matthew 12:39-41). Jesus didn’t fear any human, so He would not temper the truth to fit the tastes of His audience.

Every word of God is pure (cf. Proverbs 30:5)!!

But the problem with the critics is that they don’t really understand what “literal” means, or more precisely they don’t want to understand… They think it means that we should understand any word of the Bible as it is explained in the dictionary regardless of its context in the biblical passage. For example, if a word is mentioned in a poetic passage, they think we mean we will understand it the same way we understand it in a historical or narrative passage. In this they are totally wrong. No word of the Bible can be taken out of context and understood as such. We should always understand any word or sentence in its context, but literally. If we don’t take it as it means literally, then we can’t even understand a figure of speech if that word happens to be used in a figure of speech. For instance, we read: “The heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron.” (Deuteronomy 28:23) If we don’t take the literal meaning of “bronze” and “iron”, we will not understand what these figures of speech literally mean in this context. Yes, indeed, these figures of speech have a literal meaning in the context of this verse, and they literally mean that the judgment of God on sin will be that the sinners will not have rain and graces of heaven and planting. This is a literal meaning, unlike what critics think. This is what the figure of speech literally means, or else it would not be called “figure of speech”… In fact, the critics think that “literal meaning” and “materialistic or physical meaning” are synonyms. But that’s wrong. A literal meaning follows the meaning of the context, and in the general context of the Bible it’s always a spiritual meaning, and in the particular context of each passage it follows the style of the text (poetic, prophetic, narrative, historical, etc…) So, for example, when Jesus says that we should eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have life in us, He means a literal eating and drinking, but not a physical or materialistic eating and drinking. He means the spiritual literal eating and drinking, as true faith is the real experience of being spiritually filled by Christ, just as the physical eating and drinking are physical literal satisfaction of bread and water. In other terms, eating by faith is as literal as eating by mouth! The difference is that the one is spiritual eating, and the other is physical eating. But both are literal! If your faith is not a literal eating, then your faith is a dead faith. These are the points where critics are misled, just as the Bible says:

“But [the] natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him; and he cannot know [them] because they are spiritually discerned“ (1 Corinthians 2:14)

How can a person receive the things of the Spirit of God if he is still dead spiritually and he doesn’t have any spiritual discernment? How can you make those critics think spiritually when all what they think about when you tell them about eating is their belly??… And how can they understand the creation (which is a miracle) if they refuse the knowledge of the Omnipotent Creator and the very idea of miracles? How can they understand that God could create this universe from absolutely nothing? They can’t. They can’t see beyond what is seen, as they refuse the notion of the literal spiritual eyes… Therefore all the accounts of the Bible seem to them impossible and they try to explain them away instead of asking God to give them a spiritual understanding so that they may begin to understand.

In brief, all the words and sentences of the Bible should be literally explained in context, and only God can explain them. In other terms, we should find the explanations only in the Bible, and not in our speculations or personal subjective opinions about what each passage or word should mean.

And if you would like to read more about what God said concerning His Word, the Bible, you can read the following articles:

The Bible is the Word of God

The Canon of Scripture

Mormons confess that they are “open minded” in the interpretation of the Word of God

Now, I will pass to each episode that you shared with us, I will put the concerned video, and I will give the simple biblical facts, and you will see how the lies and ignorance of ProfMTH will be exposed. Then I will give some important comments concerning the last video that you shared with us.

***

-

Episode #1: Where are you going?

In this video, we have a clear example of quoting verses and expressions out of context. If ProfMTH really wanted to share the truth with you, he would quote the context and he would show you what really happened. But as I explained above, he just wants to mislead people and prove his point for all cost, therefore he doesn’t share with people the real facts. And he knows that people who, like him, don’t want to know the truth about God will be satisfied with what he presents to them to confirm their unbelief, instead of searching deeper to see what the real facts are.

So the antidote for his poison is very simply to present the facts as they are. Let’s see what really happened.

John 13 to 17 is indeed the account of what happened during the last supper of Jesus with His disciples. John makes a little introduction before he begins the account:

“Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus, knowing that his hour had come that he should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, loved them to the end.” (John 13:1)

In this verse, John is not yet relating to us what happened during the Passover meal. He is just introducing that by explaining to us how Jesus’ love was perfect and how He loved us to the end, to the point of death, as that was the hour for which He came (cf. John 12:27). In other words, John is telling us that this Passover was the hour for which Jesus came! If you read the Gospel according to John carefully, you will see how John was all the time telling us how the hour had not come yet (cf. John 2:4, John 7:6, John 7:30, John 8:20). Now when we get to John 12, we begin to read how that hour came, and that was the week of the Passover (cf. John 12:23, 27). And after explaining the detailed doctrines that Jesus taught in relation with the hour that came, John passes to chapter 13 and gives us a summary of what was said in John 12 by explaining how that hour was related to the love of Christ for His own and how that means that He would go to the end for them, i.e. He would die! This is the best introduction for all what the Passover meal really means, so John introduces that meal with these important notes about Christ’s hour and death for us.

Until here, we’re still in the introduction for the meal of the Passover, and John explains to us some summarizing points before he passes to the feast of the Passover. In other words, he is like saying: “Now before I pass to the feast of the Passover, I will tell you how it is related to the perfect love of Christ and His death for us”. Now, how did I know that this is an introduction? Did I use some magic or some human opinion? Not at all! I just took the context (chapter 12 that comes before, and the next verse — John 13:2), and I knew from the same Author of the Bible — i.e. God — that the Passover meal happened on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, on that night when Jesus was betrayed to be the real Lamb (cf. Matthew 26:17-19, Mark 14:12-16, Luke 22:7-13). The first day of Unleavened Bread began that night and ended on Friday evening (according to the way the Jews counted the days from night to night). So Jesus was crucified on the same day when the Passover meal was done, after He had the supper with His disciples in the night. This is clear and simple. Whatever ProfMTH concludes is based only on his human assumption that John must be contradicting the other accounts; but he has no biblical back up for this assumption. I will discuss the other details related to ProfMTH’s error later in this article.

And then the Apostle John passes to the meal of Passover and directly goes to the hatred of Judas, contrasting it with the love of Jesus with which he introduced his passage:

“And during supper, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas [son] of Simon, Iscariote, that he should deliver him up, [Jesus,] knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands, and that he came out from God and was going to God, rises from supper and lays aside his garments, and having taken a linen towel he girded himself: then he pours water into the washhand basin, and began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to wipe them with the linen towel with which he was girded.” (John 13:2-5)

Jesus’ love was so perfect! He even washed the feet of the one who would betray Him!

And then Judas left to betray Jesus…

Did you notice that ProfMTH thinks that John didn’t tell us about which supper he was talking?… Well, that’s the supper of the Passover to which John just made an introduction in verse 1…

So you see how ProfMTH is misled. And you see how many points he ignorantly mocked before passing to the main point of his episode, which is “Where are you going?” Now we pass to that point…

“Children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me; and, as I said to the Jews, Where I go ye cannot come, I say to you also now.” (John 13:33)

They cannot offer themselves as a sacrifice of sin as He would do, and they could not die and go to Heaven for now. He was going to the Father. His hour had come.

Now, after 2 verses comes Peter’s question which was mentioned by the youtuber:

“Simon Peter says to him, Lord, where goest thou? Jesus answered him, Where I go thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me after.” (John 13:36)

So Peter asked Jesus where He was going. Did he receive an answer? Well, a deceiver like ProfMTH will not tell you the details about the answer… You see that he didn’t go into those details, and he automatically jumped to John 16 (2 chapters away!!) to tell you that there is a contradiction… You see how much he respects the context, right? Well, Peter received the answer that he would follow Jesus to where He was going, but not now. With this answer, Peter is surprised why he can’t follow Him right now?

“Peter says to him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thee. Jesus answers, Thou wilt lay down thy life for me! Verily, verily, I say to thee, The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.” (John 13:37-38)

So Peter was not yet ready to die as a martyr. He would deny Christ…

And thus we pass to chapter 14. Here, Jesus tells them clearly where He was going:

“In my Father’s house there are many abodes; were it not so, I had told you: for I go to prepare you a place; and if I go and shall prepare you a place, I am coming again and shall receive you to myself, that where I am ye also may be.” (John 14:2-3)

Now, I want to stop here to make a little comment: How can a materialist like ProfMTH understand these beautiful heart-to-heart conversations that the Lord is having with His friends?…

As you see, Jesus clearly told them that He was going to His Father’s house to prepare a place for His own whom He loved to the end. The disciples didn’t realize that they did receive an answer here… But Jesus wanted to make sure they realize it, so He said:

“And ye know where I go, and ye know the way.” (John 14:4)

That was like: “Now you know the answer to the question ‘Where are you going?’”…

But just as expected, Thomas expresses the misunderstanding of his friend disciples:

“Thomas says to him, Lord, we know not where thou goest, and how can we know the way?” (John 14:5)

Now, I am glad that ProfMTH didn’t say this is a contradiction, as Jesus already told them where He was going and Thomas is still asking! I would explain to him how the truths that the disciples were hearing were very new to them, and they were in a very strong psychological state as they were being told that their Master was leaving them! They couldn’t understand from the first time. And that’s why Jesus repeated the truth in other ways.

“Jesus says to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father unless by me.” (John 14:6)

So it’s about going to the Father, and Jesus is the only Way to the Father. Now it’s clear that where Peter will follow Christ is to the Father, as he has taken the right Way, i.e. Jesus Christ.

Then Jesus explains how He is one with the Father, and gives them the promise to send to them the Holy Spirit. And in John 14:28 He repeats again clearly that He is going to the Father.

And thus we pass to chapter 15… Do you already notice how many important points have been dismissed by this deceiver called ProfMTH? He didn’t care to tell you all this! Let’s see now in brief what happened in chapter 15. Jesus gave the example of the Vine and the branches, and He explained to His disciples what true love is. After explaining some more details about the Spirit who would come, Jesus passes to the details of chapter 16. And this chapter begins with an encouragement concerning the persecutions that would come upon the disciples because of their faith in Christ. But why was He telling them these things now? The answer is in verse 4:

“But I have spoken these things to you, that when their hour shall have come, ye may remember them, that I have said [them] unto you. But I did not say these things unto you from [the] beginning, because I was with you.” (John 16:4)

Jesus was with them before; they relied on Him to find a way through the persecutions. Now He was going… What would they do? Jesus encourages them with the promise of His presence with them through the Spirit who would come to dwell in them forever. Now, the subject was really serious! They would be persecuted and killed for their faith in Christ! Now the seriousness of discipleship appears more clearly. The disciples were absorbed in this whole sorrow through which they were passing, especially the point that Jesus was leaving them to go to the Father, that even if they still didn’t get where Jesus was going (although He said it clearly), yet they would not ask about that anymore. So Jesus says:

“But now I go to him that has sent me, and none of you demands of me, Where goest thou? But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.” (John 16:5-6)

You see how Jesus once again said where He was going. So what was the need for the disciples to ask Him where He was going? But the point is not about where He was going anymore. The point is that there was now something more preoccupying for them. Instead of WHERE He was going, now the matter was HOW He was going… He would die for them, and they would become the persecuted disciples for this dying Master. So Jesus tells them that NOW they are not asking Him anymore where He is going, as sorrow has filled their heart after hearing those details. “Demands” is in present continuous… I remind you that all this was new for the disciples. They were not 21st century Christians for whom all these details have become history… They were living it for the first time, and they were confused about how could it be that the Christ would die.

Now, take it in a very simple way and ask yourself: Why would the disciples ask Him where He was going after He had already told them where He was going? So where is the contradiction if Jesus says that NOW they are not asking anymore? Does this contradict the fact that Peter already asked that question in John 13 and Thomas asked in John 14? Not at all! They were not asking NOW. Jesus didn’t say that they didn’t ask already…

You see how much it is easy to deceive people when you don’t quote the facts and the context as they are…

***

Episode #2: Hey, didn’t you all die already?

First, I want you to notice the bad and wrong representation of God… You see which picture ProfMTH chose to represent God? This youtuber is so ignorant about the Nature of God; he has no idea about His character. So he mocks Him with this picture. He wants you to think about God as a bad despot who is always angry on people, even when talking to Moses… While the Bible says:

“Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.” (Exodus 33:11)

Of course, ProfMTH didn’t care to explain to you how the anger of God is upon sin, and not upon those who are justified by faith… Why would he care? Is he trying to be honest with you?…

Besides this, God clearly said not to represent Him in any form, not even of a human:

“And take great heed to your souls (for ye saw no form on the day that Jehovah spoke to you in Horeb from the midst of the fire), lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the form of any figure, the pattern of male or female, the pattern of any beast that is on the earth, the pattern of any winged fowl that flieth in the heaven, the pattern of anything that creepeth on the ground, the pattern of any fish that is in the waters under the earth; and lest thou lift up thine eyes to the heavens, and see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, the whole host of heaven, and be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, which Jehovah thy God hath assigned unto all peoples under the whole heaven.” (Deuteronomy 4:15-19)

So God says we should not draw any picture of Him. You see how this ignorant youtuber beat himself with the same hand with which he intended to beat the biblical literalism…

Now read that “Fun ‘fact’” that he mentions: “Moses was 80 years old when he speaks to Pharaoh”. But do you see any funny thing here? This ignorant youtuber suggests that it is impossible that this could be real… I ask him: How do you know it’s impossible? Can you give me any evidence or proof that it is impossible? If you can’t, then stop mocking like a kid, and come debate us with real arguments. If you don’t believe there is a great wall in China, your unbelief does not make that wall disappear… If you don’t believe that the pyramids of Egypt were built by humans of old times, that doesn’t make the pyramids the fruit of alien work or of 20th century humans…

You see how this guy fills his videos with side-notes to give the general impression that the Bible is a funny fairy tale. But he is embarrassing himself, as we are seeing in this article. Imagine someone writing a “Fun ‘fact’” like the following: “Historians say that the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids”… Who would laugh at this fun fact?… I guess only ProfMTH would laugh…

And then he gives another “Fun ‘fact’”: “Yahweh was hardening the heart of Pharaoh so that he would NOT release the Hebrews. Talk about working both sides!”

Now let me give you the simple facts, and you will laugh at the ignorance of this guy while writing this sentence…

God is Holy. He hates sin by Nature. He never agrees or accepts sin, even when saving the sinner. Some people think that when God forgives the sinner, that means He says “no problem” to sin. But that’s totally wrong. An essential condition for forgiveness is that the sinner admit he is a lost sinner. A person who insists that he is righteous and that he doesn’t need Salvation will never find forgiveness, but God will harden his heart more and more as he refuses to repent. This is God’s way of holiness all the time:

“for [the] shewing forth of his righteousness in the present time, so that he should be just, and justify him that is of [the] faith of Jesus.” (Romans 3:26)

If God justified the sinner without judging his sin, He would be unjust; He would be lowering His standard of holiness. God who is perfect and just would never do such a thing! God reveals His Glory by being the God of Grace, i.e. by redeeming the repentant sinner who puts his trust in the Redeemer. If God does NOT harden the heart of the sinner who refuses to repent, He will be “working both sides”!! Because sin is what kills the sinner! If God agrees with sin and says “no problem”, He will be like a physician who says “no problem” for a disease, and thus leaves the patient without healing! So as Pharaoh insisted on hardening his own heart towards the call of God to repentance, God hardened his heart more, or else He would be compromising with Pharaoh’s sin for the sake of the liberation of His people. God would not do such a wrong thing. And indeed, God didn’t harden the heart of someone who was willing to repent. He hardened the heart of someone who already chose to harden his heart to the call of God to repentance:

“And Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders had ceased, and he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he, and his bondmen. And the heart of Pharaoh was stubborn, neither would he let the children of Israel go, as Jehovah had spoken by Moses.

And Jehovah said to Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his bondmen, that I might do these my signs in their midst” (Exodus 9:34-10:1)

God didn’t make Pharaoh harden his heart, but He confirmed and judged his stubbornness. So even when people sin, God uses their sinning for His holy plan WITHOUT participating in their sin. As you see, God gave Pharaoh and his people many opportunities to turn from their sin and to repent, as He stopped the judgments that He brought on them. But as all the instances where Pharaoh repented were cases of false and hypocrite repentance, so God would not agree with such false repentance just to release His people. He is Holy, and He will judge sin. Thus the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, as God hardened his unrepentant and stubborn heart.

Thus God showed His Glory through Pharaoh:

“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.”" (Romans 9:17)

Although the Pharaoh refused to repent, but God was not surprised by that! He had already revealed the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart to Moses (cf. Exodus 4:21). This was said to Moses in way of prophecy, and not in way of destiny.

As you can see, this youtuber’s attacks are all based on a deep misunderstanding of the context and of the whole facts.

But once again notice how many points he attacked indirectly before reaching the topic of his episode which is: “Hey, didn’t you all die already?”… Let’s pass to that now…

“And Jehovah said to Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus saith Jehovah the God of the Hebrews: Let my people go, that they may serve me. For if thou refuse to let them go, and shalt retain them still, behold, the hand of Jehovah shall be on thy cattle which is in the field, on the horses, on the asses, on the camels, on the oxen and on the sheep, with a very grievous plague.” (Exodus 9:1-3)

On which cattle would the hand of God be? On the cattle which is in the field! Notice this carefully. To make this point more evident, I would like to quote here the passage that ProfMTH used as contradicting this verse:

“And now send, [and] secure thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field: all the men and the cattle that are found in the field, and are not brought home — on them the hail shall come down, and they shall die.” (Exodus 9:19)

So the judgment of Exodus 9:3 would come on the cattle which is in the field!!… We continue reading the context that ProfMTH hates so much…

“And Jehovah will distinguish between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt; and there shall nothing die of all that the children of Israel have.” (Exodus 9:4)

Oh! So there were some cattle that were spared in Egypt!! Whose cattle were they? The cattle of some slaves of the Egyptians, called the children of Israel… And as you know, all what belongs to a slave also belongs to his masters…

I guess you began to notice where this ignorant and mocking youtuber is embarrassing himself:

- Only the cattle which were in the field were affected by this judgment.

- The cattle of the children of Israel were spared, and they belong to the Egyptians, as the children of Israel were slaves.

- God didn’t bring judgment on the gold and the other riches of Egypt, so they could buy new cattle from their neighbors!! The cattle that were affected by the judgment were the cattle of the Egyptians, and not of the whole world…

We continue…

“And Jehovah appointed a set time, saying, To-morrow will Jehovah do this thing in the land. And Jehovah did this thing on the following day, and all the cattle of Egypt died; but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one.” (Exodus 9:5-6)

Here we have an example of a word that is used literally, but according to what it means in context: “all”. We have seen that the context talks about the cattle which are in the field! So this “all” literally refers to ALL of those cattle which are in the field. So now you see why ProfMTH avoids quoting the context… He wants to attack the literal meaning of the Bible, and yet he doesn’t even know what “literal” means. As I explained at the beginning of this article, the literal meaning of a word does not violate the meaning of the context.

And note with me that only the cattle of Egypt died!! Does this mean anything in relation to the ignorance of ProfMTH? Of course it does. According to the historical evidence, the Exodus happened around 1445 B.C. Most historical evidence shows that in that time, the Pharaoh was Amenhotep II. This Pharaoh and those who came before him had expanded the boundaries of the Egyptians’ influence far beyond natural borders! So there were slave nations under the dominion of the Egyptian Pharaoh in those times, and the Pharaoh could very easily replace the lost cattle by cattle brought from those countries… So we got now a new factor to be added to the above. I repeat the factors with this new addition:

- Only the cattle which were in the field were affected by this judgment.

- The cattle of the children of Israel were spared, and they belong to the Egyptians, as the children of Israel were slaves.

- God didn’t bring judgment on the gold and the other riches of Egypt, so they could buy new cattle from their neighbors!! The cattle that were affected by the judgment were the cattle of the Egyptians, and not of the whole world…

- God only brought that judgment on the cattle of Egypt, so the Pharaoh could still bring new cattle from slave countries…

You already see how the same verse that this poor youtuber wanted to use against the authority of the Bible turned against him…

We continue…

“And Pharaoh sent, and behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.” (Exodus 9:7)

Of course, after telling you about the judgment of God upon the cattle, ProfMTH mentions the hardening of the Pharaoh’s heart as a joke or carelessly, as if that doesn’t have anything to do with his ignorant comments… But the hardening of the heart of the Pharaoh means a lot concerning the present matter, just as it did with all the other cases where Pharaoh hardened his heart. Look with me:

“And Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh, and did so, as Jehovah had commanded; and Aaron cast down his staff before Pharaoh, and before his bondmen, and it became a serpent. And Pharaoh also called the sages and the sorcerers; and they too, the scribes of Egypt, did so with their enchantments: they cast down every man his staff, and they became serpents; but Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staves. And Pharaoh’s heart was stubborn, and he hearkened not to them, as Jehovah had said.” (Exodus 7:10-13)

When Pharaoh saw that he had the means to come out from the trouble, he hardened his heart without asking Moses to pray for him. But whenever he couldn’t find a way out, he asked to be released, but with a false repentance. Now I go back to our passage in Exodus 9:

“And Pharaoh sent, and behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.” (Exodus 9:7)

Pharaoh would try to find a deceitful way of reconciliation or would negotiate with Moses if he didn’t have the means to survive this judgment that came on him. This is what he did each time he couldn’t survive. But in the case of the death of the cattle which are in the field, the Pharaoh had the means to survive: The cattle which were not in the field were still there; he still had authority over the cattle of the children of Israel that were spared; he (as a nation) still had enough gold and riches to buy new cattle; he also had the resources of the slave nations… Pharaoh sent and saw what was the matter. He saw that the cattle of the Israelites were spared, but instead of seeing the hand of God, he chose to do his own materialistic calculations… And these calculations certainly showed him that he could survive the catastrophe with his human means, so he hardened his heart, just as the verse says (cf. Exodus 9:7).

This is what happens with the sinner who hardens his heart: he thinks he has the means to survive and to be self-sufficient and to escape God’s judgment. But we all know that he is wrong. The right way is to repent and receive forgiveness instead of judgment.

We continue… We do not quote the next judgment, and we go directly to the judgment that ProfMTH mentioned:

“And Jehovah said to Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and set thyself before Pharaoh, and say to him, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews: Let my people go, that they may serve me. For I will at this time send all my plagues to thy heart, and on thy bondmen, and on thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. For now shall I put forth my hand, and I will smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. And for this very cause have I raised thee up, to shew thee my power; and that my name may be declared in all the earth. Dost thou still exalt thyself against my people, that thou wilt not let them go? Behold, to-morrow about this time I will cause it to rain a very grievous hail, such as hath not been in Egypt since its foundation until now. And now send, [and] secure thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field: all the men and the cattle that are found in the field, and are not brought home — on them the hail shall come down, and they shall die. He that feared the word of Jehovah among the bondmen of Pharaoh made his bondmen and his cattle flee into the houses. But he that did not regard the word of Jehovah left his bondmen and his cattle in the field.” (Exodus 9:13-21)

These were not the same cattle that died before, as we have seen above. But as ProfMTH didn’t care about the context, so he thought they were the same, and therefore he embarrassed himself with this video…

Now, if you read the next verses (cf. Exodus 9:22-35) you see how this time Pharaoh showed a false repentance to escape this situation, as he didn’t find the means to survive.

But note how with the judgment the Lord always gives a means of escape or grace. You see how He wanted to give the Egyptians a way to believe Him and spare their cattle. And you see also how many times He gave the Pharaoh another opportunity to repent.

So this poor youtuber found a problem in the place where there was no problem, instead of learning these important truths that we saw together here while studying these passages.

But I also want to make a little comment about ProfMTH’s attack on Exodus 9:15:

“For now shall I put forth my hand, and I will smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.” (Exodus 9:15)

Here ProfMTH indirectly says that this didn’t literally happen, as the Egyptians were not cut off from the earth… But once again this guy is ignorant about the Nature of God “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4) So as Pharaoh asked for forgiveness, then God gave him another chance to repent, as He doesn’t want that a sinner be lost, but that he repent. That’s why this judgment didn’t cut them off.

Do you see why deceivers hate the context of the Bible, and they only quote verses and words out of context?…

***

-

Episode #3: They match?

As a first note, Mark is not the author of the first Gospel account… This was just for precision.

Now the question is: On what day and at what time was Jesus crucified?

Our ignorant youtuber thinks that the answers of Mark and John do not match, as he doesn’t even read them right. Let’s read the answers together:

Mark

“And the first day of unleavened bread, when they slew the passover, his disciples say to him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare, that thou mayest eat the passover?” (Mark 14:12)

This shows that the first day of unleavened bread had already begun on Thursday night. As I explained above, for the Jews the day began in the night at sunset and ended the next night at sunset. So on the Thursday of the Passover week that year, at sunset, the first day of unleavened bread began, and the Passover lamb had to be slain. So Jesus had the Passover supper with His disciples, and then they went to Gethsemane (cf. Mark 14:32). Then Judas came there with the soldiers, and they took Jesus. The next morning (Friday) happened the crucifixion, after Jesus was presented to Pilate for judgment (cf. Mark 15:1, Mark 15:15).

Now Mark gives us the time of Jesus’ crucifixion:

“And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.” (Mark 15:25)

Mark gives us the exact time of crucifixion: The third hour. But this was the third hour according to which international timing?  Was it the third hour GMT?… This deceiver doesn’t want you to know that in those days there was not a common way of timing; there were more than one way of reckoning time. So the third hour doesn’t mean 3am… By the way, do you wonder how he concluded that the third hour means 9am? Maybe he threw that number?… Well, no. This guy knows that the third hour doesn’t mean 3am, and he knows that in those times there was a timing system (the Jewish method of reckoning time) which counted the hours from 6am as 1st hour (i.e. from 6am to 7am), 2nd hour (i.e. from 7am to 8am), 3rd hour (i.e. from 8am to 9am), etc. Jesus already told us that the Jews considered that the light day begins at our 6am and ends at our 6pm (cf. John 11:9), i.e. 12 hours. So when Mark says it was the third hour, this means that the hour from 8am to 9am had passed, i.e. it was almost 9am.

So Mark clearly gives us the time of the crucifixion: 9am.

Let’s see what John says:

John

Contrary to what this deceiver wanted to make you think, John did NOT tell us at which hour Jesus was crucified. But he does tell us on which day He was crucified. Let’s see what he told us:

“(now it was [the] preparation of the passover; it was about the sixth hour; ) and he says to the Jews, Behold your king!” (John 19:14)

John says it was the preparation of the Passover, and NOT the day before Passover as our deceitful youtuber suggests… I will explain this in details after a few lines. But first note with me the other deception of this guy: he referred to this verse of John, and told you that Jesus was crucified in the afternoon!! Do you see the deception? Does this verse talk about the crucifixion? Not at all! This verse tells us about the time when Pilate unofficially sentences Jesus to be crucified (he said to the Jews “Behold your king!”)! So John was not telling us in this verse about the hour of crucifixion at all! He was telling us about the time when the unofficial sentence of death was given by Pilate! He is not even giving the exact time, but an approximate time: he was saying something like “by the way, all this happened on the preparation of the Passover, about the sixth hour” (notice the parenthesis in the version from which I quoted the verse). And what does this “about the sixth hour” mean? Does it mean 6am GMT? Or 6pm GMT? Which one? None! John was using the Roman way of reckoning time, a totally different system of timing from the method of the Jews, and which counted the hours from midnight. So it was Palestine’s 6am (almost, and not exactly) when Pilate began to judge and declared the reason for which Jesus would be crucified. After this came a few hours during which Pilate still tried to avoid crucifying Jesus, then the Roman soldiers mocked Jesus, and prepared the condemned and the crosses, and the condemned had to walk all the way to the place where they would crucify them (cf. Matthew 27:27-31, Mark 15:15-25). So all this would very easily get us to the 9am of Mark when Jesus was crucified.

Where is the contradiction between the answer of Mark and the answer of John concerning the hour of crucifixion? There is none! ProfMTH only wanted to deceive us…

Now, we pass to the day of crucifixion. We have seen that Mark says Jesus was crucified on the first day of unleavened bread, when the Passover lamb was slain. And we have also seen above how John also tells us about this Passover supper in John 13-17. Now, what about this expression “the preparation of the passover”? Does it mean “the day before Passover” as the deceitful youtuber suggests? Not at all! This also shows the ignorance of this guy about the historical facts and about what the Bible says. Let’s see together what the Bible says.

First, let’s make sure we understand that the Greek text does NOT say that it was the day of preparation for the Passover as some translations render it. There is no such thing in the Bible. The Greek text literally says:

“(now it was [the] preparation of the passover; it was about the sixth hour; ) and he says to the Jews, Behold your king!” (John 19:14)

This was a literal translation. In the Greek it is “preparation OF the Passover”.

This day of preparation is Friday:

“There therefore, on account of the preparation of the Jews, because the tomb was near, they laid Jesus.” (John 19:42)

They couldn’t leave Him on the cross, as the next day was the Sabbath:

“The Jews therefore, that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for it was [the] preparation, (for the day of that sabbath was a great [day],) demanded of Pilate that their legs might be broken and they taken away.” (John 19:31)

So the day of preparation is the day that comes before the Sabbath, as John explains. On the Sabbath, Jews could not do any work, so the bodies must have been taken down from the cross on Friday before it was night, i.e. before sunset when the Sabbath would already begin as we explained above (as for the Jews a day began at sunset). This is more clearly explained by Mark who wrote: “When evening had already come, because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath“ (Mark 15:42). Luke also says: “It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.” (Luke 23:54)

Now, why is that Friday called the preparation of the Passover? For the simple fact that when the Passover came in the middle of the week, the Jews would also have a great Sabbath of the Passover on the next Sabbath. And John says: “that sabbath was a great [day]“.

So Jesus was crucified the day of Passover (which began on the night of Thursday and finished on the night of Friday), and His body was not left on the cross on that night, because the next day was the great Sabbath.

So where is the imaginary error here?? Where is the contradiction? Both Mark and John fully agree that Jesus was crucified on Friday, after having the Passover supper on Thursday night. Do you see the deception of ProfMTH?…

Some critics stumble on the following verse of John:

“They lead therefore Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium; and it was early morn. And they entered not into the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but eat the passover.” (John 18:28)

The Jewish leaders came to present Jesus to Pilate, but they didn’t enter into the praetorium so that they might not be defiled, but eat the Passover. What a hypocrisy: they think killing the Righteous Jesus would not defile them, but entering the praetorium would… Anyways, the problem is: these people think about eating the Passover, when we have seen that the Passover lamb was already slain and eaten the night before. So ignorant critics who don’t want to search the Bible for answers stumble on this and they think that there is a contradiction here. What they need to understand is what this “Passover” is that those leaders would eat… Let’s see together:

“And in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, is the passover to Jehovah.
And on the fifteenth day of this month is the feast; seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
On the first day shall be a holy convocation: no manner of servile work shall ye do;
and ye shall present an offering by fire, a burnt-offering to Jehovah: two young bullocks, and one ram, and seven yearling lambs; they shall be unto you without blemish;
and their oblation shall be of fine flour mingled with oil: three tenth parts shall ye offer for a bullock, and two tenth parts for the ram;
one tenth part shalt thou offer for each lamb, of the seven lambs;
and a he-goat as a sin-offering, to make atonement for you.
Besides the burnt-offering of the morning, which is for a continual burnt-offering, shall ye offer this.
After this manner ye shall offer daily, seven days, the bread of the offering by fire of a sweet odour to Jehovah; it shall be offered besides the continual burnt-offering, and its drink-offering.
And on the seventh day ye shall have a holy convocation; no manner of servile work shall ye do.” (Numbers 28:16-25)

So the Passover lamb was eaten on the fourteenth day of the month which came on Thursday night that year (when for the Jews the Friday already began). Then the next day, the Sabbath day, was the fifteenth day about which this passage from Numbers 28 talks. It was the feast. Besides being the Sabbath of the Passover, it was also the fifteenth day of that month, so John truly calls it a great day! So after the lamb of Passover was sacrificed on the 14th of that month, the Jews would also eat the Passover sacrifices that are described in the above passage on the 15th of that month and for seven days, and after that they would have a holy convocation. So those Jewish leaders were not about to eat the Passover lamb on the fifteenth of that month, but the Passover sacrifices! Did the critics of the Bible forget that fifteenth day and all those Passover sacrifices described in Numbers 28?… I guess they didn’t forget, as they didn’t know about them… They were just careless and didn’t study the Bible well… They read the Bible only to find errors in it, so they miss the point and walk in darkness…

Now, while showing us his big ignorance about all these facts, this deceitful youtuber tells us as a “by the way” that the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 do not match. You see his hypocrisy: he wants to make it look as if the Bible is full of errors, and yet without giving any real argument; he just deceives with half-truths. We all know that Matthew 1 gives us the genealogy of Jesus from the side of Joseph, while Luke 3 gives us the genealogy of Jesus from the side of His mother Mary. This doesn’t even need a detailed explanation. But this deceiver could not be as honest as to admit that this is a false accusation against the Bible. After all, his purpose is to mock… So he doesn’t want to learn that those two genealogies indeed do not match, as they are not the same genealogy. The virgin birth is a very essential truth that critics miss.

***

-

Episode #4: Up, up, and away! Or not.

In this video, let’s first stop at the “Fun ‘fact’” of this corrupted person about 1 Kings 17:17-23: you notice how vulgar are his comments… This is an evidence that a man without God goes deep in lawlessness, from a sin to another which is worse, and he is the slave of his sins. As this guy has a mind corrupted by sin, so while reading that passage from 1 Kings he remembers the last pornographic film he watched! While the text doesn’t contain any such thing. I guess when this guy watches a Red Cross group trying to save a life, he will be thinking about the last defiled scene he watched!! He talks about perversion, and he doesn’t want to admit that he is a pervert…

Once again, this is a dishonest way to give the impression that the Bible is a bad book… He doesn’t have real arguments.

Now, let’s go to the main topic of this video…

“And it came to pass as they went on, and talked, that behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire; and they parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into the heavens.” (2 Kings 2:11)

Now, this youtuber suggests that this verse is contradicted by John 3:13 where Jesus says:

“And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” (John 3:13)

Does this really contradict the fact that Elijah went up into the heavens, or we are once again before an ignorant criticism from a person who refuses to study the Word of God? Let’s see…

Our Lord said: “And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” (John 3:13)

Now the subtle attack here is on literalism as usual: this ProfMTH suggests that Jesus didn’t really mean “no one” when He said “no one” in this verse… But the fact is that Jesus REALLY meant no one. But the topic of Jesus is NOT what happened to Elijah… Jesus was not telling Nicodemus about going to Heaven as a sign (as it happened to Elijah), but about Salvation and how to be born of God. “No one” is NO ONE, because no one can by himself ascend to Heaven and no one can be the final and full revelation of who God is as Jesus is. We will see how the context explains this in details. Actually, that is what the Lord Jesus was saying in this passage, i.e. that no one can go to Heaven without being in Him, as He is the only full and final revelation about who God is. Jesus Christ is like Noah’s Ark: Just as no one could be saved from the Flood unless he was in the Ark, in the same way no one can be saved from the Judgment to come and go to Heaven unless he is in Christ by faith. So once again, we have an expression (“no one”) used in a context, but ProfMTH refuses to consider the context. He doesn’t even notice that this verse (John 3:13) begins with “and”. This means that Jesus didn’t suddenly change His subject and begin to talk about another subject related to who went to Heaven and who didn’t. Let’s see what the subject was:

“But there was a man from among the Pharisees, his name Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; he came to him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God, for none can do these signs that thou doest unless God be with him.” (John 3:1-2)

So this is a Pharisee teacher and ruler who came to Jesus and acknowledged that God is with Him… And yet, it is not enough to admit that God is with Jesus. Look what Jesus told him:

“Jesus answered and said to him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)

So Jesus told him about the very important truth of the new birth. If you are not born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God. So the topic is now about the new birth. We continue reading:

“Nicodemus says to him, How can a man be born being old? can he enter a second time into the womb of his mother and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not wonder that I said to thee, It is needful that ye should be born anew. The wind blows where it will, and thou hearest its voice, but knowest not whence it comes and where it goes: thus is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:4-8)

What’s the matter now? Evidently, the matter is that Nicodemus is not getting what the new birth is, and Jesus is explaining to him. And even with this explanation, Nicodemus is still not getting it:

“Nicodemus answered and said to him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said to him, Thou art the teacher of Israel and knowest not these things! Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that which we know, and we bear witness of that which we have seen, and ye receive not our witness. If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things to you, will ye believe?” (John 3:9-12)

Jesus shows to Nicodemus how head-knowledge does not help when it comes to the things of Heaven. A divine revelation is needed. Now, all those who have God with them (as you remember, Nicodemus admitted that God is with Jesus…) witness for the truth, and the unbelievers refuse their testimony. Then Jesus makes it clear for Nicodemus that the reason of his misunderstanding is not ignorance, but unbelief. Man cannot even receive the earthly things, then how can he conclude the heavenly things with his human wisdom? So a revelation from God is needed. And the final and fullest revelation of God didn’t come in all the prophets of the Old Testament who witnessed for the truth, but in the Son (cf. John 1:18, Hebrews 1:1-3). So Jesus explains to Nicodemus WHY it is HE (i.e. Christ) who is the fullest revelation of God in the verse that we are studying:

“And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” (John 3:13)

Then He goes on to explain how this new birth is by faith in the Son sent by the Father, and not by human wisdom or human powers, as all those who do evil cannot come to the light (cf. John 3:14-21).

So John 3:13 continues the idea that no one can conclude the heavenly truths by his human mind, and thus we all need a revelation from God; and the final and fullest revelation of God came in the Son. Why? Because no one ascended to Heaven, to the closest relationship with the Father (“the bosom of the Father” as John 1:18 says) other than the Son who is God. In other terms, if the Son were not God Himself who IS in Heaven at the same moment He was talking with Nicodemus (“the Son of man who is in heaven” as John 3:13 says) then He wouldn’t be able to bring that final and fullest revelation about who God is. This final and fullest revelation that came from the bosom of the Father was already explained in John 1:18 (and also in Hebrews 1:1-3 and other similar passages), but ProfMTH didn’t have the time to read those passages… Any other human who wanted to have this fullest revelation would need to be first able to reach the Holy of Holies in Heaven without Christ (which is impossible — cf. Hebrews 9:12), and then to go there and come down to earth in a continuous manner in order to have the full revelation from God all the time… You notice that this is really impossible, unless one is continuously in Heaven with the Father at the same moment He is on earth. And that’s what Jesus said about Himself: “the Son of man who is in heaven.” (John 3:13) So as Jesus is the Omnipresent God in flesh, so He could give Nicodemus the fullest revelation about the Father and He thus is the only Way to the Father (cf. John 14:6). You notice the consistency of John in all of his Gospel. If Jesus was just a great man with whom God is (as Nicodemus thought), then He would not be able to save us, as He wouldn’t be able to enter the Holy of Holies. Jesus wanted Nicodemus to understand that He is God in flesh.

Now, can ProfMTH answer us: Did Elijah come back from Heaven to bring to us a revelation from God? Did he then continue to go up and down all the time and to be in both places at the same time?

Even a kid would notice that the answer is no. Elijah couldn’t even enter the Holy of Holies in Heaven without Christ (cf. John 3:3, John 14:6, Hebrews 11:39-40, etc…), how much less could he be continuously in the bosom of the Father and on earth at the same moment to bring the fullest revelation about God! The Bible is clear that NO ONE has ever seen God, and that only the Son can reveal Him for the reasons that we explained above:

“No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].” (John 1:18)

So how could the truth that Jesus revealed to Nicodemus contradict the fact that Elijah went to Heaven by faith in Christ (cf. Hebrews 11)??

As the Bible explains itself, so look how it gives us the above explanation about what this ascending to Heaven really means:

“But the righteousness of faith speaks thus: Do not say in thine heart, Who shall ascend to the heavens? that is, to bring Christ down; or, Who shall descend into the abyss? that is, to bring up Christ from among [the] dead.“ ( Romans 10:6-7 )

So actually the words of Jesus are about the righteousness based on faith. Jesus says that no one can ascend to Heaven by his own works or his own righteousness, so all humans (including Elijah) need Jesus Christ who ALONE came down from Heaven. Elijah didn’t come down from Heaven. And actually THAT is the meaning in the context of the passage from which ProfMTH quoted John 3:13. But, bad to say, ProfMTH didn’t wish to tell you about the context, because, contrary to what he claims, he likes to lie…

Note that Elijah didn’t ascend to Heaven to bring Christ down…

So this righteousness of faith makes us ascend to Heaven IN CHRIST who ALONE ascended into Heaven:

“and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus“ (Ephesians 2:6)

So, as you can see, NO ONE can ascend to Heaven by himself or by his good works. Only those who are in Christ Jesus by faith and have the righteousness of faith can ascend into Heaven and be in the heavenly places IN CHRIST JESUS, and not in themselves. This is what Jesus says in the context of John 3:13.

Now, what is the place of Elijah’s ascending into the heavens in relation with John 3:13? Well, that’s not exactly the same thing about which Jesus was talking in John 3. In John 3 Jesus was telling us how no one could ascend to Heaven without faith in Him, as He is the Way and the Truth and the Life (cf. John 14:6). He is the fullest revelation about the Father (cf. John 1:18, Hebrews 1:1-3, Matthew 11:27). He is the only one who could go up to Heaven by His own authority and merit and be there all the time, even when He was on earth! While Elijah went up into the heavens by faith in this coming Christ, just as we have seen above; he didn’t go up to Heaven to bring Christ down… he didn’t even come back to bring any revelation. All go to Heaven through Jesus, and through Him alone.

Once again, this literal “no one” bothers people like ProfMTH, as this means that they cannot be saved without Christ who is the Lord of lords and should be the only King and Master of their lives.

Once again, we wait to see where the contradiction is…

***

-

The video about the questions for biblical “inerrantists and literalists”

This guy really thinks that he is the genius unbeliever who will be able to oppose God and defeat Him… This is pride, as you know… He thinks he is discovering some new things, while many critics of the Bible have already attacked the Word of God with these ignorant arguments and have been embarrassed when they received the strong biblical answers as it was the case with ProfMTH in this article… All what ProfMTH adds to the previous critics is his hateful skills in making mocking videos about those defeated arguments that do not impress those who really love the truth and do not help those defeated arguments to have any power.

After we have seen these strong biblical replies to this ignorant, I wish if he could show me the “discrepancies” about which he is talking in this last video… I rather challenge him to show me one discrepancy! He will embarrass himself again and again as he tries to oppose the Wisdom of God.

This guy pejoratively considers the Christians “inerrantists and literalists”… I wish to see how a man can be a true Christian without believing that God’s Word is inerrant and literally right. I wish to see how Jesus was wrong, as He taught that the Bible is inerrant and literally right. And this guy quotes a lost person like him saying that this true Christianity “probably cannot survive the reality of discrepancies”… While this guy talks “probably”, I wish to tell him what is SURE: that there are no discrepancies in the Bible. And I challenge him to show me one discrepancy. We don’t believe in an impotent god. We don’t believe in a god who makes mistakes. The true God is the Creator Omnipotent God who is the Author of the inerrant and infallible Bible.

I have already explained the details about Bible inerrancy and literalism at the beginning of this article, so I will not go there again. ProfMTH talks about a “selective” literalism, as he doesn’t understand what we mean by “literal”. Well, he can read our explanation above.

And once again, in a subtle way, this guy shows passages about sexual scandals and troubles in the visible Church, and wants to give the impression that this is the true Church of Christ. The poor guy still doesn’t know what the Church of Christ is.

So he quotes a Luke Timothy Johnson saying: “Christianity as actually practiced has never lived in precise accord with the Scriptures.” This shows the ignorance of the critics about what true Christianity is. True Christianity never claims to be able to live in precise accord with the Scripture. The Church is the assembly of all those who admitted that they are lost and cannot meet the high standard of God’s holiness by themselves and thus need the Savior. There is no perfect church, but there is one perfect Lord of the Church. As the Bible is perfect, so no mere human can meet its high standards.

And ProfMTH says he once was a believer… I wish to see a proof of that… Dear ProfMTH, you really don’t impress us by this claim. Judas Iscariot made this claim before you, and we saw what he finally did… And we also saw how Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas was not a true believer, and many other disciples like him (cf. John 6:64). A true believer is not someone who tried to prove his self-righteousness by going to church, but he is someone who admitted he is a lost sinner and came to Christ for forgiveness and Salvation and sanctification. Have you ever realized you’re a lost sinner who doesn’t have and never had the mind of Christ?

You notice how this ProfMTH boasts of having given some strong arguments, while he cannot answer any of our answers and questions. If our answers are convincing, then why does he still repeat the same old defeated arguments again and again? And if our answers are not convincing, then let him show us where are the errors. I challenge him. Can he reply to our answers? Can he answer our arguments? Can he give us answers to the questions that we asked him? I am sure he can’t, as we have the Lord God with us, and he has his human corrupted mind with him…

He is happy with the example of non-biblical Christians who replied to him and who do not respect the Word of God, as he can’t respond to us who embarrass him and challenge his attacks with our strong biblical answers. He is pleased with examples of compromising Christians who practically try to harm the way of the Lord the same way he does. Let him show us ONE real answer to one of the biblical arguments. He just can’t.

He is happy with the false theology of so-called Christians who oppose the Word of God. He says they have a more thoughtful approach to the Bible… Actually, this is their problem: They use their human fallen wisdom to understand the Word of God, while God says that they need His Wisdom:

“For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us that are saved it is God’s power. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and set aside the understanding of the understanding ones. Where [is the] wise? where scribe? where disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom has not known God, God has been pleased by the foolishness of the preaching to save those that believe. Since Jews indeed ask for signs, and Greeks seek wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews an offence, and to nations foolishness; but to those that [are] called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ God’s power and God’s wisdom. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-25)

So as those so-called Christians disagree with God and with Christ, then how are they real Christians? And what is their authority? They can’t interpret the Bible. Only God can interpret His Word. Those false Christians come to a text of the Bible and they become “thoughtful”… While God teaches us to come to His Word and be humble and listen to HIS interpretation of His Word. Read our article addressed primarily to Mormons and entitled Mormons confess that they are “open minded” in the interpretation of the Word of God. Those false Christians with whom ProfMTH is pleased do like those Mormons.

You see how this unbeliever agrees with those who claim to believe and yet oppose the Word of God… This says much about them…

ProfMTH replies to a certain CreationistsWon (another youtuber) who attacks him and whose replies I have not read/watched. But it is clear how ProfMTH enjoys replying to non-biblical or inexact replies, and to avoid answering the biblical arguments, as we are sure he won’t be able to answer our arguments.

I have already written above about the Passover supper, the day and hour of crucifixion, and the preparation of the Passover, so I will not go back there.

And here ProfMTH reaches the essential goal of his false arguments: To deny the Creator God and to defend the anti-science theories about our origin, as those theories help him justify his rebellion against his Creator. But once again, he embarrasses himself. We have already seen the strong evidence of science and logic about the Creator God in our article What is the evidence for God’s existence? We have also seen that the Bible has proven itself to be literally right and inerrant, so the account of Genesis about the creation is 100% accurate. The creation account is found in a historical passage of the Bible (Genesis 1-2), and not in a poetic account, so it describes actual events. All the scientific evidence shows that the biblical account is right, so ProfMTH needs to justify his hatred toward real science, just as his anti-science evolutionist friends need to do. To oppose the Word of God, ProfMTH is obliged to oppose real science and logic! And we have seen how Jesus said that the creation and Adam and Eve are all real historical facts! If those teachers that ProfMTH quotes do not agree with Christ, then how are they Christians?… Does anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ automatically become a real follower just because he claimed that? Does ProfMTH buy a piece of iron thinking it’s gold just because a deceiver told him it’s gold? Let him answer us…

One of those opponents of God’s Word says that during the first three days of creation there was no sun, so the days could not be actual 24-hour-days… This is real ignorance about real science… The three days without the sun do not contradict the fact of 24-hour-days, as the days are counted according to the rotation of the earth on its axis relatively to a source of light. And we know that the light was already created before the sun was created (cf. Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:14-19)… If any anti-science atheist has any real scientific argument against creation, then let him show it to us already… Till now, no one could.

As for the claims of those false-Christians that Genesis 1 and 2 are separate accounts of the same story and that they contradict each other in some points, I will advise everyone to read our article Do Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other?

In brief, ProfMTH only presented to us some old defeated arguments in the form of videos, but he couldn’t give those arguments any power, as the Bible proved him very wrong and errant.

After all this nonsense, ProfMTH thinks he now has the right to ask us some questions that, as you will notice, have been already answered many times during our replies… Let’s see his questions together:

1. Why are you so deeply vexed by the fact that your scriptures contain errors, contradictions, and discrepancies, to the point that you will embrace claims not supported by the Bible rather than acknowledge its flaws?

Answer: We are not vexed. We are very at ease and know that God’s Word can defend itself as it is a living Word, as we have seen in this article. This article has embarrassed you a lot, as we all can see. But we are sad for the people who are misled by your deceptions, as you give a wrong image about God. A wrong image about who God is cannot save anyone, but leads people to eternal damnation. The real God does not make errors and His Word, the Bible, is very pure and inerrant. If you don’t trust what God exactly says, then you can’t be saved. That’s the reason, dear friend.

2. What do you make of your fellow Christians who reject biblical inerrancy and literalism?

We call them to repentance, and we remind them of what Jesus said:

“So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;
and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”" (John 8:31-32)

So we call them to believe what God says, and not to follow their own fallen human wisdom. Only then will they truly be Christians, and not just so-called Christians.

ProfMTH thought he was asking some questions that no one can answer… That’s because he’s ignorant, and he’s proud to be so…

He asks us to help him see… If he’s not hypocrite, then he will accept the answers that God gives him in the Bible, as we have seen, or he will ask more questions to understand more.

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

___

Posted in Questions | Apologia

Apologia är på frammarsch. Det är bra. Kristendomskritiken i det här landet är högljudd, och då krävs en högljudd kristendomskritikskritik. Apologetiska bloggar finns redan, Gud finns nog är riktigt bra även om den verkar ha stagnerat sen i juli (kolla dock på gamla inlägg), min gamla Karlstadkompis Oliver publicerar apologetiska texter på sin blogg. Jag själv har lite apologetiska texter på min hemsida. Men Apologia är vad jag vet ensamma om att (i vart fall endast) anordna föreläsningar och konferenser om apologetik. Gud välsigne dem.

…there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9:22).

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life (Lev. 17:11).

Though Jews recently celebrated Yom Kippur, how are they able to find atonement and forgiveness without the sacrificial system in place?

Discuss.

I finished Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne last night.  I had been looking to read a book on evolution lately in order to better understand the mindset of those who argue against creation.  Surprisingly, the Coyne book wasn’t bad.  It didn’t take on the same arrogant tone that Dawkins, Hitchens, and other anti-theists take on in their writings.  It was an informative, yet slightly misguided book.

I did learn a lot though.  And that was very beneficial.  Coyne never attacked Christianity, but asked generic questions regarding creationism.  This is where he went off the tracks, assuming his knowledge of creationism.  

Nonetheless, the book was pretty good.  Let’s review:

• The issue of “species” is a pretty big deal.  Coyne claims that 99% of species that have ever walked this earth are extinct (no sources to back the information).  This comes interesting to me as by species, it is meant within a class of animal.  Instead of “species” meaning a new animal, it means a different type of finch, fish, monkey, etc.  This has always seemed to be a fun issue of interpretation.  Anyways, on this issue of Coyne’s assertion he states, ““This, by the way, poses an enormous problem for theories of intelligent design (ID). It doesn’t seem so intelligent to design millions of species that are destined to go extinct, and then replace them with other, similar species, most of which will also vanish. ID supporters have never addressed this difficulty.”  Animals die.  People die.  Death is the result of sin.  Just because the answer to the question isn’t what you want, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been addressed.
• Coyne repeatedly appeals to the idea of “Bad Design” but as I just mentioned, Christians do have an explanation for the messed up things of the world – unfortunately, people who operate from the mindset that there is no God refuses to accept that.
• Adaptation happens. I’ll agree with that.  It’s been observed.  My problem with evolution is the fact that adaptation has been observed – ie. Darwin’s finches – and the argument continues that many little changes within a species add up over time, thus, one form can transform into another.  I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
• One such example that Coyne provides for adaptation is as follows: There are species of orchids that resemble wasps, bees, and other insects.  Sure, I can see that.  And this is showing my ignorance on the issue of course, but the argument is that over time, these orchids have developed leaves or whatnot that look like a bee.  I mean, look at the picture – it looks like a bee.  I just don’t understand what caused the orchid to transform a leaf to look like a bee. Orchids are non-thinking organisms, thus there is no perception of what a bee looks like.  So, does nature just somehow take over and give the orchid the ability to grow a leaf that looks JUST like a bee?  Random mutations within the DNA sequence allow a leaf to begin to grow and change to the point that it looks like a bee, whenever the orchid cannot observe what bee looks like?  Maybe it’s way over my head, but if someone would like to explain how something this complex can happen within an orchid, giving it the ability to grow a leaf that looks like a bee whenever it cannot observe what a bee looks like, then I’d love to have the explanation.  As for now, I just think this is a poor argument.  Kinda like the Christian side whenever someone argues and just says, “Goddidit, don’t ask anymore questions….” I feel like many people say, “Evolution did it, shut up!”  
• Again, my ignorance might be shown greatly here, but another problem I have is of human fossilization. No, I will not go on to say that some of the “transition fossils” presented are not human…whoops.  Anyways, Darwin, Coyne, and others use the argument that humans began evolving in Africa.  Thus, it is obvious that most fossils would be found in Africa of the earliest descendants.  Sure – that’s fine.  I mean, according to the Bible, that area is where a lot of fossils should be found, too, as fossilization occurs whenever organisms find themselves quickly covered by water and sediments…I seem to remember this flood story…nonetheless – a quick look at human fossil records shows that some of the earliest “human fossils” were not discovered in Africa, but instead scattered around Asia, Europe, AND Africa.  I don’t care where they find them.  I just thought it interesting that Coyne really hit on the fact that man evolved in Africa, thus fossils should be found only there, and then whenever man because a thinking creature capable of movement, he moved across the world…yet some of the oldest dated fossils by evolutionists are found in Germany, China, Pakistan, and Italy. Oh well.

Anyways, I enjoyed the book.  I obviously don’t know everything that evolutionists believe, nor will I ever (as I have heard different contradicting ideas from different evolutionists…)  I just wanted to take a step toward understanding the worldview from which they work.

There are many I have talked to who are simply angry.  They don’t want to believe in a God.  They don’t want to deal with that, so it’s a sense of rebellion.  I try to avoid these types of people.

But others are simply unable to come to the conclusion that a God exists.  They see evolution as fact because it makes sense.  They see Christianity (and any religion) as moot because it seems preposterous and impossible.  They reject it because it is not logical – not because they’re angry babies.  I like these people, because they’re nice.

I read this book to understand those people.  I read this book to be able to at least talk to them a little.

One last tidbit, just for fun.  Within the book, Coyne says “probably,” “maybe,” “possibly,” etc. numerous times when speaking of how things evolved, why they evolved, and other issues.  Sure, I don’t expect evolutionists to have all the answers.  I mean, that’s something you hear a lot from them.  ”No, we haven’t found transitional fossils, but we will someday and that will answer all the questions…”  What you hear is faith.  I just wanted to point that one out.  So, don’t bash faith.  It happens to everyone.  

Now, back to reading things I want to read for fun….not that I didn’t enjoy the book.  It had some interesting tidbits…just interpreted the evidence in a much different way.

En esta gran entrada, Martin Downes transcribe un sermón del Dr. Lloyd-Jones con respecto al movimiento ecuménico. En él el doctor escribe,

Qué es la iglesia Cristiana? Esa es la pregunta. Usted no puede discutir acerca de unidad hasta no tenga claro lo que es la iglesia. Ahora, aquí está la verdadera división. Los ecuménicos ponen el compañerismo antes que la doctrina. Nosotros somos evangélicos; ponemos la doctrina antes que el compañerismo.

Qué es, entonces esta verdadera doctrina?…las Escrituras como la infalible Palabra de Dios; nuestra aseveración de la única deidad de nuestro Señor Jesucristo–sí, su nacimiento virginal; lo milagroso y sobrenatural; Su muerte sustitucionaria, expiatoria y sacrificial; Su resurrección física literal; la persona del Espíritu Santo y Su obra. Estas son doctrinas que son esenciales para la salvación; ahí está la verdad que debe ser predicada, el mensaje que es la primera de las marcas de la iglesia. Y una iglesia, seguramente, es una congregación de personas que han entrado en acto unas con otras porque creen en estas cosas. No sólo las creen, sino que son hombres y mujeres que han experimentado su poder. Son hombres y mujeres que han nacido de nuevo y nacido del Espíritu, y que dan evidencia de esto en sus vidas diarias. Seguramente esa es la visión evangélica de la iglesia.”

Les insto a leer toda la entrada. Será de gran provecho para estos tiempos en que se respiran los aires ecuménicos. Pueden obtener la traducción aquí.

sujetosalaroca.org
Suscribete para recibir actualizaciones de entradas como esta.
Suscribete por email.
Suscribete al podcast por iTunes.
Únete al grupo en Facebook aquí.
Apoya este sitio visitando los patrocinadores aquí.

The massive (1,000+ pages) festschrift for John Frame, covering everything from theology, apologetics, the church, worship, ethics, to  culture, has just been released by P&R. Click on the book cover or here to go to WTS books. There you can read the table of contents as well as a sample from the book. This looks excellent!